LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11695
OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Wednesday, 26 June 2019
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, G.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, G.B.S., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE PRISCILLA LEUNG MEI-FUN, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MRS REGINA IP LAU SUK-YEE, G.B.S., J.P.
11696 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019
THE HONOURABLE PAUL TSE WAI-CHUN, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CLAUDIA MO
THE HONOURABLE MICHAEL TIEN PUK-SUN, B.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE STEVEN HO CHUN-YIN, B.B.S.
THE HONOURABLE 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, B.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG, S.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, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE DENNIS KWOK WING-HANG
THE HONOURABLE CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG WAH-FUNG, S.B.S., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE FERNANDO CHEUNG CHIU-HUNG
DR THE HONOURABLE HELENA WONG PIK-WAN
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11697
THE HONOURABLE IP KIN-YUEN
DR THE HONOURABLE ELIZABETH QUAT, B.B.S., 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, S.B.S., J.P.
IR DR THE HONOURABLE LO WAI-KWOK, S.B.S., M.H., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHUNG KWOK-PAN
THE HONOURABLE ALVIN YEUNG
THE HONOURABLE ANDREW WAN SIU-KIN
THE HONOURABLE CHU HOI-DICK
THE HONOURABLE JIMMY NG WING-KA, J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE JUNIUS HO KWAN-YIU, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE HO KAI-MING
THE HONOURABLE LAM CHEUK-TING
THE HONOURABLE HOLDEN CHOW HO-DING
THE HONOURABLE SHIU KA-FAI
THE HONOURABLE WILSON OR CHONG-SHING, M.H.
THE HONOURABLE YUNG HOI-YAN
DR THE HONOURABLE PIERRE CHAN
11698 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019
THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHUN-YING, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG KWOK-KWAN, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE HUI CHI-FUNG
THE HONOURABLE LUK CHUNG-HUNG, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE LAU KWOK-FAN, M.H.
THE HONOURABLE KENNETH LAU IP-KEUNG, B.B.S., M.H., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE CHENG CHUNG-TAI
THE HONOURABLE KWONG CHUN-YU
THE HONOURABLE JEREMY TAM MAN-HO
THE HONOURABLE GARY FAN KWOK-WAI
THE HONOURABLE AU NOK-HIN
THE HONOURABLE VINCENT CHENG WING-SHUN, M.H.
THE HONOURABLE TONY TSE WAI-CHUEN, B.B.S.
THE HONOURABLE CHAN HOI-YAN
MEMBERS ABSENT:
THE HONOURABLE WONG KWOK-KIN, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE FRANKIE YICK CHI-MING, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE SHIU KA-CHUN
THE HONOURABLE TANYA CHAN
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11699
PUBLIC OFFICERS ATTENDING:
THE HONOURABLE MATTHEW CHEUNG KIN-CHUNG, G.B.M., G.B.S., J.P. CHIEF SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION
THE HONOURABLE JAMES HENRY LAU JR., J.P. SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY
THE HONOURABLE JOHN LEE KA-CHIU, S.B.S., P.D.S.M., J.P. SECRETARY FOR SECURITY
PROF THE HONOURABLE SOPHIA CHAN SIU-CHEE, J.P. SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH
THE HONOURABLE MICHAEL WONG WAI-LUN, J.P. SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT
CLERKS IN ATTENDANCE:
MR KENNETH CHEN WEI-ON, S.B.S., SECRETARY GENERAL
MISS ODELIA LEUNG HING-YEE, DEPUTY SECRETARY GENERAL
MS DORA WAI, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL
MR MATTHEW LOO, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL
11700 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019
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)
PAPERS TO BE LAID ON THE TABLE OF THE COUNCIL
The following papers were laid on the table under Rule 21(2) of the Rules of Procedure:
Report of changes made to the approved Estimates of Expenditure during the fourth quarter of 2018-19 Public Finance Ordinance: Section 8
Sir David Trench Fund for Recreation Annual Report 2018-2019 (including Financial Statements and Report of the Director of Audit)
Report No. 21/18-19 of the House Committee on Consideration of Subsidiary Legislation and Other Instruments
Report of the Bills Committee on Inland Revenue (Amendment) (Tax Concessions) Bill 2019
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Questions. First question.
(Dr KWOK Ka-ki indicated his wish to raise a point)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, what is your point?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11701
DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): President, last time I asked you about your remarks. You may have noticed that Mr Andrew WONG, former President of the Legislative Council, said that one of the culprits who made this incident such a mess is you because you set the deadline of 20 June. Will you apologize to the public, or apologize to the people on our behalf for bringing disgrace to the Legislative Council in this incident? This is the first point of order.
Secondly, regarding the wording about government bills in the Rules of Procedure ("RoP"), there are only "withdrawal" and "postponement". There is never "suspension". To withdraw or postpone the Bill, the public officer, i.e. John LEE, needs to make an announcement here. Under what circumstances can the Government be allowed to employ hypocritical rhetoric, casually uttering the word "suspension" to muddle through? Being the President, could you lecture John LEE, Carrie LAM or Teresa CHENG, requesting them to act in accordance with RoP, rather than speaking and behaving at will?
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): If all the Members act in accordance with RoP, the Council will be fairly peaceful. Regarding your first question, as pointed out by me at the last meeting, it is not a point of order. As regards your second question, we have received the circular and noted that the Government has withdrawn the notice of resumption of the Second Reading debate on the relevant Bill. This practice is compliant with RoP.
DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): President, sorry, I did not catch your reply to the first question clearly. As I asked at the last meeting, will you apologize?
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): As pointed out by me last time, this is not a point of order. During the press briefing on that day, I also explained the relevant practice. This is not a point of order. Please follow it up on other occasions.
(Mr KWONG Chun-yu indicated his wish to raise a point)
11702 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr KWONG Chun-yu, what is your point?
MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese): President, let me quote subrule (3) under RoP 64 "Withdrawal or Postponement of Bills": "The Member or public officer in charge of a bill may, in making an announcement for the withdrawal of the bill under subrule (2), address the Council on matters relevant to the withdrawal but no debate may arise on such an address." Regarding RoP 64 which was invoked less often in the past, President, I would like to seek your advice. In fact, between the Government's so-called "suspension" and withdrawal, we consider that you as the President of the Legislative Council should call on or arrange for the public officer to come before the Council to explain whether the amendment to the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance ("FOO") has actually been withdrawn. In our RoP, there is only "withdrawal" and no "suspension". In respect of the provisions in RoP 64, I wish to see how the President will make a judgment and whether you will request the public officer to come before the Council to speak on the withdrawal of the Bill.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Earlier on, I have informed Members in writing that the Government has withdrawn the notice of resumption of the Second Reading debate on the relevant Bill. This practice is compliant with RoP. The Agenda item with which this Council is dealing right now is questions. Will you please follow up other matters on other occasions.
(Mr AU Nok-hin indicated his wish to raise a point)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr AU Nok-hin, what is your point?
MR AU NOK-HIN (in Cantonese): President, just now I noticed that you mentioned the Government's withdrawal of the notice. But the Government never used the word "withdrawal" in its statement. Moreover, when speaking in public, it often tells one version today but another the next day. I really wish to seek Secretary John LEE's advice, but just now, as soon as he saw that we were going to speak, he left the Chamber. What an interesting person this Secretary is. He just walked away and let it be.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11703
Nevertheless, I am baffled. What is the latest version of the Government? If, as you understand it, the Government has withdrawn the notice, does that mean it has withdrawn the relevant Bill? As far as I understand it, this is not what they said. The Government has never mentioned "withdrawal". Can you request them to make a clarification and explanation?
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The Government addressed a letter to this Council to withdraw its notice. For this reason, the relevant item is no longer placed on the Agenda of the Council meeting of 19 June.
(Ms Claudia MO indicated her wish to raise a point)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Claudia MO, what is your point?
MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): That day you openly called on the Government … to withdraw the item related to the National Anthem Bill, or something like that. You came out to talk to the press at about 4 o'clock, and then at about six, the Government said "Yes, yes". We―I do not know whether it is suspension or withdrawal of the notice―it really gave Hongkongers a deep impression that you were colluding with the Government.
Besides, I wished to raise an urgent question about the abuse of force by the "Elite Team" of the Police, but you did not permit it. Originally, the doubts of the public could have been dispelled today at the earliest, but you did not grant permission, stating that it is because it is not urgent. I hope you would give an explanation to all the Hongkongers.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Regarding the first point raised by you, I cannot change your impression. I only pointed out, when answering questions of the press, that political issues might be temporarily put aside at the present stage. Certainly, I had asked the Secretary whether the matter could be postponed, but the decision on postponement was up to the Secretary. Apart from me, many Members have also presented similar views to the Secretary.
11704 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019
MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): Are they Members of the pro-establishment camp?
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Many Members have presented their views. Certainly, there are also Members who have requested to deal with the matter expeditiously. As regards the timing of consulting the House Committee on the timing of resumption of the Second Reading debate on the Bill, this is also up to the Secretary.
In respect of the urgent question raised by you, I have replied to you in writing. In my opinion, concerning the subject matter of your question, there were ample questions and answers at the last meeting. Moreover, your question is not of such urgency that it must be raised at this meeting …
MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): John LEE said there is no space on the uniform of the Elite Team to display the police service numbers …
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This is the Secretary's explanation.
MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): … But obviously, there is space to display such numbers. He lied.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will you please stop this haggling. Questions. First question. Mr HO Kai-ming, please ask your question.
(Mr Jeremy TAM indicated his wish to raise a point)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Jeremy TAM, what is your point?
MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): President, just now you did not answer the question raised by Mr KWONG Chun-yu in respect of RoP 64(1). I would like to follow it up because …
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11705
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Would you please speak louder? I could not hear you.
MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): According to RoP 64(1), the Government may "withdraw or postpone the bill". Since the Government did not withdraw the relevant Bill, then according to RoP 64(1), can I take it to mean that the Government has merely postponed the Bill?
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The Government only informed this Council of the withdrawal of its notice, and the Second Reading debate on the Bill did not resume in this Council. As for other issues, please follow them up on other occasions. Mr HO Kai-ming, please ask your question.
(Mr KWONG Chun-yu indicated his wish to raise a point)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr KWONG Chun-yu, what is your point?
MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese): President, the point of order which I formally raised to you just now concerns RoP 64(1): "The Member or public officer in charge of a bill may, by an announcement made in Council at the beginning of proceedings for its second or third reading, withdraw or postpone the bill." The fact that the Government is in a mess does not mean there can be no rules or regulations in the Legislative Council.
President, being the President of the Legislative Council, you should push the public officer to come to the Legislative Council to complete the procedure properly. The Secretary talked about suspension, but there is no such word as "suspension" in the Legislative Council. He should announce to Honourable colleagues in the Legislative Council Chamber that the Bill is now withdrawn in accordance with RoP 64(1). Only then is it in order. Moreover, it is the approach which the President should promote.
May I ask the President whether you will consider doing this later? The staff of the Secretariat may not be able to help the President now, but Members are making a request under RoP. Given that on no condition can a single word 11706 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 of RoP be altered, will the President please make a judgment. We now request the President to urge the public officer to come to the Legislative Council Chamber to withdraw the amendments to the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance under RoP 64(1). Will the President please give a response.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): As I have said, the Government informed this Council on 15 June of the withdrawal of the notice of resumption of the Second Reading debate on the relevant Bill. Since the Government has withdrawn its notice, the Bill is no longer on the Agenda of this Council. For this reason, I will not and cannot do as per your request just now. As regards the questions raised by Members in respect of RoP 64(1), I will ask the Secretariat or the Legal Adviser to give Members a detailed explanation later on.
First question. Mr HO Kai-ming, please ask the question.
Stand-over item: Six questions for oral replies (standing over from the meetings of 12 and 19 June 2019)
Remittance of money to the Mainland
1. MR HO KAI-MING (in Cantonese): President, it is learnt that in order to save time and cost, quite a number of Hong Kong people choose to use money changers instead of banks to remit Renminbi for them from Hong Kong to the Mainland. However, such money changers are regarded as "underground banks" as they have not been granted approval by the Mainland authorities for operating cross-border remittance business. Upon detection of illegal remittances, the law enforcement agencies on the Mainland may freeze the accounts of money changers and the Mainland beneficiaries concerned. As a result, the remitters fall into a "remittance trap" inadvertently. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the number of complaints involving money changers received by the Government in each of the past three years, with a breakdown by type of complaints and the level to which the amount of money involved belonged;
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11707
(2) of the measures to enhance the regulation of the service of remitting money for customers to the Mainland provided by money changers, so as to avoid Hong Kong people suffering losses; and
(3) whether it will improve the current procedure and arrangements for banks to remit money for their customers to the Mainland, including discussing with the Mainland authorities the raising of the daily remittance limit per person and simplifying the vetting and approval procedure; if so, of the details?
SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): President, having regard to the international standards on anti-money laundering and counter terrorist-financing ("AML/CFT"), the Government commenced the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing (Financial Institutions) Ordinance ("AMLO") (Cap. 615) in 2012 to impose statutory customer due diligence and record-keeping requirements on financial institutions (including money service operators ("MSOs")). The Ordinance also introduces a licensing regime for MSOs and empowers the Customs and Excise Department ("C&ED") to supervise their AML/CFT compliance.
Under AMLO, any person who operates a money service business (including money changing service and/or remittance service) in Hong Kong must obtain a licence from C&ED. C&ED may grant a licence to an MSO applicant only if it is satisfied that the applicant and ultimate owners (if any) are fit and proper persons to operate a money service business. If the applicant is a corporation or a partnership, all directors, partners, and ultimate owners (if any) must be fit and proper persons. In deciding whether a person is fit and proper, C&ED must have regard to whether the person has been convicted of an offence relating to money laundering or terrorist financing under the Organized and Serious Crimes Ordinance, Drug Trafficking (Recovery of Proceeds) Ordinance or United Nations (Anti-Terrorism Measures) Ordinance (including similar offences in other jurisdictions); whether he/she has persistently failed to comply with the AML/CFT requirements stipulated under AMLO or the AML/CFT Guideline promulgated by C&ED; whether he/she has been convicted for an offence for which it was necessary to find that the person had acted fraudulently, corruptly or dishonestly; whether the person, being an individual, is an undischarged bankrupt or is the subject of any bankruptcy proceedings; and 11708 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 whether the person, being a corporation, is in liquidation or is the subject of a winding up order, etc. In addition to the above, C&ED may consider any other matter that it considers relevant in determining whether a person is fit and proper.
My reply to various parts of the question raised by Mr HO Kai-ming is as follows:
(1) From 2016 to 2018, C&ED received a total of 37 complaints relating to MSOs, 18 of which relate to failure to complete remittance transactions for various reasons after MSOs received funds from their customers.
(2) On top of AMLO, MSOs must comply with other legislation, including those relating to consumer protection. For example, the Trade Descriptions Ordinance ("TDO") stipulates that any trader (including MSOs) who applies a false or misleading claim during the course of offering a service to a consumer commits an offence; such offence may be reported to C&ED. Further, a report may be made to the Police if an MSO or any trader is suspected of fraud or other criminal offences.
Aside from criminal investigation, C&ED will also commence an investigation under AMLO against the alleged MSO. If the licensee is found not to have complied with AMLO or the AML/CFT Guideline, C&ED may institute a criminal prosecution or impose administrative measures against the licensee, including public reprimand, order for remedial action, fines and/or imposition of additional licensing conditions. If the licensee is no longer considered to be a fit and proper person to operate a money service business, C&ED will suspend or revoke his/her MSO licence.
From January to April 2019, two persons who operate a money service business were arrested for suspected contravention of TDO and theft respectively, and their MSO licences have been suspended. Investigation is ongoing. During the same period, C&ED suspended/revoked another five MSO licences for various other reasons.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11709
In addition to strengthening enforcement, C&ED conducts regular outreach (e.g. distribution of pamphlets, providing latest information at its website, etc.) to remind the public to engage only licensed MSOs and stay vigilant to the laws and regulations of other jurisdictions when remitting money so as to prevent any loss.
(3) The Hong Kong Monetary Authority ("HKMA") attaches importance to the accessibility of financial and banking services to Hong Kong residents in the Mainland. HKMA maintains liaison with the Mainland authorities on issues relating to payment, account opening, wealth management, and remittance etc., and measures of financial facilitation are introduced accordingly. HKMA will follow up as appropriate with the Mainland authorities on arrangements to remit Renminbi having regard to the local situation.
MR HO KAI-MING (in Cantonese): President, first of all, I thank C&ED and the Police for their law enforcement, such that some people with ulterior motives were subject to sanctions in law. Notwithstanding this, the victims still have to recover their losses through civil proceedings. Now, the relationships between Hong Kong and the Mainland, in particular, economic relationships, are getting even closer. In particular, the development of the Greater Bay Area is encouraging Hong Kong people to go North and live there. However, the existing restrictions on remittance have prevented a lot of needs, for example, the need for emergency medical services in the Mainland, from being met. To cite an example, some hospitals may charge $500,000 in fees but members of the public can only remit $80,000 daily to their own bank accounts, so it is practically impossible to meet such basic needs.
May I ask the Policy Bureau concerned if it would communicate with the Mainland, with a view to gradually relaxing such restrictions on remittance, for example, by changing the unit from being daily to monthly and adjusting the upper limit upwards to, say, $2 million, or exempt some medical or business needs, so as to give Hong Kong people or people who need to make remittances to the Mainland greater convenience?
11710 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019
SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): President, the Honourable Member mentioned the existing restrictions on making remittances. In fact, after discussions with the Mainland authorities in 2005, the limit was relaxed from $50,000 to $80,000. As regards remittance to one's own account, the conditions on remittance are also imposed by the Mainland.
However, we understand that since the remittance of money by Hong Kong residents to the Mainland involves the cross-border flow of funds, if the limit is to be further relaxed, so that the various purposes mentioned just now, for example, medical purposes, can be served, this depends on the relevant requirements of the Mainland. Nevertheless, we appreciate the Member's concern. For this reason, having regard to the actual situation and the need, the SAR Government will continue to liaise with the Mainland authorities on measures to increase the flow and use of Renminbi between the onshore and offshore markets.
MR CHAN CHUN-YING (in Cantonese): President, to target financial frauds, generally speaking, the Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau produces promotional materials to be aired on television stations, radio stations, etc., to raise public awareness of such incidents. Concerning the ever-increasing number of remittance traps involving ever-increasing amounts of money, apart from making use of such rather passive means as pamphlets, webpages, etc., will the authorities also step up other forms of publicity and education, including producing some short videos and even requesting such institutions as C&ED and HKMA to set up hotlines, so that members of the public who do not understand the laws, regulations and procedures related to remittance can make enquiries and learn about them?
SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): President, I thank the Honourable Member for his suggestion. In fact, apart from the passive or existing measures mentioned just now, C&ED also holds talks and seminars for the sector from time to time―by the sector I mean the Hong Kong Money Service Operators Association―to enhance the sector's understanding of compliance requirements and explain to it the unscrupulous trade practices prohibited by TDO, so that operators can have a better understanding of the legal requirements.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11711
In addition, in respect of users, C&ED also takes part in the seminars organized by HKMA designed to deepen the banking industry's understanding of the regulatory regime for MSOs. C&ED will continue to implement thematic outreach programmes in various social groups. We also distribute leaflets to shops run by ethnic minorities and at locations where foreign domestic helpers congregate to enhance their knowledge of the licensing regime for MSOs and anti-money laundering efforts.
As regards the Member's suggestion on short videos and hotlines, we will consider them further.
MR MA FUNG-KWOK (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary said just now that publicity measures had been taken. May I ask the Secretary how he reminds users, that is, the public, to avoid falling into these remittance traps, particularly the traps of money changers offering same-day remittance service? The Government says that extra caution needs to be exercised. May I ask the Government if it will consider drawing up a blacklist to help the public more easily identify money changers with potential problems?
SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): President, we note the Honourable Member's concern about the compliance of money changers in operation. In fact, C&ED carries out on-site compliance inspections on these licensed MSOs regularly and inspects their business when their licences are due for renewal every two years to ensure that their mode of business operation complies with the requirements and provisions of the licensing regime.
During inspections, we also remind operators to pay attention to their remittance business and the background, information and business conditions of their local or overseas partners, as well as the relevant laws and regulations of other jurisdictions, so as to minimize instances of incomplete remittance transactions or partial remittance of funds only, as mentioned just now, and even some fraudulent acts.
In addition, just now, I also mentioned the seminars and talks organized by C&ED regularly to remind operators. I also mentioned in the main reply that when operators present problems, basically, we will suspend and even revoke their licences. In that case, it is actually not possible for them to operate 11712 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 anymore. We also notice that in the first four months of this year, two operators located in Cheung Sha Wan and Sham Shui Po were suspended by us and their licences were revoked, and their shops have ceased operation. In these circumstances, users probably do not have any opportunity to use the relevant services.
MR KWOK WAI-KEUNG (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary pointed out clearly in his reply that since banks had to meet due diligence and record-keeping requirements, they are legal in Hong Kong and on the Mainland. However, since money changers do not have to exercise due diligence, they are legal in Hong Kong but remittances made by them are not accepted on the Mainland.
I had a meeting with C&ED before and was told that they could only enforce local laws. President, in fact, the service provided by money changers is a "deposit and remit" transaction and the present situation is that there is no problem with depositing the money but there were instances in which accounts on the Mainland were frozen for one or two years after remittances were made to them. I once asked C&ED if the operators concerned had contravened TDO, that is, they had not informed the Hong Kong public clearly of the risks in making remittances. However, C&ED said that they were unable to deal with this. May I ask the Secretary if it is possible to tighten the definitions in TDO in this regard, so that if accounts are frozen after remittances have been made to them, it can also be regarded as failing to provide reasonable service and making false trade descriptions?
SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): President, the Honourable Member asked if money changers, that is, MSOs, have to take due diligence measures and the answer is that they must. In addition to banks, they also have to exercise due diligence, in particular, they have to identify the customer and verify the customer's identity using documents, data or information provided by a reliable and independent source, take reasonable measures to identify and verify the beneficial owner's identity so that the MSO is satisfied that it knows who the beneficial owner's is, including, in the case of a legal person or trust, measures to enable the MSO to understand the ownership and control structure of the legal person or trust.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11713
The Member mentioned TDO in his reference to matters like accounts being frozen after remittances were made. This is actually related to the restriction on the inflow and outflow of funds on the Mainland rather than a matter related to C&ED or TDO. I also said just now that the restrictions on remittance mentioned by us are the guidelines and restrictions of the relevant authorities on the Mainland, and they are also related to the procedures for the flow of funds into and out of the Mainland. In view of this, the efforts made by us consist of reminding the public that when using such services, apart from exercising caution by using the services provided by licensed MSOs, they also have to pay attention to the guidelines and restrictions of the Mainland on remittance. This is an issue related to the Mainland, and it cannot be dealt with through TDO.
DR JUNIUS HO (in Cantonese): May I ask the Secretary if the Financial Dispute Resolution Centre can provide greater assistance in this kind of cases? I understand that mediation is purely mediation and is not legally binding, but will some safeguards be incorporated into the Arbitration Ordinance to enable consumers to have recourse to an expeditious and proper way of resolution?
SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): President, the Honourable Member mentioned the Financial Dispute Resolution Centre. In fact, the parties concerned can request assistance from the Centre when carrying out mediation or arbitration in this regard. Of course, this depends on the participation of MSOs in the services of the Centre because generally speaking, some financial institutions do play a part in such services. We will look further into this to see if they can be encouraged to use the services of the Financial Dispute Resolution Centre.
As regards arbitration, in fact, the Financial Dispute Resolution Centre also serves the function of arbitration, so if they are covered, they can also use the services of the Centre.
MR HO KAI-MING (in Cantonese): President, just now, I heard the Secretary say that he wanted to make some publicity efforts in Statue Square on Sundays but I think this may be addressing the wrong audience because people who remit money to the Mainland are mainly grass-roots wage earners. I think how to get 11714 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 in touch with them would be a test of the Secretary's ability but at least, it is necessary to explain all the restrictions or the regime clearly on the relevant webpages.
President, at present, when many ordinary members of the public need to use large sums of money for such purposes as making down payments for the properties purchased by them, medical expenses or even tuition fees on the Mainland, they have to make special applications before remitting money to the Mainland. However, such applications often take one month and sometimes, there is no knowing whether the applications are approved or not even after one month, or it is found only by the deadline that approval is not granted for remittance of money to the Mainland for a property purchase. There is an uncertainty in this and many ordinary members of the public also suffer losses as a result.
May I ask the Secretary if he will hold discussions with the Mainland to see if it is possible to obtain approval direct upon showing the invoices, instead of having to wait for one month if members of the public really have special needs, for example, if they have to pay the down payments for their properties, medical fees or tuition fees? Only in this way can we make life easier for members of the public living on the Mainland and this is also a fundamental need.
SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): President, in this regard, C&ED has regular communications with Mainland law enforcement agencies and regulators. As regards the issue raised by the Honourable Member just now, we can raise it with the Mainland institutions when getting in touch with them to see what measures bringing greater convenience to the public are available under the restrictions and guidelines of the capital account. We will follow this matter up.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HO Kai-ming, which part of your supplementary question has not been answered?
MR HO KAI-MING (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary mentioned capital account and as far as I understand it, he probably referred to companies but I am talking about paying the fees of hospitals, schools and real estate agents. Can the Secretary focus on the particularly large amounts of payment in these several areas …
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11715
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HO, this is not the subject matter of your supplementary question.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Second question. Mr Michael TIEN, please ask your question.
(A number of Members shouted the slogan "Down with John LEE!" repeatedly)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please keep quiet!
German authorities granting asylum to two Hong Kong persons
2. MR MICHAEL TIEN (in Cantonese): In December 2017, two men who had been charged with rioting offences …
(Dr KWOK Ka-ki indicated a wish to raise a point)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Michael TIEN, please pause for a while. Dr KWOK Ka-ki.
DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): President, in the beginning of the meeting, I asked you about the handling of the withdrawal and postponement of bills, for under the Rules of Procedure, merely the options of withdrawal and postponement are available. John LEE is the officer in charge of the Bill. President, since we cannot ask the Government about this and John LEE is here in the Chamber, may I ask him via the President whether the Bill has been withdrawn, postponed or suspended?
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr KWOK, this is not a point of order. This is Question Time now, please stop speaking. Mr Michael TIEN, please ask your question.
11716 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019
MR MICHAEL TIEN (in Cantonese): In December 2017, two men who had been charged with rioting offences and admitted to bail pending trial failed to attend the trial, and the Court therefore issued warrants of arrest against them. It was reported last month that they had been granted asylum by the German authorities in May last year. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether, before the two persons were granted asylum by the German authorities, the Government had received requests from the German authorities for information about the offences in which they were involved for the purpose of assessing their asylum requests; whether a mechanism is in place for the Government to seek a review by the German authorities of their decision to grant asylum;
(2) when the Government came to know that the two persons had been granted asylum; apart from the Chief Executive conveying to Germany's Acting Consul General in Hong Kong strong objection to the granting of asylum, of the specific follow-up actions that have been and will be taken by the Government in this regard; and
(3) whether, according to the surrender of fugitive offenders agreement signed between the Governments of Hong Kong and Germany, the offences allegedly committed by the two persons are offences for which surrender may be granted?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): President, the two absconders who had jumped bail mentioned in the question were involved in the Mong Kok riot which took place in the small hours of 9 February 2016. The Mong Kok riot was a serious large-scale incident of mob violence. On the day, many rioters attacked police officers with bricks dug out from the pavement, home-made weapons and various kinds of hard objects, set fires at various locations and damaged police vehicles, wounded others and destroyed public property. Such violent acts seriously jeopardized public order and safety. Over 100 persons were injured in the incident, including over 80 police officers, as well as members of the media, unsettling many people in Hong Kong. After the incident, the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("HKSAR") as well as various sectors of society strongly condemned the acts of the rioters.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11717
As at 31 May 2019, the Police arrested a total of 91 persons in connection with the Mong Kok riot. The Department of Justice ("DoJ") has also prosecuted some arrestees of the alleged offences, including riot, incitement to riot, arson, unlawful assembly, incitement to unlawful assembly and assaulting police officers. The judicial proceedings of certain persons concerned are still ongoing. So far, 30 persons have been convicted by the Court, of which 23 persons were convicted of riot and were sentenced to training centre order or imprisonment ranging from three to seven years.
The two absconders who had jumped bail mentioned in the question were charged with serious charges, including "riot" and "assaulting police officer", in relation to the Mong Kok riot. The acts were in contravention of section 19 of the Public Order Ordinance (Cap. 245) concerning the offence of riot with a maximum penalty of imprisonment for 10 years, and section 36 of the Offences against the Person Ordinance (Cap. 212) concerning the offence of "assaulting any police officer in the due execution of his duty" with a penalty of imprisonment for two years. The two persons were originally scheduled to appear before the High Court on 9 December 2017 for a pre-trial review, but they did not attend the hearing and jumped court bail. The Court issued an arrest warrant on the day, requesting the Police to track down the absconders and apprehend them.
My reply to the various parts of the question is as follows:
(1) The case mentioned in the question is a criminal litigation case. Generally speaking, the Police are responsible for case investigation, gathering of evidence and making arrests, while DoJ will study and determine whether to prosecute and to prosecute with what charge, and make independent decisions. In the case mentioned in the question, the Hong Kong Police and DoJ have never received any request for information from the German authorities. The HKSAR Government is disappointed that no basic assessment on or verification of the facts had been conducted by the German authorities. The Chief Executive in her meeting with Germany's Acting Consul General in Hong Kong on 24 May had expressed the HKSAR's strong objections and deep regrets.
11718 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019
(2) According to the Criminal Procedure Ordinance (Cap. 221), a person admitted to bail who, without reasonable cause, fails to surrender to custody as shall have been appointed by a court, commits an offence. The person is liable on summary conviction to a fine of $75,000 and to imprisonment for six months, and on conviction upon indictment to a fine of any amount and to imprisonment for 12 months. The Court may issue an arrest warrant against the defendant. The Police will execute the arrest warrant and spare no efforts in tracking down the whereabouts of the suspect, with a view to bringing the suspect to court for handling as appropriate, including pursuing the legal liability of his jumping court bail, and continuing to handle the original case.
With regard to the two bail jumpers mentioned in the question, since the issuance of arrest warrant by the Court upon their failure to appear before the Court in December 2017, the Police have been following up to locate the whereabouts of the persons, including making enquiries with the law enforcement agencies of multiple related countries through the police cooperation mechanism of INTERPOL. Upon learning about the report of the German authorities granting asylum, the Police have again asked the German police to provide information through the INTERPOL mechanism. As regards the specific content of the case, since details of investigation and pursuit of the bail jumpers are involved, it is not appropriate to be made public.
Besides, the Police and DoJ are studying the case and will follow up in accordance with the relevant laws and evidence. The Police will continue to, by all possible means, pursue the two absconders who have jumped court bail against whom arrest warrants have been issued.
As mentioned before, upon learning about the media reports of the captioned case, the HKSAR Government has publicly expressed its strong objections and deep regrets. The HKSAR Government considers the granting of asylum to persons who had committed serious crimes and jumped court bail and absconded whilst awaiting trial, without any basic assessment or verifications of facts, lacks objective evidential basis, and unjustifiably undermines Hong LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11719
Kong's international reputation in the rule of law and judicial independence. The Chief Executive has personally and categorically indicated her strong objections and deep regrets to Germany's Acting Consul General in Hong Kong.
(3) According to the "Agreement between the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China and the Government of the Federal Republic of Germany for the Surrender of Fugitive Offenders" ("the Agreement for Surrender of Fugitive Offenders"), there are 46 offences for which surrender may be granted. The first 45 offences are descriptions of specific offences, while the 46th offence is "any other offence for which surrender may be granted in accordance with the laws of both Parties".
According to the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance ("FOO") (Cap. 503), the crime for which surrender may be granted must comply with the "double criminality" principle, i.e. it must constitute an offence in the jurisdictions of both the requesting party and the requested party.
In determining whether an offence is an offence punishable under the laws of both the party requesting the surrender and the requested party, the totality of the alleged acts or omissions of the person of whom surrender is sought shall be taken into account before reaching a decision, regardless of whether, under the laws of the parties, the constituent elements of the offence or the definition of the offence are the same. Simply put, the "double criminality" principle is decided based on the "act". Whether or not surrender may be granted over the act or omission depends on whether the act or omission itself also constitutes a criminal offence in Hong Kong and complies with the requirements in section 2(2)(b) of FOO; otherwise, it is not an offence for which surrender may be granted. The offence of jumping bail itself is not an offence for which surrender may be granted under the Agreement.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will the Secretary finish the main reply expeditiously.
11720 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): Yes, President. Hong Kong's rule of law and independent judicial system are the core values of our society, and they have long been held in high regard by the international community. According to the World Economic Forum's ("WEF") Global Competitiveness Report, Hong Kong is ranked first in Asia for judicial independence. According to Article 82 of the Basic Law, the power of final adjudication of the HKSAR shall be vested in the Court of Final Appeal ("CFA"). CFA may as required invite Judges from other common law jurisdictions to hear cases. Currently, there are 14 eminent overseas Judges from the United Kingdom, Australia and Canada sitting on our CFA as non-permanent Judges. In respect of criminal justice, anyone accused of breaching the law in Hong Kong would face an open and fair trial. Article 10 and Article 11 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights also provide sufficient protection to any person with any criminal charge laid against him, or whose rights and obligations are in a suit at law. The Hong Kong courts will, as always, with their sound rule of law and human rights protection, handle all cases in an independent, fair and just manner.
MR MICHAEL TIEN (in Cantonese): Secretary, I asked you in black and white when did you come to know the case, yet you have not answered this. You have to answer this question after all. Now, I ask you: When will you make the request for surrender of the two persons concerned? If not, what are the reasons?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): Thanks, Mr TIEN. I have answered Mr TIEN in my main reply that DoJ and the Police did not know the case. Upon learning about the case, the Police have made a request for information through INTERPOL and the police cooperation mechanism. In this connection, I have already answered Mr TIEN.
(Mr Michael TIEN indicated that the Secretary had not answered his supplementary question)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Michael TIEN, please let the Secretary give an answer first.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11721
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): Members may have noticed that the Germany's Consul General in Hong Kong has issued a statement. After the Chief Executive had met with Germany's Acting Consul General in Hong Kong on 24 May and expressed strong objections and deep regrets, Germany's Consul General issued a reply on 28 May. First, he mentioned that these applications were processed by an authority in charge of immigration and this type of applications, and the Federal Foreign Office had not participated in the case. The Germany's Consulate General noted the deep regrets and strong objections expressed by HKSAR and the Chief Executive on this issue. Moreover, the Germany's Consulate General also pointed out that he would not change the friendly relations with us, which means the relationship between Hong Kong and the Government of Germany will not be affected by this case.
Hence, Mr TIEN, as I have explained in the main reply, after the case was reported in the news, the Chief Executive expressed objection, and the Government of Germany has explained the entire process of handling the case.
MR MICHAEL TIEN (in Cantonese): President, regarding my proposal for making a request for surrender of the two persons concerned, when will the authorities make a decision? The Secretary has not answered this.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, do you have anything to add?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): President, as I mentioned earlier, the Agreement for Surrender of Fugitive Offenders signed between Germany and Hong Kong covers 46 offences. Regarding these 46 offences, we will act in accordance with the laws of Hong Kong and leave it to DoJ and the Police to examine ways to follow up. If the offence mentioned just now does not fall into the scope of the first 45 offences, it may be addressed under the 46th offence, which mentions offences allowed to be handled under the laws of both parties. Hence, DoJ will examine how to follow up in this respect.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Jimmy NG, please ask your question.
(Mr Michael TIEN indicated a wish to ask another question)
11722 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Michael TIEN, you have asked a number of questions. Please be seated. You may press the "Request to Speak" button for another turn to ask another question.
MR JIMMY NG (in Cantonese): President, the independence and impartiality of the Judiciary of Hong Kong is highly acclaimed in the international community. The rule of law of Hong Kong is in the top ranking worldwide according to the World Justice Project, the World Band and WEF. According to the Global Competitiveness Report issued by WEF last year, Hong Kong is ranked first in Asia for judicial independence, which is evident that the judicial independence of Hong Kong is recognized worldwide.
Yet, in view of the recent case where asylum is granted by the overseas government to fugitives from Hong Kong who are suspects, have the authorities assessed whether the strenuous efforts made by the Police in investigation and the prosecution work of DoJ will go down the drain because of the case, and whether the image of Hong Kong's judicial independence and its Judiciary will be tarnished? In fact, have the authorities assessed the impact of these situations on Hong Kong? If yes, what are the results of the assessment?
Second, given that …
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr NG, you can only put forth one supplementary question.
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): President, thanks, Mr NG. I totally agree that the judicial system of Hong Kong is recognized and highly acclaimed worldwide. In addition to the several indicators mentioned by Mr NG, I can provide other reports for Members' reference. The Global Competitiveness Report of WEF focuses on 140 countries, whereas Hong Kong is ranked first in Asia and eighth worldwide for judicial independence.
As for the efficiency of legal framework in settling disputes, Hong Kong is among the top five, ranking the fourth. Moreover, according to the Worldwide Governance Indicator of the World Bank in 2017 and 2018, Hong Kong is ranked second in Asia for rule of law. The study includes all the economies around the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11723 world and Hong Kong is ranked second in Asia. According to the report on the Rule of Law Index prepared by the World Justice Project, Hong Kong is ranked second in Asia and 16th worldwide.
Certainly, regarding the incident where two fugitives who have jumped court bail are granted asylum by Germany, we have expressed strong objections and deep regrets, and we are extremely disappointed that the authorities concerned have not examined the fact cautiously. Definitely, the Police will continue with the investigation and DoJ will continue with the prosecution work. I have made it clear just now that the Police and DoJ wish to follow up on the case through other approaches. The SAR Government will adopt different approaches to continue to present the various aspects of Hong Kong. We will particularly do so in the aspect of administration of justice. Regarding the judicial independence and the spirit of the rule of law of Hong Kong, we will make vigorous efforts to explain to the world the well-recognized fairness and impartiality of the judicial system of Hong Kong in overseas visits, forums and on public occasions, and so on. We will also make use of every occasion available to promote Hong Kong to clarify misunderstandings and disseminate positive messages in this aspect.
MS STARRY LEE (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary pointed out in the reply just now that the judicial system of Hong Kong was one of the best worldwide. But still, Germany has granted the so-called refugee protection status to the two suspects. Why? In fact, I think this is after all a political consideration.
President, regarding Germany's decision to grant political asylum to the two fugitives, the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong ("DAB") expressed deep regrets and strong objections. Members know that the incident has inflicted serious damage on the rule of law of Hong Kong, for it has undoubtedly conveyed the message that the Courts of Hong Kong cannot conduct fair trials. President, I believe that in no civilized or democratic countries will acts of hurling bricks and assaulting police officers be tolerated, and neither will the blatant violations of law nor the absconding of suspects in fear of punishment be allowed.
President, the Secretary stressed once and again that the Chief Executive had expressed discontent and deep regrets to Germany's Consul General and made a request for the provision of relevant documents, and he said that the 11724 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 authorities will follow up on the issue by all means. May I ask whether the authorities have made an official request to the German Consulate General Hong Kong for revocation of the approval for asylum?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): President, thanks, Ms LEE. The Chief Executive has expressed strong objections and deep regrets in her meeting with Germany's Acting Consul General. Certainly, we have stated clearly that the two suspects are involved in certain serious criminal offences, and generally speaking the Court has made rulings on these criminal offences.
Perhaps I can explain the case and let Members know that in the Mong Kok riot, a total of 64 persons were prosecuted. Among them, 30 persons have been convicted of offences including riot, arson, theft, assaulting police officers, assault occasioning actual bodily harm and behaving in a disorderly manner in a public place. Another five persons are waiting for trial. The prosecution work of other persons involved will continue be handled by the Police and DoJ. Hence, when we explained the Mong Kok riot case to Germany's Consul General, we stated clearly that the nature of the case involved criminal offences, and we made it clear that the prosecution initiated was based on facts and the judgment of the Court was fair and impartial.
We have also stated unequivocally that according to the Basic Law, HKSAR has independent judicial power, including that of final adjudication, which means that the Courts of HKSAR shall exercise judicial power independently, free from any interference. Members of the Judiciary shall be immune from legal action in the performance of their judicial functions. Moreover, CFA may as required invite Judges from other common law jurisdictions to hear cases.
Hence, we have stated clearly our disagreement with the decision and hope that Germany will address squarely our request in this connection.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Starry LEE, which part of your supplementary question has not been answered?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11725
MS STARRY LEE (in Cantonese): The Secretary has not answered my question. He just mentioned his hope that the request would be addressed squarely, yet it is not tantamount to revocation of the asylum granted. Will the authorities consider requesting Germany to revoke the approval officially?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): President, I believe what I have just mentioned has made the stance of the SAR Government on the incident crystal clear. Moreover, Germany's Acting Consul General in Hong Kong has pointed out clearly in his statement that they know the stance of the SAR Government and the Chief Executive on the incident.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Third question. Mr Kenneth LAU, please ask your question.
(Mr CHAN Chi-chuen indicated a wish to raise a point)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, what is your point?
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): John LEE is obviously playing for time. He spends his time talking about irrelevant issues so that only two Members could raise supplementary questions. You should point this out and allow Members sufficient time to pose questions to the Secretary.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I hope government officials will be as concise as possible in giving replies. Third question. Mr Kenneth LAU, please ask your question.
Flood prevention in the New Territories
3. MR KENNETH LAU (in Cantonese): President, last month, a series of severe rainstorms caused serious flooding at a number of villages in Tin Shui Wai, with floodwater reaching the waist level and quite a number of villagers being trapped. Some villagers have relayed that during the onslaught of super 11726 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 typhoons in Hong Kong in the past two years, they suffered huge losses and their lives were under threat. As extreme weather conditions have become increasingly frequent and this year's typhoon season is drawing near, the villagers are very worried. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the number of flooding reports received by the Drainage Services Department in each of the past five years, the number of the flooding locations which were flooding black spots, as well as the causes for the flooding;
(2) of the measures taken by the Government, since the onslaught of super typhoon Mangkhut in September last year, to improve the flood discharge capacity at the flooding black spots and the villages at low-lying locations vulnerable to seawater inundation in the New Territories, as well as the details of such measures; and
(3) whether it reviewed afresh and updated, in the past six months, the list of flooding black spots and the list of low-lying locations vulnerable to seawater inundation in the New Territories …
(While the Secretary for Security was leaving the Chamber, Dr KWOK Ka-ki and Mr HUI Chi-fung stood in front of a side entrance)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki and Mr HUI Chi-fung, please return to your seats and do not obstruct officials while they are entering or leaving the Chamber. Will both Members please return to their seats.
(Dr KWOK Ka-ki and Mr HUI Chi-fung left the Chamber on their own initiative)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Kenneth LAU, please continue.
MR KENNETH LAU (in Cantonese): … and carried out corresponding flood prevention works; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11727
SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, the drainage facilities in rural areas in the New Territories ("NT") comprise a mixture of natural streams, man-made channels and pipes. In general, the construction and maintenance of the required drainage facilities are undertaken by the Drainage Services Department ("DSD"), other relevant departments and private owners concerned according to their respective responsibility. To prevent flooding caused by drain blockage, DSD, before every rainy season, collaborates with other relevant departments to step up cleaning of public channels and pipes, and reminds private owners to properly check and repair the drainage facilities on their lands through distribution of pamphlets.
Upon receipt of a flooding report, DSD will provide emergency support to help the citizens tackle the flooding problem. In the morning of 27 May 2019, the Hong Kong Observatory ("HKO") issued the Amber Rainstorm Warning Signal, meaning "rain has fallen generally over Hong Kong, exceeding 30 mm in an hour". However, at that time, rainfall in some parts of Tuen Mun and Yuen Long (including Tin Shui Wai) had already reached 70 mm in an hour and DSD had received a total of five flooding reports in the two districts. The DSD staff were swiftly deployed to the affected areas to render assistance, sparing no effort in cleaning blocked channels and draining excessive water, regardless of whether the drains were on private or Government land. These areas resumed to their normal state shortly after the flood.
In addition to offering emergency support, DSD has been examining villages with past flooding records so as to formulate appropriate drainage improvement measures. It has completed a number of flood prevention works in NT, including the river training works for Sheung Yue River, Shan Pui River and Kam Tin River. We are currently seeking funding approval from the Finance Committee for conducting drainage improvement works in the rural areas of Northern NT, Yuen Long and Ngong Ping. Moreover, the Home Affairs Department will consider the villagers' requests for implementation of minor construction or improvement works to the drainage facilities in the villages under minor works projects.
Having consulted the relevant departments, I provide a reply to the three parts of Mr Kenneth LAU's question as follows:
(1) According to records, DSD received about 400 flooding reports in the past five years, with an average of 80 cases per year and seven of which occurred in NT flooding black spots. Basically, these were 11728 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019
incidents of localized flooding lasting for a short period of time. The affected areas were quickly reinstated after emergency services had been rendered by DSD. The findings of DSD indicated that the flooding incidents mainly occurred in areas with blocked drains or inadequate drainage under persistent heavy rain, and low-lying locations vulnerable to seawater infusion or inundation during typhoons.
(2) and (3)
DSD reviews the flooding black spots and locations vulnerable to seawater infusion and inundation in Hong Kong every year.
With the progressive completion of major flood prevention projects, the number of flooding black spots has reduced substantially. As at March 2019, 125 flooding black spots have been eliminated, and there are only six remaining. Drainage improvement works for two flooding black spots located at Ting Kok Road in Tai Po and Wan Chai District have already been completed, with their effectiveness being closely monitored. These black spots will be eliminated when appropriate. As regards the other four black spots, two of them are located in NT, namely Shek Wu Wai in San Tin and Lam Tsuen Valley Basin, while the other two are in Tsim Sha Tsui and the Southern District. DSD is taking forward in phases the strengthening of the drainage facilities in these areas. Funding approval is being sought from the Finance Committee to enhance the flood prevention capacity of the black spot in the Southern District. Strategically, upstream interception and downstream upgrading works are generally effective measures to alleviate the flooding risk in the village environ.
As revealed from previous severe or super typhoons, the Government has identified some low-lying locations vulnerable to seawater infusion or inundation (including Luen On San Tsuen, Kar Wo Lei, Sham Tseng San Tsuen, Lei Yue Mun, Nam Wai in Sai Kung, Tai O and low-lying areas along the seaside of North-western Yuen Long). DSD and other relevant departments are implementing measures such as provision of flood walls/demountable flood barriers and installation of flap valves at the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11729
drainage outlet to prevent seawater from flowing in. The construction of concrete walls and rock-armoured bunds along the seashore can also lower the risk of flooding caused by waves overtopping the seawalls. Besides, the Government has set up storm-surge alert systems at various low-lying areas that are vulnerable to seawater inundation. Upon the issuance of warning on storm surge by HKO, DSD will, at the relevant locations, deploy pumping facilities, install water-stop boards, or provide sandbags for the use of the residents and shop operators in need, in order to reduce the flooding risk arising from storm surge.
In April this year, the Civil Engineering and Development Department commissioned a consultant to undertake a feasibility study entitled "Coastal Hazards under Climate Change and Extreme Weather and Formulation of Improvement Measures". The study aims to conduct a comprehensive review of the low-lying coastal or windy locations, and to carry out investigations into storm surge and wave in order to assess the impacts of extreme weather on these locations. Based on the outcome of the study, the Government will formulate appropriate protection measures, including improvement works, management measures and other options, to strengthen the resilience to big waves at the coastal areas in the long run.
MR KENNETH LAU (in Cantonese): President, intensifying climate change has caused inclement weather to become more destructive. We should increase the application of innovative technology, enhance the notification mechanism, upgrade the flood prevention facilities, and improve the work of education to develop among the public the awareness of how to deal with natural disasters. As the Government is committed to pursuing smart city development, may I ask the authorities whether there is interdepartmental collaboration in using big data to monitor the flooding risks in various districts? Is there any future plan to make use of innovative technology to upgrade the alert or notification system, in order to tell the residents to take contingency measures early to minimize the financial loss and evacuate the residents where necessary?
SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): I thank Mr LAU for his supplementary question. Actually we have done it, and we hope to make use of technology by all means to improve our capacity in this respect, including the 11730 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 examination of water mains. We will make use of small machines, vehicles or vessels equipped with close circuit television systems and send them into the water mains to conduct examinations and help us understand the pipe conditions and needs for repairs. If close circuit television systems can be installed at certain flooding black spots, we will have them installed by all means, so that we can learn of the flooding situation more promptly.
Moreover, we have put in place the Water Intelligent Network system under which sensors are installed at different locations for making adjustments to the water pumps and hence reducing the pressure on the water pipes. A reduction in the leakage of water pipes will also be helpful to flood prevention overall. We will be happy to use new technologies that may be introduced to society in future.
MR JEFFREY LAM (in Cantonese): President, during the several mega typhoons hitting Hong Kong in recent years, we saw flooding in some parts of the countryside and rural villages beyond the urban area, causing quite considerable damages and a lot of troubles to the residents. To prevent problems before they occur, the Government has evidently made quite a lot of efforts, such as building underground flood storage tanks, but in places beyond the urban area, there is still room for improvement in the situation of flooding in recent years. It is necessary to improve the infrastructure facilities in various districts by, for instance, maintaining the slopes, conducting checks on the drainage system, and so on.
To address these problems, may I ask whether the Government can, as suggested by Mr Kenneth LAU, put in place a notification mechanism to enhance exchange among various departments? Such a mechanism not only serves to effectively monitor the flooding situation in Hong Kong but also facilitates follow-up work in the aftermath of floodings. For instance, after the last typhoon, we saw a large number of fallen trees blocking the roads but the Government did not even have enough power saws. In respect of tools or facilities, can the Government strengthen the exchange among various departments?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11731
SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, I thank Mr LAM for the reminder. At present, we actually have in place interdepartmental mechanisms. For example, in the event of a storm or when the sea level is expected to rise to a certain height, actually there will be co-ordination among HKO, DSD, the Home Affairs Department, and the relevant emergency services departments. In this connection, I will be most happy to provide the relevant information in writing to Mr LAM after the meeting. (Appendix I)
Besides, in respect of studies in the future, and as I mentioned in the main reply, we have commissioned a study on storm surge, and if, as a further step, interdepartmental collaboration is required, we will be able to do it. Mr LAM also mentioned the situation after the onslaught of typhoon Mangkhut. As far as I understand it, the Security Bureau already made a report to the Legislative Council some time ago. In fact, we have different interdepartmental mechanisms for coordination depending on the situation of the typhoon. We hope that we can do better in this regard in the future.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Jeffrey LAM, which part of your supplementary question has not been answered?
MR JEFFREY LAM (in Cantonese): President, just now I mentioned some instruments and equipment, such as power saws, and on that previous occasion the business sector had most actively provided channels for obtaining these tools. Although these tools may not be used on a daily basis, will the Government step up efforts to put in place a reserve of tools or equipment? Of course, these are not tools for daily use, and they may be maintained for years but deployed only when an occasion calls for it.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LAM, please sit down. Secretary, do you have anything to add?
SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): Perhaps let me briefly add a few points. There were also relevant discussions in the contingency strategy issued by the Security Bureau some time ago. I very much share the 11732 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 view of Mr LAM, that we have to do better in some of the preparatory work. Having said that, let me remind Members that even if a large quantity of facilities is procured for contingency purposes, those facilities may not be applicable on each and every occasion and therefore, this has to be handled appropriately. As regards the view put forward by Mr LAM just now, I will take it back to the Government for due consideration.
MR LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, extreme weather is certainly a cause of flooding but more often than not, it is due to problems in handling by the departments or the people concerned.
Despite that rainfall as much as 70 mm was recorded that day, the drainage system in Tin Shui Wai, which is a new town, should be able to cope with it originally, but when flooding occurred, the floodwater even reached above the knees, causing great difficulties to many residents in travelling in and out of the district and going to work. The reason is that after the onslaught of typhoon Mangkhut, the fallen leaves had been cleared only once, with no further clearance work carried out all the way up to May, thus resulting in blocked drains and this man-made flood.
Besides, I have received a complaint in relation to the rural areas, alleging that the Government was unable to tackle the flooding problem for two days successively and as a result, the residents had to wade through the floodwater. The flood had persisted for two days until the floodwater naturally receded. It was because parts of the channel are on private land and there was no way for the Government to enter it to carry out clearance work.
In this connection, I have two questions for the Government: First, regarding private land at low-lying locations, can the Government really drum up the resolve to resume such land in order to address the drainage problem? Second, does the Government clear the drains on a regular basis?
SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, I thank Mr LEUNG for his supplementary question. As I already pointed out in the main reply earlier, on 27 May, for instance, an overall rainfall in excess of 70 mm was recorded in such districts as Tin Shui Wai, but the amount of rainfall even exceeded 110 mm in some parts of Tin Shui Wai. To put it in our jargon, it was a situation with a return period of "1 in 15 years", whereas many channels and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11733 pipes in the rural areas were designed on the basis of having a return period of "1 in 10 years". The exceptionally serious rainstorm is believed to be the main cause of the flood.
Regarding the specific problems put forward by Mr LEUNG earlier on, I agree that we have to work even harder. Under the existing arrangement, if we are aware of possible blockage of some drainage facilities, we will carry out clearance work as a pre-emptive measure in the light of the latest situation, such as when a rainstorm warning is issued, even though the place may not be a flooding black spot. The contractors will also deploy their teams to carry out the relevant work. Of course, if the residents have discovered blockage of drains in their district, they are welcome to call the hotline of DSD, and we will send our staff to conduct an inspection.
If private land is considered integral to the drainage facilities in the district, there were cases of resumption of such land in the past, and in individual places, as many as several hectares of land could be resumed. Having said that, it is necessary to conduct studies on, say, whether the flooding was caused by the situation on private land. This warrants prudent consideration. Besides, as I said in the main reply, if the flooding occurred on private land, the staff of DSD will likewise be sent there to carry out clearance work. But if they encounter difficulties in entering the place, the case would have to be handled in accordance with the law.
MR STEVEN HO (in Cantonese): President, this question today is about the Government's flood prevention work after the onslaught of typhoon Mangkhut.
I have seen that a diversity of situations can lead to blockage of drains, thus making it difficult for training works to be carried out. For example, the problem of fallen leaves mentioned by Mr LEUNG Che-cheung earlier; and I have seen the direction of water flow being affected by government works or private works carried out in the rural areas without proper monitoring by the Government. There were even cases where water was trapped in the surrounding area because part of the land had been raised; I have also seen that while the squatter huts in Mai Po could be spared flooding in times of rain before, flooding can now occur as a result of a change in the river course brought about by such works, thus making it necessary to carry out redevelopment or repairs in some cases.
11734 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019
In this connection, I have this question for the Government. In view of these government works or new minor works (which may be private works), how can the Government monitor the training works? How can it project new flooding black spots arising from situations similar to typhoon Mangkhut which we may run into in the future? What mechanism is there to assist the villagers to take precautions?
SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, I thank Mr HO for his supplementary question.
Let me explain it in two respects. Currently, under the territory-wide drainage master plan, works are being carried out continuously. As at this point in time, 19 projects are still at the planning and design stages, and four projects will be tabled to the Legislative Council Finance Committee for deliberation shortly. I hope that Members will support them.
On the other hand, Mr HO also mentioned issues relating to individual lands. For instance, if a person applies for construction of a small house and if he needs to make certain arrangements in respect of the land lease, the Lands Department ("LandsD") will generally make enquiries with DSD. If DSD considers it necessary for drainage facilities to be provided at that place, the LandsD will include these conditions accordingly. Besides, if changes have to be made to the planning of large-scale development projects, similarly, the Planning Department will consult the relevant departments and very often, the applicant will be required to conduct a drainage impact assessment and provide the relevant facilities before an approval will be granted.
Having said that, Mr HO is right as the situation is still found to be unsatisfactory in some aspects. Here, I would like to tell Members that we will enforce the law stringently. If land filling activities are found on individual lands in the New Territories causing obstructions in the main rivers, and if the person concerned refused to carry out clearance in accordance with the law, it is our current practice that DSD staff will go there to carry out the clearance work and recover the costs incurred from the person concerned. I hope that these practices can be effective. If members of the public have found the occurrence of flooding in the districts, they are welcome to report these cases to us direct or through the Home Affairs Department. We will look into how they should be handled in the light of the situation in respective cases.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11735
IR DR LO WAI-KWOK (in Cantonese): President, the Government has recently kick-started the year-long campaign, "Safer Living 2.0", to raise community resilience to natural disasters in Hong Kong by organizing thematic exhibitions, seminars, tours, workshops, competitions, and social media activities. We believe these activities can effectively promote among members of the public the message of guarding against natural disasters and simple knowledge of self-protection.
In this connection, may I ask the Secretary how the authorities will make use of "Safer Living 2.0" to enhance the public awareness of adopting preventive and protective measures, especially among villagers in the New Territories, including measures for preventing blockage of channels and drains? In the main reply the Secretary also mentioned that DSD would deploy pumping facilities, install water-stop boards and provide sandbags at places vulnerable to inundation. Will the Government specifically assign staff to teach the residents how these facilities are used?
SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, I thank Ir Dr LO for his supplementary question. I also wish to thank Ir Dr LO for attending the opening ceremony of "Safer Living 2.0" which I also attended.
In respect of publicity, I think "Safer Living 2.0" is one of the initiatives, and we have also produced TV Announcements in the Public Interest and distributed pamphlets in the districts, in the hope that the residents will understand how they can protect themselves. In more specific terms, we have adopted more proactive practices in various districts. In Lei Yue Mun, for instance, we have placed some water-stop boards there, so that firstly, we will install them at designated locations if the residents so wish, and secondly, as these water-stop boards can be installed easily, we will place them in the districts for installation by the residents themselves if they so wish when, say, a warning of storm surge is issued. We will continue to communicate with them and teach them what they should do.
Certainly, the most complicated tasks will still be undertaken by the Government. Under the existing practices of DSD or the contractors, when they learn of an imminent rainstorm or in the event of a storm surge, they will start carrying out work in advance in the affected areas and sometimes, they may go there as early as more than 24 hours in advance. The objective is to join forces with the residents in the district in the hope that work can be carried out more effectively.
11736 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Fourth question.
Treatment of cancers
4. DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): As projected by the Hong Kong Cancer Registry ("HKCaR") under the Hospital Authority ("HA"), with a continuously growing and ageing population, the number of new cancer cases in Hong Kong in 2030 will be 40% higher than that in 2016 and exceed 44 000. Some patients have relayed that at present, quite a number of cancer patients at public hospitals can only take drugs with more side effects and lower efficacy as they cannot afford the expensive self-financed drugs, thus suffering immensely in their illnesses. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether the Government will propose to HA to discuss with the Mainland authorities purchasing cancer drugs jointly, with a view to reducing expenses on drugs, and whether it will expedite the vetting and approval of clinical trial schemes to be carried out in Hong Kong for new cancer drugs and new treatment protocols so that cancer patients participating in the schemes can try them out for free; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
(2) given that the Government has earmarked $5 billion in the current financial year for the upgrading or acquisition of medical equipment by HA, whether it knows if HA will spend the money on acquiring state-of-the-art medical equipment for treating cancers, including that for proton therapy and electric field therapy; if HA will, of the details; if not, whether HA will discuss with the private hospitals which have acquired the relevant equipment the implementation of public-private partnership programmes so as to make use of such kind of equipment for treating public hospital patients; and
(3) given that the provision of cancer data to HKCaR by hospitals is currently voluntary in nature, whether the Government will adopt measures to facilitate HKCaR in collecting data as well as using artificial intelligence and big data technologies to speed up the analysis of cancer data; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11737
SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, my reply to the various parts of the question raised by Dr CHIANG Lai-wan is as follows:
(1) The Hospital Authority ("HA") has put in place an established drug procurement mechanism, which is fair and stringent, for procurement of pharmaceutical products that are registered with the Department of Health ("DH") and meet quality requirements for use in its public hospitals and clinics in accordance with the requirements and guidelines of the World Health Organization, the World Trade Organization and DH. The existing mechanism is effective and allows HA to procure the most cost-effective drugs from the market. We do not think that there is sufficient justification to change it.
As regards clinical trials on drugs, anyone who wishes to conduct a clinical trial on pharmaceutical product(s) in Hong Kong is required to apply to the Pharmacy and Poisons Board of Hong Kong for a Certificate for Clinical Trial ("certificate") according to the provisions and requirements of the Pharmacy and Poisons Ordinance (Cap. 138). As set out in the performance pledges, DH will issue a certificate within three months on receipt of an application submitted with the necessary supporting documents. In 2018-2019, DH issued a total of 173 certificates. All applications were vetted and approved within three months, meeting the target set in the performance pledge.
Moreover, DH has implemented a number of enhancement measures in recent years to further shorten the time for vetting and approving such applications. These measures include extending the validity period of certificates and simplifying the application procedures for low-risk clinical trials.
(2) The Government has earmarked an additional $5 billion in 2019-2020 for HA to expedite the upgrading and acquisition of medical equipment, and to allow HA to formulate plans for acquiring relevant medical equipment in the longer term. HA will further modernize and upgrade its medical equipment to provide quality services for patients. For example, upgrading or acquiring new 11738 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019
linear accelerators, computed tomography scanners and magnetic resonance imaging scanners with more advanced functionalities will improve the diagnosis and treatment of cancer patients. HA will also diffuse the application of advanced technology. For example, additional robotic surgery systems will be acquired to enhance minimal invasive surgical services, and Next Generation Sequencing technology will be used for treating cancer patients.
Regarding suggestions such as the introduction of proton therapy and tumor treating fields therapy, HA will keep in view the technological advancement in this regard. Under the established mechanism of HA, experts will continue to examine and review regularly treatment options as well as the latest development of the clinical and scientific evidence of relevant technology, taking into account factors such as scientific evidence, cost-effectiveness, opportunity cost, technological advancement and views of patient groups.
In respect of collaboration with private hospitals, HA rolled out the "Project on Enhancing Radiological Investigation Services through Collaboration with the Private Sector" in 2012 through purchase of computed tomography and magnetic resonance imaging services from private health care organizations to provide cancer(1) patients with the option to receive radiological investigation services in the private sector. HA will carefully consider relevant factors when examining new Public-Private Partnership ("PPP") programmes, such as the potential complexity of the programmes, and the capacity and readiness of the private sector, etc. HA will continue to communicate with the public and patient groups, and will work closely with stakeholders to explore the feasibility of introducing other PPP programmes, so as to meet the public's demand for health care services.
(3) The Government attaches great importance to the collection and monitoring of cancer data, and supports the work of the Hong Kong Cancer Registry ("HKCaR") on analysis of the overall cancer data from the public and private health care service providers and
(1) Colorectal cancer, breast cancer, nasopharyngeal cancer, lymphoma, prostate cancer, stomach cancer, cervix cancer, corpus uteri cancer, head and neck cancer, sarcoma or germ cell tumor. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11739
surveillance of local cancer situation. As early as in the 2000s, HKCaR began to set up progressively a cancer case review system for the collation and analysis of the structural clinical data in the HA's Clinical Management System and the information collected from private hospitals.
HA also strives to assist HKCaR in enhancing the efficiency of data analysis, and has established a working group last year to study, through big data analysis, how to use clinical data to speed up the collation of cancer data. Meanwhile, the Food and Health Bureau and HKCaR invited in writing private hospitals across the territory to provide pathology reports of cancer tissues for further collation and verification by HKCaR. The arrangement is currently working smoothly and effectively. HKCaR will continue to do its best to shorten the time required for collecting and publishing information.
DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): President, I am not quite satisfied with the Administration's reply to part (1) of my question, saying that there is not sufficient justification to change the relevant procurement mechanism. I would like to tell the Secretary that, as the purchasing volume of the Mainland is greater, the costs will decrease accordingly if Hong Kong makes purchases jointly with the Mainland. With the same amount of money spent, perhaps only one patient can be treated if Hong Kong purchases drugs separately, while if Hong Kong and the Mainland can purchase drugs jointly, perhaps two patients can be treated. Why do we not go ahead with it then? The European Union and the World Trade Organization have also proposed centralized procurement to minimize costs. Why does the Secretary not give it consideration? May I ask the Secretary if she knows the purchase price of the same drug paid by the Mainland is lower by how many percent on average than that paid by Hong Kong?
SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, I thank Dr CHIANG Lai-wan for her supplementary question and suggestion. The cost-effectiveness of drugs is examined under HA's existing drug procurement mechanism. Insofar as joint procurement of drugs with other places is concerned, further study is necessary as it involves different drug legislation and registration systems in the two places. Hence, at present, it is most important 11740 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 that we have sufficient resources to purchase drugs and expedite the procurement process, while ensuring that the drugs are scientifically proven and clinically tested.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, which part of your supplementary question has not been answered?
DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): I hope the Secretary will follow up on and study the possibility of procuring drugs from the Mainland and compare the prices to see if they are much cheaper.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHIANG, this is not part of your supplementary question. Please follow up on other occasions.
MR MARTIN LIAO (in Cantonese): President, while cutting-edge medical equipment and expeditious application of effective new drugs are essential to the successful and timely treatment of cancers, the physical, mental and living quality of cancer patients and their carers during and after such treatments should not be neglected either. In this connection, care programmes for recovered cancer patients have been set up in the United Kingdom and Australia to enhance the support for cancer patients and recovered cancer patients. The Administration once indicated its wish to enhance support for recovered cancer patients in Hong Kong. May I ask the Administration whether a care programme similar to those in the United Kingdom and Australia will be drawn up? If so, what are the estimated resources and manpower required by the service providers and details of the implementation timetable?
SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): I thank Mr Martin LIAO for his supplementary question. First of all, the Administration attaches great importance to the provision of support for recovered cancer patients as part of the overall strategy for cancer treatment and prevention. With the ageing population and growing average life expectancy in Hong Kong, cancer seems to have gradually become a chronic disease according to the data on cancer.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11741
Thanks to the application of high technology in early diagnosis, medication and overall treatment, the life expectancy of cancer patients is extended. Hence, we find this very important and HA is discussing with cancer rehabilitation service providers in the community how best such work can be done better in the future. A paper on cancer strategy in Hong Kong will be published later on, presenting our strategy and measures in preventing, monitoring, treating cancer and rehabilitation. We will allocate additional resources to handling the work on this front.
We have to significantly step up our support for recovered cancer patients, which is one of the topics covered in the paper on cancer strategy in Hong Kong. In addition to the secondary and tertiary services provided by HA, patients' return to the community upon recovery is also an important element to an effective treatment. Therefore, we will definitely allocate additional resources to taking proper measures in this respect. We have also noticed that a number of non-governmental organizations are providing this kind of services and treatments. We will definitely strengthen cooperation with them.
MRS REGINA IP (in Cantonese): President, the drugs for treatment of cancer or rare diseases developed by pharmaceutical companies in Europe and the United States are very costly. For instance, the drug, Spinraza, developed by pharmaceutical company Biogen required by the SMA (Spinal Muscular Atrophy) patient to whom the Chief Executive has offered help earlier on costs a few million dollars per dosage. How much will it cost HA to help so many patients suffering from cancer and rare diseases?
Nevertheless, I wonder if the Secretary has noticed the frequent reports carried by Bloomberg magazine in the United States recently on the remarkable advancements in biotechnology in the Mainland. Pharmaceutical companies Merck & Co. and Bristol-Myers Squibb from the United States are facing keen competition in the Mainland market due to the cancer drug, PD-1, developed in the Mainland. Moreover, pharmaceutical company AstraZeneca has invested in Mainland drug manufacturers to develop drugs for lowering cholesterol making use of traditional Chinese herbal medicine.
Drugs developed in the Mainland cost only about one third of that developed in Europe and the United States. Will the Secretary examine ways to simplify the procedures for vetting and approving drugs with a view to 11742 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 introducing more drugs from the Mainland, so that patients in Hong Kong may try them on a voluntary basis, at the very least, instead of being limited to expensive drugs from overseas?
President, I have to make a declaration, that I hold shares of the three pharmaceutical companies mentioned.
SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, I thank Mrs Regina IP for her views. As I have said earlier, HA has an established mechanism for procurement of drugs for cancer treatment. I agree with Mrs IP that the vetting and approval of drugs should be expedited. HA is accelerating the vetting and approval procedures by, for example, increasing the number of meetings held to examine scientific and clinical evidence annually. Also, analyses of clinical data of such kind of drugs have always been ongoing. We will definitely make efforts to this end.
HA's expert panel will keep in view the latest development of drugs, expedite the vetting and approval procedures and increase the number of drugs in the Drug Formulary. It will also study ways to enable the public to use drug at a sustainable cost through the Community Care Fund and the Samaritan Fund. We will proceed with our work in this direction.
PROF JOSEPH LEE (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary mentioned proton therapy and tumor treating fields therapy in the main reply, yet there is no plan to purchase the equipment at the moment. To my understanding, some private hospitals have already purchased such equipment and plan to put them into service by the end of this year. Since PPP programmes are already in place and that such equipment is not yet available in public hospitals, will the Administration consider expanding PPP programmes so that some cancer patients, such as children cancer patients, may benefit from the treatments early without having to use the costly service in private hospitals.
SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): I thank Prof Joseph LEE for his suggestion. Insofar as the suggestion on introducing proton therapy and tumor treating fields therapy is concerned, HA has been LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11743 keeping in view the technological advancement in this aspect. The expert panel that I mentioned just now will examine and review treatment options for patients as well as the scientific and clinical evidence required under the established mechanism. We understand that the technology of cancer treatment is developing rapidly. We have been keeping abreast of the development in this aspect, listening to the views of patient groups and examining the scientific evidence of relevant technology.
As regards expanding PPP programmes, I believe we must first understand the clinical needs of patients and relevant evidence, and then consider how to implement it. At present, some services are provided under PPP programmes. If other services are to be included, it is necessary to examine the feasibility and how public demand for health care services can be satisfied.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Fifth question.
Caring and Sharing Scheme
5. MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese): President, applications for the Caring and Sharing Scheme, under which each eligible member of the public will be granted up to $4,000, closed on 30 April. Last month, the Government indicated that the Working Family Allowance Office ("WFAO"), which is responsible for implementing the Scheme, had received about 3.44 million applications and issued to all applicants acknowledgements of their applications. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) as some members of the public have indicated that they have not yet received any acknowledgement, of the to-date number of members of the public who have indicated that they submitted an application but had yet to receive any acknowledgement;
(2) whether WFAO has uncovered any case of missing application forms; if so, of the number of forms involved and the causes for that, as well as the remedial measures put in place; if not, why some applicants have not received any acknowledgement; and
11744 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019
(3) of the current average number of applications that WFAO completes processing each day, and the expected date for completion of the processing of all the applications?
SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): President, the Caring and Sharing Scheme, announced by the Government last year, is implemented by the Working Family Allowance Office ("WFAO") of the Working Family and Student Financial Assistance Agency. Upon receiving the applications, WFAO will first enter the basic personal information of applicants for issuing an SMS message to acknowledge receipt. WFAO will then verify the applicants' information with relevant government departments, vet the applications against the eligibility criteria and disburse payments to successful applicants. As at yesterday, 25 June, WFAO has given bank instructions to disburse payments or encash cash cheques for more than 617 000 successful applications.
My consolidated reply to various parts of the main question is as follows:
WFAO has received about 7 000 enquiries concerning applicants not receiving the acknowledgement. According to the computer system records, WFAO confirms that about 10% of the cases are related to non-receipt of applications. WFAO will allow the applicants concerned to re-submit their applications.
WFAO issues acknowledgements to applicants based on the information entered. Applicants who have not yet received the acknowledgement after submission of the application form may make enquires with WFAO. For those applicants who have not received any acknowledgement, we found that some may have been caused by the provision of incomplete mobile phone numbers or residential addresses in the application forms and some may be attributable to inaccurate mobile phone numbers entered by WFAO's staff. When handling enquiries of those applicants who have not received any acknowledgement, WFAO's staff will verify all the relevant information with the applicants and make the necessary update to ensure that the applicants can be reached in future.
Currently, WFAO gives out bank instructions to disburse payments to about 28 000 successful applications on a daily basis. It is expected that with the completion of certain parts of the workflow, which would enable more flexible deployment of manpower, and with WFAO's staff becoming more LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11745 familiar with the workflow, the number of daily disbursements made will rise gradually. With the recent plan on re-arranged workflow, the latest aim of WFAO is to complete the processing of all applications by late September this year.
MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary's main reply states that the estimated target is to complete the procedures for the disbursement of $4,000 by late September this year. The cash handout has been going on for almost half a year. Members of the public are filled with grievances, considering the Government lousy even in making the cash disbursement. Meanwhile, there is hearsay about chaos within WFAO, with a surge in resignations and such news as missing application forms.
Given that even the disbursement to members of the public has caused loads of public grievances as it is carried out in such a confusing manner, may I ask the authorities whether apologies will be tended to members of the public?
SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): President, the so-called "cash handout" of the Caring and Sharing Scheme is a very complicated process per se, since many of the application forms processed by us were submitted by hand. Certainly, we also encourage applicants to submit applications online, but we see that most applications were submitted by hand. After the submission, in respect of the information provided by them, we need to check whether the properties they possess are for self-occupation. We also need to examine whether they are entitled to any waiver of rates and whether there is already any tax concession on their personal income. Hence, this is not merely a process of disbursement.
Moreover, as mentioned just now, we have to date received more than 3.44 million application forms and also many different telephone enquiries. Sometimes the applicants would call to make enquiries without checking their SMS messages, and sometimes, as mentioned in my main reply, they did not receive any SMS message because the phone number or other information is inaccurate. The relevant work is quite busy actually. For this reason, we have improved the handling procedures of the Caring and Sharing Scheme a number of times. The present aim has advanced the date of completion from late December, the original anticipated date, to late September this year.
11746 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019
In this exercise, we see that a lot of ineligible applicants have nonetheless submitted application forms. Perhaps they hold the attitude that there is no harm trying. This has made our workload even heavier, since we need to check and assess their applications all the same. We also need to verify their information with the Rating and Valuation Department and the Inland Revenue Department. Hence, the Government has exerted its utmost in this domain. As we can see, apart from its own staff, WFAO has also deployed various types of manpower. There are 700-odd workers in total processing the applications. We thus consider that the Government is making its best effort in undertaking this task.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr KWONG Chun-yu, which part of your supplementary question has not been answered?
MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary did not answer my question. My question is, as the Government has made such a mess of the cash handout, will it say sorry to members of the public? Will it apologize? President, my question is very clear.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, do you have anything to add?
SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): President, I have nothing to add.
MR POON SIU-PING (in Cantonese): The handout of this $4,000 has been confusing from application to disbursement. It is indeed disappointing. WFAO has received about 3.44 million applications, and now payments have been disbursed for only about 610 000 successful applications. In other words, now about 2.82 million people have still not received this sum of money. According to the Secretary's reply, currently, about 28 000 applications can be processed each day. Therefore, it will take at least some 100 days to complete all the work, though the goal has now been advanced to late September this year. I hope the target date will not be affected by bad weather, staff taking leave or manpower wastage during the process.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11747
Just now the Secretary mentioned that with more flexible deployment of WFAO's manpower and its staff becoming more familiar with the workflow, the number of disbursements made will rise gradually. May I ask the Secretary how the disbursements can be ensured to be completed on schedule? Will additional manpower be provided during this period to shorten the time required for completion of disbursements?
SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): President, as I mentioned just now, the total number of staff currently employed by WFAO is 700-odd, including about 290 employees on non-civil service contract terms. Besides, there are 190 workers employed on contract terms upon their retirement, and we have also hired about 180 workers through intermediaries. Hence, we have deployed as much manpower as possible on various fronts. To date, only about 40 workers have left. In our view, there is sufficient manpower to cope with the work.
President, as I mentioned just now, during vetting and approval, we often receive calls on our hotline from members of the public enquiring about the progress of disbursement of payments. Cases which are more complicated, such as the applicant being a property owner, also warrant our verification. After the preliminary work procedures have been completed one after another, we will be able to deploy more manpower to the disbursement of payments. Members are concerned whether we will be unable to achieve the goal of completion by late September owing to insufficient manpower. We do not think that will be the case.
Now we are doing our best to examine the work procedures and make time for earlier disbursement of payments to successful applicants. We believe this is a more secure approach. Therefore, we should be able to complete the processing of all the applications by late September.
MRS REGINA IP (in Cantonese): President, this time the Government hands out cash in such a complicated manner. Members of the public find it troubling. So do District Council members and community workers because this cash handout is a gap-closing measure. It is necessary to manually work out what tax concessions a couple is entitled to, how it is distributed, so on and so forth. 11748 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019
There is a host of work procedures. Consequently, this cash handout is particularly lousy. In comparison, the handout of $6,000 in 2011 in the John TSANG era was much simpler.
Will the Government, having learnt a lesson, hand out cash more generously right from the beginning when a surplus recorded in future? It can be regarded as giving red packets to members of the public. It will be simpler, and members of the public happier. The Government can save the administrative costs, while community workers can be spared so much hard work. Will the Secretary consider relaying it to the higher echelons in the Government?
SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): President, the suggestion made by the Honourable Member was certainly one of our options at that time. However, in formulating the relevant measures every year, we must take into account the prevailing situation of the Budget, as well as that of public finance, together with the focus of administration and social needs and aspirations. For this reason, during the formulation of the Budget last year, we made this arrangement after considering various factors.
Nevertheless, President, a point I wish to make is that the Caring and Sharing Scheme has always been a targeted measure. In the past, when we consulted different Members, there was the view that our beneficiaries should be targeted. Those who are already entitled to concessionary measures or have benefited in various aspects should not enjoy double benefits. Therefore, having considered various factors, we eventually put this scheme in place. However, we deeply appreciate Members' views. We will consider this kind of options in future.
IR DR LO WAI-KWOK (in Cantonese): President, regarding the work for the disbursement of $4,000 under the Caring and Sharing Scheme, our colleagues in the Business and Professionals Alliance for Hong Kong in the districts have received from members of the public quite a number of requests for assistance. They said that after submitting the applications, they wished to enquire with the authorities whether their applications had been received and what the status was, but they got no answer because they could not get through to the hotline.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11749
President, may I ask the Secretary whether the authorities, after noting such circumstances, will further enhance the support for members of the public in the whole exercise, such as providing additional enquiry hotlines, so that members of the public who have queries about this issue can immediately receive a reply no matter what questions they have?
SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): President, we understand Members' concern. Since applicants under the Caring and Sharing Scheme are indeed numerous, reaching some 3 million, we have especially set up a 24-hour hotline (3897 1088) to cater for the people's need of making enquires about this Scheme. We originally put in place 28 lines. Later, the number of lines was increased to 60 in response to the need. Calls which cannot get through would be forwarded to the voice mailbox for our follow-up.
Certainly, calls of enquires from the public can be handled. We understand that members of the public may feel upset if they cannot get through to the enquiry hotline. The daily number of enquiries received on this hotline consisting of 60 lines reached some 10 000 at the highest, and over the last two days, 6 000 to 7 000 enquiries were received each day. In fact, we have spared no effort in this aspect, and we are sorry for any inconvenience caused to members of the public. Now we have deployed more than 20 workers to answer phone calls and reply to emails. Hence, we will reduce the convenience to the public expeditiously.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Last oral question.
The environmental, social and governance performance of listed companies
6. MRS REGINA IP (in Cantonese): President, in recent years, investors have attached an increasing importance to the performance of enterprises in the "environmental, social and governance" ("ESG") aspects. It has been reported that MSCI and S&P Global Ratings have respectively introduced ESG Rating and ESG Evaluation, and have included ESG criteria in assessing enterprises' credit worthiness. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
11750 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019
(1) whether it will urge the relevant institutions to expeditiously introduce ESG indices or ESG evaluations of listed companies, so as to keep up with the global trend; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
(2) of the specific measures in place to encourage listed companies to enhance their ESG performance, and to verify how credible the ESG information disclosed by listed companies is; and
(3) whether it will request the regulatory bodies to reprimand those listed companies with persistently poor ESG performance and take actions against them; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): President, in recent years, enterprises and investors around the world have attached increasing importance to enterprises' standards on environmental protection, social responsibility and corporate governance (hereafter referred to as "ESG"). They acknowledge that they should properly address the enterprises' risks and opportunities in these aspects in order to enhance their overall operation and performance.
As an international financial centre, Hong Kong has always closely followed the development of the international standards and requirements on the enterprises' ESG aspects. We are committed to encouraging enterprises to enhance their work in these aspects and expect to elevate the level of their work in these aspects through setting relevant disclosure requirements on ESG aspects for listed companies. Among them, the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong ("SEHK") published the Environmental, Social and Governance Reporting Guide ("ESG Reporting Guide") as early as in 2013 to provide a reporting framework for listed companies and to require them to report on their work in ESG aspects annually. SEHK has been reviewing and revising ESG Reporting Guide from time to time over the past few years in light of market development in order to enhance the level of ESG reports of the listed companies.
In May this year, SEHK published a consultation paper on the review of ESG Reporting Guide and the relevant Listing Rules, and proposed further enhancement to ESG reporting obligations of listed companies. In addition, the Securities and Futures Commission ("SFC") announced its Strategic Framework LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11751 for Green Finance in September 2018 to explore more diversified green investment opportunities by enhancing the consistency and comparability of the ESG information disclosed by listed companies.
Our response to the three parts of the question is as follows:
(1) As more and more investors are attaching importance to the performance of listed companies in ESG aspects, we understand that index compilers and rating agencies around the world have launched evaluation indices in these aspects. In Hong Kong, Hang Seng Indexes Company Limited ("HSIL") has launched the Hang Seng Corporate Sustainability Index Series since July 2010 and launched the HSI ESG Index on 14 May 2019. The HSI ESG Index makes reference to the results of the Hong Kong Quality Assurance Agency's ("HKQAA") sustainability rating of listed companies to determine their index weighting. It helps provide investors with a benchmark and facilitates them to invest in listed companies with good ESG performance. HKQAA's sustainability rating for listed companies is measured by making reference to the company's performance in seven core subjects, including corporate governance, environment, community involvement and development, consumer issues, etc. Every assessed eligible company will receive a score (0 to 100) and rating (D to AAA) to reflect its overall performance.
The Government will continue to require listed companies to make more comprehensive disclosures in ESG aspects through the requirements as imposed by SEHK to allow investors and other institutions to have a more objective and accurate basis to assess the performance of listed companies in these aspects.
(2) SEHK has been pursuing the objective of enhancing the performance of listed companies in ESG aspects by requiring them to disclose the extent of their work. The consultation paper published by SEHK just in May also continues to encourage and require listed companies to improve their performance in these aspects along the same direction.
11752 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019
The Listing Rules require listed companies to ensure the accuracy of the information they disclose (including ESG reports). Otherwise, the relevant listed companies will be regarded as having breached the general disclosure obligation of the Listing Rules and may be subject to disciplinary actions such as public reprimand, suspension of trading, delisting, etc. SEHK will conduct spot check on the listed companies' ESG Reports to understand the compliance situation of the listed companies. It will also publish reports to provide guidance on the areas that the companies have fallen short of the requirements. In addition, SEHK also proposed in the consultation paper published in May this year to amend ESG Reporting Guide to encourage listed companies to seek independent verification of their ESG Reports with a view to enhancing the credibility of ESG information disclosed.
In addition to compiling ESG Reporting Guide, SEHK provides e-training to listed companies to help them understand the role of the company's leadership in ESG work, the importance of ESG Reports, ways to prepare proper reports, etc. This will help listed companies improve their ESG work.
(3) The Listing Rules require listed companies to publish ESG Reports in accordance with the requirements in ESG Reporting Guide. Under the current system, SEHK and the regulators will not penalize the listed companies in respect of their performance under the subject areas and the key performance indicators ("KPIs") of ESG Reporting Guide. However, listed companies must ensure the accuracy of the information stated in the report. Otherwise, they will be regarded as having breached the general disclosure obligation of the Listing Rules and may be subject to the relevant disciplinary actions (such as public reprimand, suspension of trading, delisting, etc.) We understand that overseas markets currently do not have mechanism to reprimand listed companies for their poor performance in their ESG work. Investors can base on the information disclosed by listed companies and make reference to the ratings as provided by the relevant rating agencies or index compilers to make their investment decisions.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11753
MRS REGINA IP (in Cantonese): President, in fact, to my understanding, Standard & Poor's ("S&P") office in London, for example, has developed a rating tool and there are ample manpower and a professional team to compile ESG rating (credit rating) for enterprises in each industry, whether they are listed or not, and the ESG ratings would affect their credit ratings as well. When such a credit rating is published and if the performance of the enterprise in the ESG rating is poor … Due to the wide gap between the rich and the poor in Western countries nowadays, there are a lot of opinions suggesting that governments should advocate enlightened capitalism, therefore, an enterprise may face regulatory risks if it performs poorly in its ESG rating.
Against this background, will the Secretary remind SEHK to make regulations requiring listed companies to disclose their ESG ratings and if their credit ratings are downgraded after Morgan Stanley and S&P have completed compiling their ESG ratings, and remind investors of the possible risks they may encounter in making investments, and that they must consider the ESG performance of an enterprise before investing in it?
SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): President, as I have mentioned just now, the approach adopted by the Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited ("HKEx") is to cooperate with HSIL, as well as compiling sustainability ratings in collaboration with HKQAA.
Why have we not adopted the ratings compiled by several companies such as S&P, MSCI or FTSE Russell right away? It is because we believe that the seven core subjects adopted in Hong Kong can measure the performance of an enterprise in seven aspects, which would render the results more comprehensive. Let me repeat the seven aspects, namely corporate governance, human rights, labour practices, the environment, fair operating practices, consumer issues as well as community involvement and development. We came up with these seven subjects after drawing reference from the various recent concerns in respect of ESG.
The three rating agencies or index compilers that I mentioned earlier in fact conduct evaluations on the ESG performance of an enterprise by different approaches, and the coverage is different as well. For instance, S&P has incorporated cyber security as an element of governance, but MSCI and FTSE Russell have not included such a subject. Therefore, we can see that rating 11754 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 agencies and index compilers would compile ratings according to their respective views, and adopt different approaches to incorporate ESG rating as a factor of consideration when compiling their ratings.
Therefore, we currently hold that it is appropriate of HKEx to formulate the existing ratings by drawing reference from the data furnished by HKQAA. Of course, we will continue to observe the development of the ESG indices of other rating agencies in the future, as well as the level of acceptance by investors, and then we will study whether it is necessary to consider taking some regulatory actions (i.e. actions taken by regulatory authorities) as suggested by Mrs IP. Presently, we mainly adopt a disclosure system, under which there is no regulatory action or punishment, and our major concern centres on whether the information disclosed is true. Yet, in the long term, we will keep in view the future development of the ESG indices formulated by these index compilers in various areas.
MR MARTIN LIAO (in Cantonese): President, HKEx has, since 2016, required listed companies to publish ESG reports on an annual basis, but quite a number of enterprises only regard it as a matter of routine and they only seek to meet the minimum compliance requirements. As a result, the quality of these reports varies greatly, and it may not be possible for enterprises to make appropriate disclosures on the ESG risks and opportunities that they face, as well as the ways to deal with them from a strategic perspective.
SEHK issued a consultation document on ESG Reporting Guide some time ago, recommending that enterprises should be required to report on the supervision, management approach and strategy, etc. of their board of directors in respect of ESG matters, as well as conducting an evaluation of the importance of ESG issues. Despite these requirements, the quality of the ESG reports of listed companies still varies greatly, which is probably related to the resources of the enterprises, as small and medium enterprises ("SMEs") may only have very limited resources.
In this connection, may I ask the Government through the President whether it will consider developing a database on environmental and social information, such as climate-related data or scenario analyses, and make it available for access by enterprises such that SMEs with inadequate resources can make evaluations of their ESG risks and opportunities more conveniently, with a view to reducing their costs of reporting?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11755
SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): President, we understand that Members are concerned about the disclosure standard of enterprises, or whether they are prudent when making disclosures.
First of all, SEHK has, in this consultation exercise, specifically strengthened regulations in this aspect and made five recommendations: First, introducing mandatory disclosure requirements under which companies must disclose the supervision of ESG matters. Second, introducing disclosure obligation on the aspect of climate change. Third, upgrading the disclosure obligation in respect of "social" from "recommended disclosures" at present to "comply or explain" to strengthen the requirements of the board of directors of the companies by requiring them to comply with the disclosure requirements set out in ESG Reporting Guide. Fourth, revising the Social KPIs. Fifth, stating in the Guide that issuers may seek independent assurance.
We will examine the matters relating to information as raised by Mr LIAO, such as whether climatic information can be provided. Hong Kong is now developing into a smart city, and the Chief Executive has also mentioned that we have already made a lot of efforts in respect of access to information. We will follow up on the recommendations in this respect.
MR CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, SEHK has in fact drawn up regulations relating to ESG, but listed companies merely need to fill out a form to complete the ESG procedures. If the Government now mandates all listed companies to comply with the ESG regulations in a serious manner, this may exert greater pressure on SMEs. In this connection, what is the advice of the Government or SEHK, and will subsidies be provided for them to complete the ESG procedures?
SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): President, we understand the difficulties in filling out the relevant forms or preparing the disclosure reports as mentioned by Mr CHEUNG, especially those faced by SMEs. In fact, we are also aware that the relevant report is not in the form of the so-called "tick box" (ticking some options), so companies must make an effort at giving an account of their work in this respect. 11756 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019
The consultation document issued by SEHK has set out some recommendations on reform and enhancement. We will liaise with SEHK and advise them to organize more seminars or provide more relevant information to assist enterprises―especially SMEs―in making disclosures which are more meaningful and in compliance with the requirements when filling out the forms.
MR CHAN CHUN-YING (in Cantonese): President, in order for listed companies to have concern for their ESG performance, ESG must be linked up with investors' investment sentiments. In other words, if good ESG performance would lead to a rise in the share price, more investors will be willing to buy the shares of that company.
The Secretary mentioned in part (1) of the main reply that the HSI ESG Index was launched in May this year, so there is a benchmark indicator at present. Will the Administration consider requesting SEHK to prescribe the format of disclosure under which listed companies are required to list their ESG rating and share price performance? This will enable investors to figure out the relationship between the two more easily and enable them to make smart investment choices, whereas listed companies will also attach greater importance to their ESG ratings. While some institutions are conducting such analyses, the public is unable to obtain such information. I believe it will be enormously helpful if SEHK can provide such information for reference by the public on its website or through other means.
SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): President, we are aware of the issues relating to the transparency of disclosure. At present, HKQAA would pass its ratings to HSIL after compilation. On the other hand, as regards the recommendation on online disclosure, we will collaborate with SEHK to study how best the transparency in this respect can be enhanced.
MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, it is a piece of good news that the Department of State of the United States has upgraded Hong Kong's human trafficking rating from Tier 2 Watch List to Tier 2 last week. Yet, I can see from the consultation document on the Listing Rules that the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11757 recommendations on "supply chain management" are actually very vague. Could the Administration request SEHK to formulate more detailed disclosure requirements in respect of child labour, illegal workers and bonded labour?
SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): President, SEHK recommended in its consultation document published in May this year that the item "Description of measures to review employment practices to avoid child and forced labour" be revised from "recommended disclosures" to "comply or explain". In this regard, we will liaise with SEHK to examine whether the guidelines in this respect contain sufficiently detailed information so as to address more properly the concerns about child labour and forced labour.
MS ALICE MAK (in Cantonese): President, the practices of listed companies like the Link Real Estate Investment Trust ("Link REIT") have long been criticized by society. The operators of small shops in housing estates have been driven away by rent hikes, whereas members of the public cannot find daily necessities in these estates, and thus an array of problems has arisen. Yet, as Mr Christopher CHEUNG said a moment ago, listed companies can complete the ESG procedures by merely filling out a form. Has the Government considered ensuring, through some measures, that listed companies will earnestly fulfil their corporate social responsibilities instead of just making empty talk and regarding it as some sort of public relations tactics or superficial acts? Are there any means to make these companies take actions instead of ignoring their social responsibilities on the excuse that they have to have regard for the interests of minority shareholders on each and every occasion?
SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): President, we understand that a number of Members have mentioned in the legislature the social responsibilities of companies in the form of real estate investment trusts ("REITs")―particularly Link REIT―on different occasions. The legislature has also discussed matters in this aspect for many times in the past. Our consideration is that the social responsibilities of listed companies depend on the nature of the industry to which they belong. For instance, power companies and energy companies would discharge their social responsibilities particularly in certain aspects, such as making some special efforts in relation to the environment and governance. Nevertheless, under the existing regulatory framework, REITs mainly have to comply with the Code on Real Estate 11758 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019
Investment Trusts ("the Code"). The regulatory angle of the Code is based on the perspective of investment, which means that REITs are regarded as a type of investment product. As a result, the management structure, investment scope and even social responsibilities, etc. of REITs are evaluated from the angle of treating them as a vehicle for investment. Such being the case, we need to review the issue of social responsibilities raised by Members separately, as SFC is not empowered to interfere with the commercial decisions or acts of REITs under the Code.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Oral questions end here.
WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
Road safety involving crane lorries
7. IR DR LO WAI-KWOK (in Chinese): President, it has been reported that on the 16th of last month, the crane of a crane lorry running on the road in the Western District hooked and damaged an overhead cable of the tramway system, allegedly because the crane had not been folded properly. As a result, the tram service at the road section concerned was suspended for works personnel to repair the cable. Regarding road safety involving crane lorries, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the number of traffic accidents caused by cranes of crane lorries not folded properly and the resultant casualties, in each of the past five years;
(2) whether it reviewed and improved, in the past three years, the measures regulating the operation of crane lorries, such as raising the penalties for contravening the work safety requirements; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and
(3) whether it will discuss with members of the relevant trades ways to improve the design of crane lorries and the operational guidelines as well as enhance the training for the operators in relation to safe work practices, so as to avoid the occurrence of similar kind of accidents; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11759
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Chinese): President, my reply to the various parts of Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok's question is as follows:
(1) According to the records of the Transport Department ("TD"), during the period from January 2014 to May 2019, there were two cases of traffic accidents involving crane lorries with cranes not properly folded. One of the cases occurred in 2015 causing minor injury to a passenger, and the other occurred in 2018 causing serious injury to a driver of a crane lorry. TD does not maintain records of traffic accidents not involving casualties.
(2) and (3)
At present, the Government has put in place appropriate regulations regarding the safety requirements for crane lorries running on roads. All commercial vehicles (including crane lorries) running on roads must undergo and pass vehicle examination prior to first registration and annually thereafter in order to ensure that the vehicles are roadworthy and all on-board mobile industrial equipment is securely installed. As stipulated under regulation 6 of the Road Traffic (Construction and Maintenance of Vehicles) Regulations (Cap. 374A), the overall height of a crane lorry (including the load and equipment it carries) must not exceed 4.6 m when running on roads. Also, when a crane lorry is operated in an industrial undertaking, the crane operator must comply with the training and qualification requirements as stipulated under the Factories and Industrial Undertakings Ordinance (Cap. 59) for protection of safety of the workers.
Separately, regulation 58 of the Road Traffic (Traffic Control) Regulations (Cap. 374G) provides that the driver of a motor vehicle on a road shall ensure that the motor vehicle, all its parts and accessories, and its load shall be such that no danger is caused or is likely to be caused to any person; or no damage is caused or is likely to be caused to a road or to public or private property. Otherwise, the driver commits an offence, and is liable to a fine of $5,000 and imprisonment for three months on first conviction.
11760 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019
TD has also prescribed the Code of Practice for the Loading of Vehicles, which reminds crane operators to have the crane lowered and returned to its stowed position after operating the crane attached to the vehicle. The Code of Practice also recommends the installation of warning systems on vehicles to alert drivers if the cranes are out of their stowed position when the vehicles are in motion. TD will continue its publicity and education efforts to remind crane lorry owners, drivers and crane operators to take greater heed of and observe the safety regulations on the use of lorries running on roads. TD will also seek to raise the trade's awareness of safe driving of crane lorries through its regular meeting with the goods vehicle trade and publication of the Goods Vehicle Trade Newsletter.
The Government will continue to monitor the safety of crane lorries running on roads with a view to examining the need to strengthen regulation in a timely manner.
Supply of water to Hong Kong
8. MR LAU KWOK-FAN (in Chinese): President, the new agreement on the supply of Dongjiang ("DJ") water to Hong Kong from 2018 to 2020, signed by the Government and the Guangdong provincial authorities in December 2017, continues to adopt the "package deal lump sum" approach in calculating water prices. However, both parties have agreed to conduct a review of the future payment approach for water supply. In addition, it has been reported that the Pearl River Delta Water Resources Allocation Project (commonly known as the "West to East Water Diversion Project") commenced last month and is expected to be completed in 2024. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it has started discussing with the Mainland authorities the arrangements for making Xijiang water a backup supply for Hong Kong; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
(2) given that the quality standard of DJ water supplied to Hong Kong is in compliance with Type II waters in the Environmental Quality Standards for Surface Water (GB3838-2002), which is the highest LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11761
national standard for surface water quality applicable for the abstraction for human consumption, and the quality standard of Xijiang water supplied to Macao from 2014 to 2016 was in compliance with the national standard at a grade lower (i.e. Type III waters), whether the Government has conducted studies and made preparation in this regard to ensure that the quality of Xijiang water to be supplied to Hong Kong meets the highest standard; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and
(3) of the details, specific timetable and progress in respect of the review of the payment approach for DJ water; as the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong has suggested switching to the adoption of a combined payment approach for the purpose of securing stable water supply and reasonable charges, whether the Government has assessed if Xijiang water as a backup supply may provide a better assurance for water supply, so that the feasibility of adopting a combined payment approach is enhanced; if it has conducted such an assessment and the outcome is in the affirmative, whether the Government will discuss with the Guangdong provincial authorities the adoption of a combined payment approach?
SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Chinese): President, in all the Dongjiang water supply agreements signed with the Guangdong authorities since 2006, the "package deal lump sum" approach has been adopted to ensure reliable and flexible supply of Dongjiang water to Hong Kong. As Hong Kong's fresh water resources come from local yield and Dongjiang water, the "package deal lump sum" approach allows us to import Dongjiang water as needed based on the actual local yield and up to an annual supply ceiling specified in the supply agreements. This not only ensures adequate water supply for Hong Kong under the drought condition with a return period of 1 in 100 years, but also avoids wastage of the Dongjiang water resources and saves related operating costs when more local yield is available in a particular year. Nevertheless, given the "package deal lump sum" approach has been adopted for more than 10 years, it is considered an appropriate time to review the payment approach. To this end, we set up a working group with the Guangdong authorities in August 2017 to take forward the review on the "package deal lump sum" payment approach.
11762 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019
Moreover, since the water resource utilization rate of Dongjiang has already reached a level very close to its exploitation limit, the Pearl River Delta Water Resources Allocation Project is to divert water from Xijiang to the eastern part of the Pearl River Delta (including Guangzhou Nansha, Shenzhen and Dongguan) to alleviate the pressure of demand for Dongjiang water in those areas. At the same time, the Project will provide an opportunity for the provision of emergency backup to areas including Hong Kong, Panyu, Shunde to further safeguard the reliability of water supply in these areas.
The responses to Mr LAU's three queries are as follows:
(1) The Pearl River Delta Water Resources Allocation Project will provide an opportunity for the provision of emergency backup to the Dongjiang water imported to Hong Kong. As the works of the Project have just started, details of the emergency backup arrangements have not yet been worked out by the Guangdong authorities. We will follow up with the Water Resources Department of Guangdong Province on the related arrangements in due course.
(2) The Pearl River Delta Water Resources Allocation Project takes water from the main branch of Xijiang at Liyuzhou in Shunde district of Foshan, which is different from the location where Macao takes water from Xijiang. Based on our understanding, the quality of the water near the water intake point at Liyuzhou meets the Type II waters in the "Environmental Quality Standards for Surface Water (GB3838-2002)" (i.e. the highest national standard for surface water applicable for the abstraction for human consumption) which is the same as the water quality standard of Dongjiang water specified in Dongjiang water supply agreements.
(3) A working group has been set up with the Guangdong authorities for reviewing the "package deal lump sum" payment approach. Apart from reviewing the existing "package deal lump sum" payment approach, the review will explore other payment approaches. As the review is still ongoing, it is premature to disclose the details at this stage. However, no matter which payment approach is to be adopted, we will ensure that it will not affect the reliability of water supply to Hong Kong. We will strive to complete the review before the negotiation of the next supply agreement in 2020.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11763
Air quality in train compartments and railway stations
9. MR CHAN KIN-POR (in Chinese): President, railway is a major mode of public transport used by members of the public on a long-term basis. The findings of a research conducted by a university, which were published last year, showed that (i) when train doors opened, the concentrations of fine suspended particulates at the door-side surged, and (ii) those particulates contained metals which, after being breathed into the lungs, might cause respiratory and cardiovascular diseases, and even lung cancer. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it knows the timetable for and other details of the regular tests currently carried out by the MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL") on the air quality of train compartments and railway stations, and the latest concentration levels of air pollutants obtained from such tests;
(2) whether it knows if MTRCL conducted any study in the past three years on ways to reduce the concentration levels of air pollutants in train compartments and railway stations; if MTRCL did, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and
(3) given that MTRCL currently monitors the air quality in railway facilities according to the Practice Note for Managing Air Quality in Air-conditioned Public Transport Facilities: Railways published in 2003 by the Environmental Protection Department ("EPD"), whether EPD has updated the Practice Note since 2003; if not, when EPD will update the Practice Note?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Chinese): President, having consulted the Environmental Protection Department ("EPD") and the MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL"), my reply to Mr CHAN Kin-por's question is as follows:
(1) and (2)
In 2003, EPD issued the "Practice Note for Managing Air Quality in Air-conditioned Public Transport Facilities―Railways (Practice Note 2/03)" ("Practice Note") to assist railway service providers in 11764 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019
monitoring and managing air quality in railway facilities. According to the Practice Note, railway service providers should ensure ventilation of its railway facilities in order to achieve and maintain a good air quality. Carbon dioxide is the monitoring indicator of the effectiveness of ventilation system. Moreover, railway service providers should establish a framework and action plan to achieve and maintain a good indoor air quality in their facilities.
As railway service providers, MTRCL has all along complied with the Practice Note in managing the air quality of its facilities, providing a safe and comfortable environment for passengers travelling on and waiting for MTR trains. Specifically, MTR stations and train compartments are equipped with ventilation systems and air filters, bringing in outdoor fresh air to stations and train compartments to improve ventilation. MTRCL also regularly arranges for cleansing or replacement of ventilation system filters and air-conditioning systems so as to maintain a good indoor air quality.
As regards to monitoring, MTRCL, in accordance with Practice Note, has been conducting regular checking of the air quality of train compartments and all train stations at least once a year, in order to monitor the air quality of its facilities. Meanwhile, MTRCL also conducts checking on its railway facilities (including new stations and trains, relevant facilities and locations of public concern) as and when necessary. Based on the results of the relevant checking, in 2018, the air quality of MTR trains compartments and all stations reached Level 1, the highest level representing good air quality under the Practice Note, which means that the hourly average concentration of carbon dioxide is below 2 500 ppm (4 500 mg/m³). This indicates that MTR train compartments and stations are adequately ventilated and the air quality therein is good.
MTRCL will continue its work in managing and monitoring air quality. It welcomes views from the Government, the trades, other professional bodies and the public in this respect, and will continue to strive to provide a good indoor air quality and safe and comfortable environment for passengers travelling on MTR trains.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11765
(3) According to EPD, it is studying the latest developments of various countries on the management of indoor air quality of transport facilities, with a view to reviewing whether the Practice Note requires any updating.
Minimum income requirement for applicants of subsidized sale housing
10. MS ALICE MAK (in Chinese): President, the subsidized sale flats ("SSFs") put up for sale in recent years have met with overwhelming responses, with oversubscriptions easily reaching dozens of times. As no minimum income requirement has been set in the relevant eligibility criteria, some members of the public have applied for purchasing SSFs in the names of their family members who have no income (e.g. children who have just reached the age of 18 and are students) in order to increase their chances of success in the ballots. However, such "buyers" simply are unable to make the down payments nor repay the mortgage loans by themselves. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the median monthly household income of the applicants in each sale exercise for the Home Ownership Scheme ("HOS") flats in the past three years;
(2) of the number of HOS flats sold in each of the past three years, and set out (i) a breakdown by the group to which the monthly household income of the buyers belonged (as set out in the table below) and (ii) the corresponding percentages;
Monthly household income 2016 2017 2018 ($) (i) (ii) (i) (ii) (i) (ii) 5,000 or below 5,001 to 10,000 10,001 to 20,000 20,001 to 30,000 30,001 to 40,000 40,001 to 50,000 50,001 or above Total: 100% 100% 100%
11766 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019
(3) whether it knows, among the buyers in each sale exercise since 2014 for flats under HOS, the Green Form Subsidized Home Ownership Scheme and the White Form Secondary Market Scheme, the respective numbers of those whose mortgage loan agreements contained mortgage guarantors;
(4) as the Hong Kong Housing Authority ("HA") provides mortgage default guarantee to financial institutions with whom HA has entered into a Deed of Guarantee so that they can offer more favourable mortgage terms to SSF buyers (e.g. a mortgage loan-to-value ratio of 90% or above), whether the Government has assessed the financial risks posed to HA by the situation that some buyers are unable to repay mortgage loans by themselves; if so, of the outcome; if not, whether it will conduct such an assessment; and
(5) whether it will tighten the eligibility criteria for SSFs by setting a minimum income requirement, so as to ensure that the buyers are able to repay mortgage loans by themselves?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Chinese): President, my response to the question raised by Ms Alice MAK is as follows:
(1) and (2)
In the past three years, the number of Home Ownership Scheme ("HOS") flats sold by the Hong Kong Housing Authority ("HA") was as follows:
Number of flats sold Sale of HOS Flats 2016 2 657 Sale of HOS Flats 2017 2 120* Sale of HOS Flats 2018 4 431
Note:
* Including 63 HOS flats in 2014 for resale
Source: HA's administrative records
Since the Sale of HOS Flats 2017, the survey conducted by HA after each pre-sale of HOS flats covers information on the monthly household income and planned financial arrangements of successful LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11767
buyers. According to the Major findings of the Survey on Applicants of the Sale of HOS Flats 2017,(1) the distribution of monthly household income of successful buyers is as follows:
Monthly household income Buyers of the Sale of HOS Flats 2017* < $20,000 13% $20,000-< $30,000 23% $30,000-< $40,000 31% $40,000-< $50,000 22% ≥ $50,000 11% Total 100% Median $30,000
Note:
* Including White Form and Green Form buyers
Source: HA's Major findings of the Survey on Applicants of the Sale of HOS Flats 2017
Since flat selection of the Sale of HOS Flats 2018 just completed in May 2019, the survey on HOS applicants has yet to start.
(3) and (4)
In order to assist the purchasers of subsidized sale flats ("SSFs") in obtaining favourable mortgage loan,(2) HA will provide mortgage default guarantee to participating banks or financial institutions.
(1) Details can be found in HA's Subsidised Housing Committee paper no. 69/2018
(2) Some of the mortgage terms are as follows:
(a) loan amount: for HOS and the Green Form Subsidised Home Ownership Scheme, the maximum loan amount may not exceed the balance of the purchase price after deposit; for the White Form Secondary Market Scheme, the maximum loan amount may not exceed 90% of the purchase price or the assessed value, whichever is less;
(b) repayment period: maximum of 25 years; and
(c) interest rate: the maximum interest rate shall not exceed the Best Lending Rate quoted by the bank or financial institution concerned minus 0.5% per annum. 11768 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019
Under the Deed of Guarantee executed by both parties, banks or financial institutions shall not require the purchasers to provide other security.
Banks or financial institutions shall exercise due prudence when approving the purchaser's mortgage application pursuant to their commercial operating principles. Accordingly, the Deed of Guarantee stipulates that banks or financial institutions are entitled on prudential grounds to refuse to provide finance to any purchaser. We understand that banks or financial institutions will take into account all relevant factors, including the applicant's financial position, past credit data and the condition of the property, etc., in vetting mortgage applications.
Besides, if an owner, who has mortgaged SSF purchased to a bank or financial institution that has entered into a Deed of Guarantee with HA, defaults on mortgage payments before paying off the mortgage loan, the bank or financial institution is required to exhaust all its remedies which includes seeking repayment from the owner and selling the flat before it is entitled to make a claim for payment under the Deed of Guarantee. The guarantee provided by HA is a deficiency guarantee, meaning that should the sale proceeds of the flat fail to cover the full outstanding balance of the mortgage and all the interest, legal costs, administration fees, etc. payable under the mortgage, HA shall then pay the arrears to the bank or financial institution. HA will subsequently seek to recover such payments and interest from the owner.
In addition, HA's Application Guides for SSFs also require purchasers to assess their own financial capability and eligibility for mortgage before proceeding with the purchasing formalities.
(5) The Deed of Guarantee executed by HA and banks or financial institutions has already provided a mechanism to minimize HA's financial risk. In fact, when HA's Subsidised Housing Committee ("SHC") discussed the proposed income and asset limits for White Form applicants for the Sale of HOS Flats 2014(3) at its meeting of
(3) Details can be found in HA's Subsidised Housing Committee paper no. 66/2014
10 November 2014, it also deliberated on whether a minimum income/asset level should be imposed on White Form applicants. SHC took the view that such minimum level should not be imposed for the following considerations:
(i) Imposing a minimum income/asset level may inadvertently affect those with genuine need to purchase HOS flats. Specifically, those with income and asset below the minimum levels will become ineligible for HOS, even if they may have other means to help finance the purchase;
(ii) Since the launch of HOS, it has been a practice for HA to allow HOS buyers to accept financial support from family members/friends. In fact, according to the Major findings of the Survey on Applicants of the Sale of HOS Flats 2017, about 22% of buyers intended to get financial support from parents, while 11% of buyers planned to get financial support from friends/relatives and children respectively to finance their mortgage down payment;(4)
(iii) In Hong Kong, obtaining financial assistance from families/friends for home purchase is a very common arrangement and is generally accepted by the public. Some young people may have difficulties saving sufficient money on their own for the down payment of private flats particularly when property prices are relatively high; and
(iv) Green Form applicants for HOS may also have very low income/asset levels. Therefore, if we only impose a minimum income/asset level on White Form applicants, there may be criticisms from White Form applicants. Such criticisms are expected to be particularly strong among young people who have difficulties buying properties under the current market conditions.
(4) Interviewees were allowed to choose more than one source of funding. 11770 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019
Regulation of person-to-person telemarketing calls
11. MR SHIU KA-FAI (in Chinese): President, the Unsolicited Electronic Messages Ordinance (Cap. 593) implemented since December 2007 regulates the sending of commercial electronic messages, but it is not applicable to person-to-person ("P2P") telemarketing calls. Last year, the Government proposed to bring such calls within the ambit of the Ordinance and establish a do-not-call register ("the Register") for such calls. Under the proposed regulatory arrangement, no person shall make telemarketing calls to those telephone numbers on the Register, unless the caller has obtained prior consent from the recipient. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) given that during the time when the relevant bill was scrutinized by this Council in 2007, Hon WONG Ting-kwong had proposed Committee Stage amendments ("CSAs") to bring P2P telemarketing calls under regulation, with an exemption for those telemarketing calls to persons made pursuant to a previous or current business or client relationship (but the CSAs concerned were not incorporated into Cap. 593), and recently the Government has indicated, in reply to my enquiries, that the proposed regulatory arrangement will be similar to the concept of the CSAs proposed by that Member back then, whether the Government can confirm if the proposed regulatory arrangement will include this exemption;
(2) as Cap. 593 provides that "consent" means (a) express consent or (b) consent that can reasonably be inferred from the conduct of the individual or organization concerned, and the Government has indicated that it will, by making reference to such meaning, define the "consent" under the proposed regulatory arrangement, whether the Government has studied if it can be inferred from a person's conduct of giving out business cards on social occasions that the person has given consent to the recipients of the business cards to make telephone calls to that person in future to introduce products or services;
(3) given that the listing of telephone numbers on the Register will take effect 10 working days after registration, and that companies will have to arrange manpower to check regularly (say, weekly) the telephone numbers of existing and potential clients against those in LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11771
the Register, so as to avoid breaching the law by mistakenly calling a telephone number on the Register, whether the Government has assessed: (i) the obstacles to economic activities that will be caused by such checking work, and (ii) the manpower and time to be spent on performing such work weekly by companies which have hundreds or thousands of telephone numbers of existing and potential clients; if it has assessed, of the outcome; if not, whether it will conduct such an assessment expeditiously;
(4) of the measures to be put in place for alleviating the compliance costs for micro, small and medium enterprises to be brought about by the implementation of the proposed regulatory arrangement; and
(5) as there are views that the proposed regulatory arrangement cannot eradicate telemarketing calls from overseas and those pretended to have come from legitimate financial institutions, whether the Government has assessed if adopting non-legislative approaches, such as promoting the use of call-filtering applications and educating the public on how to handle telemarketing calls, will be more effective than enacting legislation; if it has not assessed, of the reasons for that?
SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Chinese): President, in recent years, person-to-person telemarketing calls ("P2P calls") have caused nuisance to many members of the public. There are growing demands for strengthening the regulation of such calls. Based on the views collected in a public consultation conducted by the Government in mid-2017 and further to the discussions at the relevant Panels of the Legislative Council, the Government proposes to regulate P2P calls by legislation through amending the Unsolicited Electronic Messages Ordinance (Cap. 593) ("UEMO"). The Government is now drafting the legislative provisions. We will maintain close contact with the industries, with a view to striking a balance between minimizing nuisances caused by P2P calls and reducing compliance cost of the trade.
Our reply to the various parts of the question is as follows:
(1) The existing UEMO aims to, through an "opt-out" arrangement supported by do-not-call registers, allow members of the public to avoid nuisances by opting for not receiving unsolicited electronic 11772 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019
messages ("UEMs"). Nevertheless, for a user who has not registered with the do-not-call registers or has not clearly indicated his intention not to receive such messages, the trade can still send marketing messages to such user provided that certain requirements (e.g. provision of sender identity) have been complied with.
Moreover, Schedule 1 to UEMO exempts certain types of ordinary business communications, such as information relating to product maintenance or updating, information relating to business transactions agreed between a recipient and a sender, employment-related information, etc. A sender may send such messages without the need to obtain the recipient's prior consent. We propose that the future legislative framework for regulating P2P calls, sharing similar nature with electronic messages, should adopt the same principles in regulating P2P calls.
In other words, if a phone user has given consent for receiving marketing calls from a certain marketer, that marketer may make calls to that phone user regardless of whether the latter is the marketer's current or previous client, or whether the latter has already registered her/his phone number with the Register.
(2) Making reference to the practice of regulating UEMs under the existing UEMO, whether exchanging contact information or giving out business cards on social occasions constitutes "consent" depends on whether the concerned recipient has indicated agreement (either express consent or consent inferred from conduct) to receive P2P calls from the concerned organization during the process of exchanging contact information or business cards.
(3) and (4)
The Government's objective of regulating P2P calls by legislation is to provide an option to members of the public who would like to avoid nuisances by not receiving such calls. To users who are willing to receive such calls, the trade may still make marketing calls to them as long as certain basic requirements have been complied with. We note that some trade sectors have established their own Codes of Practice on Person-to-Person Marketing Calls and requested members of their respective sectors to comply with.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11773
We understand that the establishment of the Register may increase operational cost of the trade, and may also bring certain impact on the mode of operation. The trade may also need some time to adapt during the early stage of implementation. In drafting the Bill, the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau will engage the trade, with a view to striking a balance between concerns of the trade and the public interest. Moreover, with reference to the arrangements for regulating UEMs under the existing UEMO, if the bill is passed, the Government will formulate codes of practice to provide clear guidance to the trade. The Office of the Communications Authority ("OFCA") will also, by making reference to the arrangements for implementing UEMO, enable companies making P2P calls to apply conveniently to OFCA for subscription accounts, so that companies may at any time use and download phone numbers in the Register for screening and updating their call lists in order to comply with the legislative requirements.
(5) In addition to formulating legislative proposals, we will also take forward non-legislative measures. OFCA will enhance public education to remind smartphone users of the option to download call filtering applications and the related points to note, including user terms and conditions, permission requests, etc.
Moreover, we will educate the public through various channels, for instance, incorporating brief introductions for the elderly on the means to reject or filter phone calls and the points to note in the syllabus of the related courses provided by the Elder Academies.
Traffic control at a certain road junction
12. MR FRANKIE YICK (in Chinese): President, the southern end of the two-way Beacon Hill Road ("the minor road") in Kowloon Tong is connected to the Cornwall Street ("the major road"). Although the latter is a two-way east-west road with heavy traffic and vehicles travel on it at a rather high speed, no traffic light has been installed at that road junction. Some members of the public have relayed that due to the sharp bend at the entrance/exit of the minor road and drivers' views being blocked by a building or mound on the roadsides, there is a certain degree of danger for eastbound vehicles on the major road to 11774 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 make a left turn into the minor road and vehicles on the minor road to make a left turn into the major road. In addition, westbound vehicles on the major road intending to make a right turn into the minor road, as well as vehicles intending to make a right turn into the major road (westbound) after leaving the minor road, have to cut across several lanes on the major road, which frequently causes dangerous situations. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the number of traffic accidents which occurred at the aforesaid road junction in each of the past five years, and the details of each accident (including the causes of the accident, classes of vehicles involved and the resultant casualties); and
(2) whether it will install traffic lights at the road junction to control traffic; if so, of the details; if not, the measures to be put in place by the Government to enhance the road safety there?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Chinese): President, my reply to the various parts of Mr Frankie YICK's question is as follows:
(1) According to the records of the Transport Department ("TD"), the numbers of traffic accidents which occurred during the period from January 2014 to May 2019 at the junction of Cornwall Street and Beacon Hill Road, the resultant casualties as well as the classes and numbers of vehicles involved are tabulated at Annex. These traffic accidents were mainly caused by driver contributory factors, including "driving inattentively", "turning right/left negligently" and "failing to comply with the stop/give way traffic signs". At present, the road junction concerned is not a traffic black spot.
(2) TD has been keeping in view the traffic condition at the junction of Cornwall Street and Beacon Hill Road, and has on numerous occasions reviewed the feasibility of modifying the road junction to a signalized junction. Given the high traffic volume and busy traffic condition on Cornwall Street, and that the junction of Cornwall Street and Beacon Hill Road is only about 90 m away from the signalized junction of Cornwall Street and Kent Road, the installation of traffic lights at the former road junction to control traffic will give rise to traffic congestion.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11775
The existing speed limit of Cornwall Street eastbound near Beacon Hill Road is set at 50 km per hour. Along the traffic lanes of that road section, a total of six "Slow" road markings have been painted, and traffic signs "Side road ahead" and "Reduce speed now" have also been erected to enhance the alertness of motorists and road safety. In addition, motorists travelling into or out of the junction of Cornwall Street and Beacon Hill Road have adequate sight line. TD will continue to monitor the traffic conditions of the road junction concerned and implement appropriate traffic improvement measures as necessary in a timely manner.
Annex
Details of Traffic Accidents at the Junction of Cornwall Street and Beacon Hill Road between January 2014 and May 2019
Casualties Number of vehicles involved Number Light Year of traffic Killed Serious Slight Motor Private Public Taxi goods accidents casualty injury injury cycle car bus vehicle 2014 2 0 1 2 0 2 1 1 0 2015 3 0 0 3 2 1 0 0 1 2016 7 0 1 7 2 7 3 0 1 2017 4 0 1 12 0 5 0 2 1 2018 4 0 1 3 2 2 3 0 0 2019 (January 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 to May)*
Notes:
* Provisional figure
Definitions:
Killed casualty: Sustained injury causing death within 30 days of the accident.
Serious injury: An injury for which a person is detained in hospital as an "inpatient" for more than 12 hours. Injuries causing death 30 or more days after the accident are also included in this category.
Slight injury: An injury of a minor character such as a sprain, bruise or cut not judged to be severe, or slight shock requiring roadside attention without admission to hospital or requiring hospitalization for less than 12 hours.
11776 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019
New measure to support students with special educational needs
13. MR IP KIN-YUEN (in Chinese): President, starting from the next school year, the Education Bureau ("EDB") will implement a new enhancement measure for the Learning Support Grant ("LSG") ("the new measure") in public sector ordinary primary and secondary schools to support students with various types of special educational needs ("SEN") and academic low achievers. The new measure will replace the Intensive Remedial Teaching Programme ("IRTP") and Integrated Education ("IE") Programme, which have been implemented for many years. Some members of the education sector have relayed that as all classes and regular teaching posts under IRTP will be cancelled in September this year, quite a number of schools need to reduce their staffing establishment and, as a result, the contracts of some existing contract teachers may not be renewed, dealing a severe blow to the morale and stability of the teaching force and running counter to the Government's undertaking made in the 2018 Policy Address that "[u]nder the enhanced measure, schools will have a more stable teaching force and additional resources for flexible deployment". In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of (i) the number of classes, (ii) the rate of the class grant, (iii) the number of additional regular teaching posts and (iv) the total recurrent expenditure, under IRTP for the current school year;
(2) of the number of schools in which the number of approved classes will be reduced due to the cancellation of IRTP and/or a decline in the intake of Primary One students, with a breakdown by reason for reduction in classes and by number of classes in schools, i.e.:
(i) those in which the number of classes will drop from 24 or more to 23 or less, and
(ii) those in which the number of classes will drop from 12 or more to 11 or less;
(3) among the schools mentioned in (2), of the respective numbers of schools in which the following personnel arrangements will have to be made in the next school year:
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11777
(i) lowering the rank of the principal; the total expenditure on the remuneration and benefits involved in the arrangement, calculated on the basis of the median salary of the post,
(ii) reducing the number of vice principals; the total expenditure on the remuneration and benefits involved in the arrangement, calculated on the basis of the median salary of the post,
(iii) reducing the number of senior teachers; the total expenditure on the remuneration and benefits involved in the arrangement, calculated on the basis of the median salary of the post,
(iv) reducing the number of assistant clerical officers; the total expenditure on the remuneration and benefits involved in the arrangement, calculated on the basis of the median salary of the post,
(v) reducing the number of clerical assistants; the total expenditure on the remuneration and benefits involved in the arrangement, calculated on the basis of the median salary of the post, and
(vi) reducing the number of Workmen II; the total expenditure on the remuneration and benefits involved in the arrangement, calculated on the basis of the median salary of the post;
(4) given that grant thresholds of $600,000, $1.6 million and $2.2 million have been prescribed for the new LSG, of the criteria based on which EDB set such thresholds;
(5) of the number of schools in which the number of teaching posts converted/provided under the new measure will not be able to absorb all redundant/surplus teachers arising from the cancellation of IRTP and/or the IE Programme, with a breakdown by number of redundant/surplus teachers (i.e., one such teacher, two and three such teachers);
11778 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019
(6) as the Government has indicated that all IRTP teachers can be retained in the staffing establishment of schools and there will be no redundant teachers, of the methods by which schools can retain IRTP teachers, and set out by method the number and names of the schools involved, the number of teaching posts retained, and the total expenditure on the remuneration and benefits involved, calculated on the basis of the median salaries of the posts concerned;
(7) whether it has assessed if the new measure will result in the contracts of the existing contract teaching staff not being renewed; if it has assessed and the outcome is in the affirmative, of the number of the schools and the number of the contract teaching staff involved, and the measures in place to assist them; if the assessment outcome is in the negative, the reasons for that;
(8) given that a school may contravene the Disability Discrimination Ordinance (Cap. 487) if it caps the number of students with SEN to be admitted, of EDB's justifications for capping LSG under the new measure; the criteria based on which EDB set the calculation ceiling and cash grant ceiling at the levels of $2.2 million and $1.24 million;
(9) whether it has estimated the number of schools for which the grant calculated under the new measure exceeds the ceiling of $2.2 million; if so, of the details, and the measures in place to assist those schools not provided with the amount of grant exceeding the said ceiling in catering for the learner diversity among students;
(10) of the to-date number of complaints or requests for assistance received by EDB from schools about the impact of the new measure on them and the contents of such complaints or requests, as well as the assistance offered by EDB to those schools; and
(11) whether it will implement transitional arrangements for enabling a "soft landing" of the new measure, and ensure that the current staffing establishment and the rank of the principals of the schools concerned will not be affected by the new measure; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11779
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION (in Chinese): President, the Integrated Education ("IE") Programme was implemented in 1997. The targets are students with hearing impairment, visual impairment, physical disability, intellectual disability and autism spectrum disorders. The Intensive Remedial Teaching Programme ("IRTP")(1) was implemented in 2000 and the targets are academic low achievers, students with specific learning difficulties and students with intellectual disability. The targets of these two programmes are limited. The provision under these two programmes, viz. additional teacher(s), is not designed to cater for the needs of students with different special educational needs ("SEN") across the spectrum, such as attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder, speech and language impairment and mental illness. In the 2003-2004 school year, the Education Bureau introduced the Learning Support Grant ("LSG") to cover students with all types of SEN. LSG is provided to schools according to the number of students with SEN and academic low achievers (applicable to primary schools) enrolled in the school and the tier of support the students require. Schools may deploy the grant flexibly to provide various kinds of support services for students. We have been encouraging schools to switch to LSG to support students with SEN. We launched the Migration Mode(2) in the 2009-2010 school year to facilitate schools' full adoption of LSG. Despite so, in the 2018-2019 school year, there are still 239 aided primary schools that have not changed to adopt or fully adopt LSG and another eight aided secondary schools are also yet to adopt LSG.
The Education Bureau conducted a series of consultations with stakeholders before formulating the enhancement measures to be implemented in the 2019-2020 school year. In the 2017-2018 school year, we consulted school sponsoring bodies, school councils, school head associations, the Task Force on Integrated Education in Mainstream Schools, parent groups, public sector primary and secondary schools as well as Special Educational Needs Coordinators ("SENCO"), etc. On 2 March 2018, we briefed the Panel on Education of the Legislative Council of the review and directions of enhancement with regard to
(1) Since 1983, the former Education Department provided students of low academic achievement with a range of intensive remedial services, including resource classes operated in public sector ordinary primary schools. From September 2000, resource class was renamed as IRTP under which schools are encouraged to abolish the concept of "a separate class" and provide enhanced support services through the Whole School Approach.
(2) Migrating from the Mixed Mode to full adoption of LSG during a grace period of six school years with the LSG ceiling capped at $600,000. 11780 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019
IE. Basically, mainstream views concurred that our enhancement measures should aim at providing schools with a stable teaching force and flexibility in deployment of additional resources. A series of IE enhancement measures were drawn up by the Education Bureau after taking into account the mainstream views of stakeholders, as well as making reference to the recommendations of the Report No. 70 of the Director of Audit that the Education Bureau should take measures to speed up schools' switching from IRTP to LSG and suggestion of the Report No. 70 of the Public Accounts Committee that the Education Bureau should consider introducing a new scheme merging the merits of both LSG and IRTP.
From the 2019-2020 school year, the Education Bureau will consolidate various subvented programmes for IE. LSG will replace IRTP and IE Programme, and be extended to all public sector ordinary schools. Under the enhanced LSG, about 1 000 additional regular teaching posts will be created in public sector schools, 306 of which are for retaining teachers of IRTP/IE Programme while the rest are newly created posts. The restructuring of various subvented programmes for IE and enhancement of LSG involve an additional expenditure of about $300 million. Other IE enhancement measures include upgrading most SENCO posts to promotion rank, extending the Enhanced School-based Educational Psychology Service ("SBEPS"), implementing the Enhanced School-based Speech Therapy Service and providing additional resources to public sector ordinary schools that admit non-Chinese speaking students with SEN. These enhancement measures involve an additional expenditure of about $800 million. The total expenditure on IE in the 2019-2020 school year is estimated to be about $3 billion. This shows that the Government is committed to supporting schools to implement IE.
To let schools understand the implementation arrangement of the enhancement measures to be introduced in the 2019-2020 school year, briefing sessions were held for public sector ordinary schools from late October to early November 2018 to explain the details. Among them, we specially explained the special arrangements for schools implementing IRTP/and IE Programme to transit to adopt enhanced LSG. In addition, views from schools were gauged for fine-tuning the implementation details. We also sent a letter to public sector ordinary schools on 10 December 2018 to explain the preparation work to be made for the 2019-2020 school year, with briefing materials attached, for them to make early preparation. Our inspectors have, during their school visits, further explained to schools the LSG arrangements in the coming school year according LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11781 to individual schools' situation and answered enquiries from schools. On 29 March 2019, we formally issued a circular setting out the details of the enhanced LSG. In the light of the above, the enhancement measures were formulated after extensive consultations and schools were informed of the relevant arrangements through various means in the process.
Regarding Mr IP Kin-yuen's question, our reply is as follows:
(1) to (3)
In the 2018-2019 school year, there are 239 aided primary schools operating 380 IRTPs. A class grant of $9,077 and a Certificated Master/Mistress post in the teaching staff establishment are provided per IRTP, involving an expenditure of about $200 million.
The number of Primary One classes to be operated by aided primary schools in the 2019-2020 school year will be confirmed after the student headcount in mid-September 2019. Hence, the combined impact of the enhanced LSG and reduction in Primary One classes on the number of approved classes, approved teaching and non-teaching staff establishment is not available at the moment.
Counting only the situation caused by the transition to new measure, 236 of the aided primary schools operating IRTP in the 2018-2019 school year will not have the situation mentioned in part (2) of the question. Of the remaining primary schools, one will not reach the threshold of 24 classes and two will not reach the threshold of 12 classes in the 2019-2020 school year. We have met with and explained to the schools concerned how their cases can be handled. On the rank of school heads, the above three schools have a situation in which the substantive rank of heads are higher than that in the approved establishment. This could be suitably handled by school sponsoring bodies in accordance with the established practice, viz. through internal redeployment as far as possible. If internal redeployment cannot be arranged, schools can apply to the Education Bureau for retaining the pay points of the school heads concerned, and should make rectification of the situation at an opportune time in due course. On deputy heads, the deputy head posts of two of the schools will be re-ranked as senior teacher. The 11782 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019
schools could handle this in accordance with school-based procedures, viz. applying for retaining the pay points of the deputy heads concerned, and rectify the situation at an opportune time in due course. On senior teachers, since all the schools concerned will be entitled to upgrade the SENCO post to promotion rank, the number of senior teachers at substantive rank will not be higher than the number of the approved entitlement due to the closure of IRTP. Regarding the reduction of clerical staff and Workman II(3) posts, two schools will have one Assistant Clerical Officer post reduced; one school will have one Clerical Assistant post reduced; and eight schools will have one Workman II post reduced. Although the number of clerical staff or Workman II posts in the non-teaching staff establishment of individual schools will be reduced owing to the closure of IRTP, the Government will provide support through other measures to enable schools cope with the situation. For example, the "One Executive Officer for Each School" policy to be implemented in public sector schools starting from the 2019-2020 school year will provide schools with additional resources for strengthening school administrative support. If necessary, schools may retain the existing clerical staff by applying for suspension of the Administration Grant for Additional Clerical Assistant. Schools may also, under the principle of flexible deployment of the Operating Expenses Block Grant ("OEBG")/Expanded Operating Expenses Block Grant ("EOEBG"), use resources flexibly to hire additional clerical staff or janitors in the light of their specific circumstances.
(5) and (6)
Under the enhanced LSG, all public sector ordinary schools are provided with the corresponding LSG and additional teaching posts in the establishment according to the number of students with SEN
(3) The number of clerical staff and Workman II posts in the non-teaching staff establishment of aided primary schools is basically used for calculating the disbursable amount of Administration Grant/Revised Administration Grant, which have been subsumed under OEBG/EOEBG. Under the principle of flexible deployment of the block grant, schools may use their resources more flexibly, having regard to their school-based circumstances, to employ administrative/clerical staff and janitors or hire outside services to meet their specific needs. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11783 and the tier of support the students require. The Education Bureau has put in place a special arrangement for retaining IRTP and IE Programme teachers in the establishment so that they are not affected. Specifically, in the 2019-2020 school year, if the additional teaching post(s) to be created through conversion or provision under LSG is/are insufficient to retain all the IRTP or IE Programme teachers, schools with teaching post vacancies in the establishment, including frozen teaching post vacancies in the approved establishment or vacancies arising from wastage (such as retirement, resignation of serving teachers) or increase in the number of classes, should make rectification as soon as possible. This is a long-established practice. If schools do not have any teaching post vacancies, part of LSG can be converted into additional regular teaching post(s) for retaining these teachers in the establishment.
In the 2018-2019 school year, there are 239 aided primary schools operating IRTPs, 25 of which are running IE Programme in parallel, involving about 400 teaching posts. Under the new measure, all the teachers concerned can remain in the school's establishment should schools adopt the above arrangement. In other words, no teachers will be rendered redundant. Among these primary schools, 143 have retained all the IRTP/IE Programme teachers with the additional teaching posts provided under the enhanced LSG. The remaining 95 primary schools (additionally, one school will be closed in the 2019-2020 school year) have fully retained such IRTP/IE Programme teachers through the following means. Two primary schools each have made use of one new teaching post vacancy in the establishment arising from the increase in the number of classes for retaining purpose. Fifty-five primary schools have made use of frozen teaching post vacancies for retaining purpose, 48 out of which used one such vacancy while seven which have three to five such frozen teaching post vacancies (some being senior teacher vacancies) used two. Besides, should there be teaching posts vacated by departing teachers in these 55 primary schools later, the vacancies will be used in place of frozen teaching posts for retaining purpose. Regarding the 38 schools without any teaching post vacancies, they are allowed to convert part of LSG into an additional regular teaching post for retaining IRTP/IE Programme teachers.
11784 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019
As for the seven schools that have to make use of two frozen teaching post vacancies, the amount of LSG receivable, after deducting the sum for conversion, in the 2019-2020 school year for supporting students with SEN is estimated to be around $0.8 million to $1.1 million. A SENCO post at promotion rank will also be provided to each of these schools in the 2019-2020 school year to support IE. Also, these schools will be given additional resources for hiring additional executive officer under the "One Executive Officer for Each School" policy. Overall speaking, despite having to use two frozen teaching post vacancies, these schools still have substantial additional resources for creating room for school heads and teachers to address the learning, emotional, behavourial and developmental needs of their students.
To avoid individual schools from being labelled and mistaken in regard of their admission of and support for students with SEN on the basis of the number of teaching posts in the establishment and the amount of expenditure involved, we will not disclose the situation of individual schools one by one according to the school's arrangement for retaining the teachers concerned.
(4), (8) and (9)
The enhanced LSG will be implemented from the 2019-2020 school year with the unit grant rate for tier-2 support increased to $15,000 where that for tier-3 support increased multifold to $60,000. Apart from having LSG, schools will have additional regular teaching post(s) through conversion/provision when LSG reaching the threshold(s).
We have consulted and analysed the current situation of the use of LSG in schools and found that most schools hire contract teachers or teaching assistants with LSG. We understand that teachers in the establishment can better maintain the stability of the teaching force. Therefore, when considering the setting of the threshold of LSG, we decided to provide schools with a relatively large number of students with SEN with more stable additional teaching posts. Should LSG reach threshold 1 (i.e. $600,000), schools can convert part of LSG (i.e. equivalent to the annual salary at starting point of a basic rank LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11785 graduate teacher (about $360,000)) into a graduate teaching post in the establishment. Schools will still a have a certain amount of LSG for flexible deployment, such as appointing additional teaching assistant(s) or hiring professional services for supporting students with SEN after conversion. This is a reasonable arrangement from the perspective of public resource management and school operation. We have made reference to the LSG ceiling of 2018-2019 school year (i.e. $1,652,434) to set Threshold 2 as $1,600,000. Should LSG reach Threshold 2, apart from using part of LSG to convert a graduate teaching post in the establishment, schools are provided with an additional regular graduate teaching post in the establishment, i.e. a total of two additional regular graduate teaching posts. Should LSG reach Threshold 3 (which is set as $2,200,000 for the 2019-2020 school year with reference to the calculation of Thresholds 1 and 2), apart from using part of LSG to convert a graduate teaching post in the establishment, schools are provided with two additional regular graduate teaching posts in the establishment, i.e. a total of three additional regular graduate teaching posts.
In the current school year, only 51 primary schools (around 11%) and 58 secondary schools (around 15%) are disbursed with the maximum amount of LSG, which is about $1.6 million, but no additional graduate teaching post in the establishment is provided. Under the new measure, schools admitting a relatively large number of students with SEN will be provided with LSG together with one to three additional graduate teaching post(s) for strengthening support to students with SEN. In the 2019-2020 school year, among the 456 ordinary primary schools and 389 ordinary secondary schools in the public sector:
(a) about 64% of primary schools and about 42% of secondary schools will have less than $1.24 million of LSG and one additional graduate teaching post in the establishment (the annual mid-point salary of Assistant Primary School Master/Mistress posts is around $530,000 while that of Graduate Master/Mistress posts in secondary schools is around $610,000);
11786 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019
(b) about 21% of primary schools and about 15% of secondary schools will have about $1.24 million of LSG and two additional graduate teaching posts in the establishment; and
(c) about 9% of primary schools and about 6% of secondary schools will have about $1.24 million of LSG and three additional graduate teaching posts in the establishment.
The total number of the above schools contributes to about 94% of the primary schools and 63% of the secondary schools.
It is noteworthy that the Education Bureau provides schools with professional support, including assessment and consultation services from educational psychologists, speech therapists and audiologists on an ongoing basis. We also introduce to schools teaching strategies for supporting students with SEN and develop teaching resources for use by teachers from time to time. SBEPS has been extended to cover all public sector ordinary primary and secondary schools since the 2016-2017 school year. Moreover, schools are also provided with other related resources to support students with SEN based on their situations, such as the top-up fund for procurement of special furniture and equipment, as well as intensive support grant for hardcore cases of students with SEN.
(7) Upon implementation of the enhanced LSG in the 2019-2020 school year, about 80% of public sector ordinary primary and secondary schools will be provided with additional graduate teaching post(s) in the establishment, in a total of about 1 000 additional regular teaching posts. Among these posts, about 70% are provided through conversion with part of LSG (equivalent to the annual salary at starting point of a basic rank graduate teacher) while about 30% of the teaching posts are the one to two additional graduate teaching posts in the establishment provided for schools with LSG reaching Threshold 2 or Threshold 3. Apart from using some of the additional teaching posts (306 teaching posts) to retain teachers of IRTP and IE Programme, schools could fill the new posts in the establishment by serving contact teachers with a view to building a stable teaching force. Moreover, schools can continue to use LSG LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11787
to renew the contracts of serving contract teachers to provide appropriate support services for students with SEN. The position of contract teachers is not available. Yet, it is expected that additional regular teaching posts in the establishment will increase substantially under the new measure and quite a number of serving contract teachers will be appointed as regular teachers.
(10) and (11)
We have received enquiries about the enhanced LSG from individual schools, including four letters from primary schools (one from a district school head association) expressing their views on the special arrangements of retaining IRTP teachers under the enhanced IE measures, as well as letters from two primary schools and an association of secondary schools stating their views about the usage of LSG. To allay their concerns, we have further explained such arrangements to schools through tele-conversation or schools visits, etc. Afterwards, these schools have a better grasp of the relevant arrangements and will take follow-up action in accordance with our explanations.
As mentioned above, most public sector ordinary primary and secondary schools can benefit from the enhanced LSG, including provision of additional regular teaching posts (about 1 000 in total). IRTP and IE Programme teachers can be fully retained in the establishment and they can continue to assist schools in supporting students with SEN with their knowledge and experience. We will review the school implementation of various enhanced measures on an ongoing basis. We believe that the effectiveness of schools' practice of IE will be further enhanced when the various measures are fully implemented and smoothly operated.
Former Tsuen King Circuit Market
14. MR MICHAEL TIEN (in Chinese): President, the Government closed down the under-utilized Tsuen King Circuit Market in early 2018, but so far it has not given an account of the way forward for that building and the site 11788 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 concerned. In March this year, I called on the Government to expeditiously give an account of the matter and suggested implementing a revitalization scheme for the building, including (i) providing a kindergarten on the ground floor and giving move-in priority to a neighbouring kindergarten currently saddled with a heavy rent burden, (ii) providing a day care centre for the elderly on the ground floor, and (iii) providing a youth centre and a study room on the first floor. The Government indicated in reply that it either had the intention to do so or was examining the feasibility of the suggestions. On the other hand, I have recently learnt that the Government is considering demolishing the building to make way for planning and developing afresh the site concerned. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council whether it has made a decision on the way forward for the building; if so and the decision is to demolish the building, of the details; if the decision is to retain and revitalize the building, the progress of the relevant studies and the implementation timetable, as well as the measures to expedite its work in this regard?
SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Chinese): President, in consultation with the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department ("FEHD") and relevant departments, our reply is as follows:
The Ex-Tsuen King Circuit Market is located in the Tsuen King Circuit adjacent to the Allway Gardens. The Market consists of two storeys and occupies an area of about 2 300 sq m. It falls within an area zoned "Government, Institution or Community" on the approved Tsuen Wan Outline Zoning Plan No. S/TW/33. This zone is intended primarily for the provision of Government, institution or community facilities serving the needs of the local residents. It is also intended to provide land for the Government, organizations providing social services, and other institutional establishments for uses directly related to or in support of their work.
Due to the low utilization rate, FEHD closed down the Tsuen King Circuit Market in March 2018. After confirming that the subject government premises is no longer required for its original public market use and other needs of the department, FEHD has sought the Government Property Agency ("GPA")'s assistance in considering the optimal use of the premises for other government purposes. GPA then circulated within the Government for any departments who LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11789 intend to use the subject premises for short-term or long-term use. In response to departmental feedback, FEHD allocated part of premises to the relevant department for temporary storage use.
On the other hand, the Government noted the recent suggestions by Mr TIEN and various stakeholders on the alternative uses of the premises (including kindergarten, day care centre for the elderly, youth centre and study room etc.). As the relevant departments responded at the Tsuen Wan District Council ("TWDC") meeting in March 2019, the Government is actively considering the feasibility of such proposals with a view to optimizing the use of the premises to provide facilities that can better serve the community and promote district development. In the process, we welcome any proposal and comment from local stakeholders. The relevant departments will consult TWDC and other stakeholders in due course. With regard to whether the premises should be retained or demolished for redevelopment in the long run, the Government has no specific plan at present.
Evening secondary courses
15. MR HO KAI-MING (in Chinese): President, the Government currently provides, through the Financial Assistance Scheme for Designated Evening Adult Education Courses ("FAEAEC"), financial assistance for adult students taking evening secondary courses offered by approved course providers. Eligible students may receive 30%, 50% or 100% reimbursement of the tuition fees paid. Students who are unable to pay tuition fees in advance due to financial difficulties may apply for loans under the Extended Non-means-tested Loan Scheme ("ENLS") to settle tuition fees. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the respective numbers of students at various grades taking evening secondary courses under FAEAEC, in each of the past five years;
(2) of the number of evening secondary students taking the Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education Examination and, among them, the number of those whose examination results met the general entrance requirements for subsidized undergraduate programmes, in each of the past five years;
11790 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019
(3) of the respective numbers of students whose applications made under FAEAEC were received and approved in each of the past five years; in respect of the number of students whose applications were approved, (i) a breakdown by the percentage of tuition fees reimbursed and (ii) its percentage in the total number of evening secondary students;
(4) of the number of eligible students applying for loans under ENLS, in each of the past five years;
(5) of the current average annual tuition fee of the evening secondary courses offered under FAEAEC; as the Government has implemented for years free day secondary education, whether the Government will implement free evening secondary education;
(6) given that evening secondary students have to compete with day secondary students for admission to subsidized undergraduate programmes, but support in the areas of finance and learning, etc. provided by the Government for the former is less than that for the latter, whether the Government will relax the eligibility criteria of the various subsidy schemes set up for the latter so as to cover the former, and launch scholarship and bursary schemes for the former to encourage them to study; and
(7) whether it will comprehensively review and strengthen the support provided for evening secondary students, with a view to encouraging people with low educational attainment to complete secondary education programme while working at the same time?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION (in Chinese): President, the Government launched the Financial Assistance Scheme for Designated Evening Adult Education Courses ("FAEAEC") in 2005-2006 school year with the aim of providing an affordable pathway to facilitate adult learners to complete mainstream secondary school courses and helping those learners with financial difficulties pursue their studies.
Our reply to the question raised by Mr HO is as follows:
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11791
(1) The respective numbers of learners at various grades taking courses offered by evening secondary schools participating in FAEAEC from 2014-2015 to 2018-2019 school years are as follows:
School year S1 S2 S3 S4 S5 S6 2014-2015 58 53 105 455 476 589 2015-2016 54 62 112 354 446 525 2016-2017 56 54 103 338 428 423 2017-2018 41 46 108 362 429 440 2018-2019# 46 47 114 352 433 465
Notes:
The figures refer to the respective numbers of learners at various grades as at 30 June of the school years concerned, including those who have withdrawn from the courses.
# The figures in 2018-2019 school year refer to the numbers of learners as at 30 April 2019, including those who have withdrawn from the courses.
(2) According to the information provided by the approved course providers participating in FAEAEC, the respective numbers of evening secondary learners taking the Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education Examination ("HKDSE") through these providers in 2016-2017, 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 school years are tabulated as follows:
Number of evening secondary learners taking School year HKDSE through the approved course providers 2016-2017 255 2017-2018 261 2018-2019 366
Note:
Since not all approved course providers can provide relevant information on the period before the 2016-2017 school year, we can only provide the figures regarding the past three school years.
The Education Bureau does not maintain information on the examination results of evening secondary learners who took HKDSE.
11792 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019
(3) FAEAEC aims to reduce the financial burden on adult learners and provide incentives to encourage them to complete the courses. Under FAEAEC, adult learners who are enrolled in junior and senior secondary courses provided by approved course providers and who meet the eligibility criteria are eligible for 30% reimbursement of the tuition fees, irrespective of their financial situation. To assist those with financial difficulties, full reimbursement or half reimbursement of the tuition fees are provided for eligible learners who are assessed to be eligible for full grant or half grant respectively in the means test administered by the Working Family and Student Financial Assistance Agency ("WFSFAA"). The Student Finance Office of WFSFAA processes the reimbursement of tuition fees based on the institutions' information on the number of eligible learners under FAEAEC and other relevant information. The information on the reimbursement of tuition fees to learners under FAEAEC in the past five school years is tabulated as follows:
2014- 2015- 2016- 2017- 2018- School year 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019@ Total number of 1 736 1 553 1 402 1 426 1 457 learners Total number of 765 751 631 640* 537 learners with tuition fee (44.1%) (48.4%) (45.0%) (44.9%) (36.9%) reimbursement (As a percentage of the total number of learners) The number of learners broken down by the percentage of tuition fee reimbursement (As a percentage of the total number of learners):
(a) Full reimbursement 240 206 164 157 121 (100%) (13.8%) (13.3%) (11.7%) (11.0%) (8.3%)
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11793
2014- 2015- 2016- 2017- 2018- School year 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019@ (b) Half reimbursement 90 75 54 56 46 (50%) (5.2%) (4.8%) (3.9%) (3.9%) (3.2%)
(c) 30% reimbursement 435 470 413 427* 370 (25.1%) (30.3%) (29.5%) (29.9%) (25.4%)
Notes:
@ The figures refer to the information as at 31 May 2019. Some applications for tuition fee reimbursement are being processed.
* The figures do not include two eligible learners who did not collect the tuition fee reimbursement cheques by the specified date.
The percentages in (a) to (c) may not add up to the percentages shown in the second row due to rounding.
(4) Learners attending eligible courses under FAEAEC may apply for student loans under the Extended Non-means-tested Loan Scheme. The numbers of loan applicants in the 2014-2015 to 2018-2019 school years are tabulated below:
2014- 2015- 2016- 2017- 2018- School year 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019* Number of loan applicants 1 1 0 2 0
Note:
* As at 31 May 2019.
(5) to (7)
At present, the Lutheran Church-Hong Kong Synod Limited, the Hong Kong College of Technology Group Limited and the Kwun Tong Lutheran Evening School are approved course providers participating in FAEAEC for the provision of evening secondary courses in designated centres. The average annual tuition fees of the evening secondary courses offered by these providers in the 2018-2019 school year are as follows:
11794 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019
Average additional cost for Grade Average annual tuition fee taking Applied Learning course (if applicable) S1 to S3 $10,950 N/A S4 $12,737 N/A S5 $12,737 $10,877 S6 $12,717 Such courses are not offered
In addition to FAEAEC, to provide more support for learners taking evening secondary courses, the Education Bureau has, since 2014-2015 school year, earmarked an annual provision for approved course providers to provide support services to learners and teachers, such as conducting enriched learning activities, enhancing language training, providing Other Learning Experiences, student guidance and professional development and training of teachers. The amount of provision is calculated based on the number of learners. In the 2018-2019 school year, the amount of funding for each learner was capped at $1,000.
As learners attending evening secondary courses for adults are different from secondary students, it is difficult to make a comparison. Currently, there are different government financial assistance schemes for learners with different educational attainment/taking different courses. As pointed out in the first paragraph of the reply, the objective of FAEAEC is to provide an alternative form of financial assistance to assist adult learners in completing mainstream secondary school courses and help those learners with financial difficulties pursue their studies. We believe that needy learners are already provided with appropriate financial assistance through FAEAEC and the support services funded by the Education Bureau. The Bureau has no plan to offer free evening secondary education at the current stage.
Workmanship of subsidized housing units
16. MR WU CHI-WAI (in Chinese): President, it has been reported that in recent years, quite a number of members of the public have, after moving into newly completed units of public rental housing, and those under the Home LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11795
Ownership Scheme ("HOS") and Green Form Subsidised Home Ownership Scheme ("GSH"), found that both the materials and the workmanship of the in-flat installations are of poor quality. Some members of the construction industry have pointed out that the causes for such a situation include a shortage of experienced construction workers in recent years, and an increased use of precast concrete components ("PCCs") in the construction of these subsidized housing. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) in respect of the three aforesaid types of subsidized housing projects completed within the past five years, of the respective numbers of complaints/reports received by the Housing Department ("HD") from residents about quality problems of the materials and workmanship of the in-flat installations, and among such complaints/reports, the respective numbers of those which were (i) made via the Defects Report Forms and (ii) made after the expiry of the warranty periods of their HOS and GSH units;
(2) in respect of the complaints/reports mentioned in (1)(i) and (ii) respectively, of the following information on each problem in the past five years relating to the quality of materials and workmanship: (i) the number of cases handled, (ii) the average time taken for the repair works, (iii) the longest time taken for the repair works, and (iv) the number of cases not handled, and set out the information by the name of each subsidized housing project and in tables of the same format as the table below;
Name of subsidized housing project: ______Problem (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) Water seepage on the wall Water seepage on the ceiling Window problems … Other problems Total: Not Not applicable applicable
11796 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019
(3) of the most common in-flat problems involving substandard workmanship and installations (e.g. kitchen doors not meeting the fire resistance standard) that were identified by HD in the past five years in the course of hand-over inspections of the three aforesaid types of subsidized housing units;
(4) regarding the construction works in the past five years for the three types of subsidized housing projects respectively, of the (i) percentage of PCCs used on average, (ii) the number of days taken for the construction of a typical floor on average, and (iii) the number of man-days taken for the construction of a unit on average, for each of the projects; whether HD assessed, in the course of the hand-over inspections of such units, the impacts of such factors on the workmanship; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
(5) whether HD issued in the past five years advices or warnings to or imposed penalties on the contractors of subsidized housing projects due to quality problems of materials and workmanship; if so, of the details;
(6) of the measures put in place to enhance the supervision of the workmanship of subsidized housing projects (e.g. increasing the number of inspection items and the frequency of random inspections during the construction stage, as well as reviewing the construction methods and the procedure and criteria for hand-over inspections); and
(7) whether it will consider extending the warranty period for subsidized sale units and taking other measures to better protect the rights and interests of owners who have purchased such units?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Chinese): President, my consolidated reply to Mr WU Chi-wai's question is as follows:
The Hong Kong Housing Authority ("HA") has all along been placing a high priority on the quality of its construction works, and has put in place a stringent system for inspecting and accepting completed works. From ensuring the fulfilment of contractual requirements, conducting site LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11797 monitoring/inspections, to performing tests upon completion of the works, HA has been strictly monitoring the building contractors. This system applies to all HA's public housing developments, including Public Rental Housing ("PRH") and the Subsidised Sale Flats ("SSFs"). The latter includes the Home Ownership Scheme ("HOS"), and the Green Form Subsidised Home Ownership Scheme ("GSH") projects.
Before completion of the works contract, HA performs detailed inspections and checking in each flat to ensure that the quality of the works complies with the contractual requirements. If any situation of non-compliance with the contract is identified, HA shall request the contractor to follow-up and rectify, and conduct another round of inspection. This will ensure that the construction quality meets the required standards.
Under the current mechanism, if the tenant/owner has identified anomaly in facilities or installations of the flat within seven days of taking over the flat and that decoration works have not yet started, he/she can submit a "Defects Report Form" to the In-take Ambassador. If the anomaly is, upon verification, confirmed as a building defect which the contractor is accountable for, the contractor will arrange the conduct of the rectification works for the tenant/owner. For SSFs, HA provides HOS and GSH flats with one-year maintenance period and ten-year Structural Safety Guarantee for the in-flats installations, finishes and facilities as stipulated in the sales brochures.
HA has always been concerning about the construction quality and has already included the "Average number of defects per flat at handover to tenants/owners for flats completed within the year" as one of its Key Performance Indicators. Our annual target is not exceeding 0.7 defects per flat. We were able to meet this target at the year-end performance reviews in the past few years (see Annex for the number of defects). In the past five years up to end May 2019, among the 77 215 completed public housing flats, HA has received about 440 verified defect cases, among which about 300 were in PRH, about 110 were in HOS and about 30 were in GSH.(1) Generally speaking, these defects involved water seepage, leakage from fittings, damaged tiles and cracks at plastering, etc. HA did not come to aware of situation involving facilities in the flats not meeting the stipulated standards.
(1) The defect cases reported by tenants/owners via the "Defects Situation Report" and verified did not include the minor defects that could be rectified by the contractor within a day, such as cleansing, tightening loosened metallic parts or lubricating, etc. 11798 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019
After the tenants/owners submit the "Defects Report Forms", HA will arrange its staff to follow up with the residents as soon as possible, and arrange the rectification works according to the needs of the individual residents. HA does not keep statistics on the time required for conducting the rectification work. The time required depends on the types of the works involved. In general, rectification works within residential flat, such as those related to damaged tiling and water seepage at ceiling or wall, etc. takes about one to three weeks to complete. For other minor items such as damages to window hardware, lock or hinges, etc., rectification could be completed within a week. HA does not keep statistics on the complaints/reports from residents about quality problems of the materials and workmanship of the in-flat installations after the expiry of the defects liability warranty period.
HA has many years of experience in applying precast concrete components ("PCCs") in public housing developments. Practitioners of the construction industry generally consider that such technology can improve the buildings quality. PCCs adopted by HA generally include staircase, façade, semi-precast slab, volumetric precast bathroom, volumetric precast kitchen, partition wall, beam, balcony and refuse chute, which make up about 35% of concrete volume of a typical floor and 70% precast rate on plan on average. HA determines the applicable areas of PCCs in individual project based on the corresponding conditions and settings. Owing to the different design, layout and site constraints of individual projects, HA does not have a unified construction cycle index. In general, HA can complete the main concrete structure of a typical floor in six working days and the worker per flat ratio is about 0.12 on average. This construction cycle has balanced the work schedule, site safety and the quality of buildings and is generally recognized by the industry.
Regarding contractor monitoring, HA will continue to monitor different aspects of the performance of the building contractors in HA's works contracts, including progress of works, use of materials, quality of works, site and environment management, site safety and payment of wages, etc. If the building contractor does not perform satisfactorily, HA will issue reminder letters, warning letters, or even suspend the concerned contractor from tendering HA's contracts as appropriate. In the past five years, HA suspended six new building works contractors from tendering due to unsatisfactory performance on the use of materials and quality of works etc. Among the six contractors, four were directly involved in the incident of "excess lead in drinking water" in 2015. HA will continue to monitor the use of materials and quality of works of public housing developments.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11799
Annex
Flats completed by HA in the past five years Number of defects identified by the tenants/owners when receiving the flats
Year Number of Public Housing Units Number of Defects 2014 4 556 96 2015 13 328 52 2016 20 255 74 2017 19 617 100 2018 to May 2019 19 459 117 Total 77 215 439
Welfare of animals
17. MR CHAN HAK-KAN (in Chinese): President, regarding the welfare of animals, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) given that a government official said at a Panel meeting of this Council held last month that the Government was heading towards the goal of "zero euthanasia of animals", of the Government's specific measures to achieve that goal; whether it has set interim goals and the relevant dates for achieving the goals; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
(2) given that the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department ("AFCD") invited in November last year suggestions from animal welfare organizations ("AWOs") on places that might be suitable for conducting the Trap-Neuter-Return trial programme for stray dogs ("the trial programme"), of the number and details of the suggestions received by AFCD to date; the resources needed for implementing the programme as estimated by the Government;
(3) as AFCD has indicated that the trial programme conducted in the past three years did not achieve the predetermined performance targets, whether the Government will take the initiative to explore suitable places for AFCD to implement a new round of the trial programme; if not, of the reasons for that;
11800 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019
(4) as the Rabies Ordinance (Cap. 421) provides that a keeper of animals who, without reasonable excuse, abandons his mammal (except a human being) commits an offence, of the conviction rates of the relevant prosecutions in the past five years; whether the Government will step up law enforcement efforts, and of the law enforcement manpower in each of the coming three years;
(5) of the current procedure to be followed by animal owners for surrendering to the Animal Management Centres ("AMCs") under AFCD the animals that they no longer keep; given that the Government has recently proposed to amend the legislation to introduce the concept of "duty of care" to animals on the part of the persons responsible for the animals, and proposed that the abandonment of an animal should be regarded as a contravention of the duty of care and an offence, whether the Government anticipates that the number of animals to be received by AMCs will increase after the implementation of the relevant legislative amendments; if so, of AFCD's counter measures;
(6) whether it will consider, by drawing reference from the practices in other places, collecting fees from persons abandoning animals, so as to subsidize the relevant expenses of AWOs;
(7) given that the governments of places such as Taiwan, the United Kingdom and the United States have established online platforms for animal owners to register animals and report on loss of animals, whether the Government will develop a similar online platform; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
(8) given that the number of animals re-homed dropped from 966 in 2014 to 753 in 2018, of the Government's measures to encourage members of the public to adopt animals, e.g. whether it will (i) establish an online platform, (ii) establish a dedicated animal adoption fund, and (iii) provide incentives (e.g. healthcare vouchers for pets, and waivers of fees for dog licences); if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11801
(9) given that the main problems currently faced by AWOs are difficulties in finding suitable venues and paying high rents for venues, whether the Government will offer assistance in this regard, including extending the use of the subventions provided for such organizations to include payment of rents; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Chinese): President,
(1) The Government has been adopting a multi-pronged approach for promoting animal welfare. The Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department ("AFCD") promotes caring for animals and responsible pet ownership through public education and publicity, and also collaborates with animal welfare organizations ("AWOs") in animal adoption, with a view to reducing the number of stray animals and animals euthanized.
Since 2011, AFCD has been providing subventions to AWOs in supporting their work in promoting animal welfare and animal adoption, including setting up animal rehoming centre(s), enhancing facilities of rehoming centre(s) and providing neutering and medical services to animals adopted, conducting education seminars at schools and in the community, organizing publicity activities for promoting the animal adoption services, etc. This year, we have increased the amount of subvention to AWOs with a view to strengthening their work in this aspect.
The above measures have started to bear fruit in recent years. In the past five years, the number of dogs and cats euthanized dropped 73% and 68% respectively. We will keep up our efforts in this respect.
The World Organisation for Animal Health ("OIE") agrees that in situations where the number of stray dogs caught remain high or the dogs are not fit for adoption despite the deployment of various stray dog management measures, euthanasia would be an appropriate solution. Euthanasia is also adopted in many overseas places to safeguard the welfare of those old or ailing animals.
11802 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019
(2) and (3)
AFCD assisted two AWOs in conducting the "Trap-Neuter- Return" ("TNR") trial programme for stray dogs at two trial sites between 2015 and 2018. The findings showed that the programme did not achieve the predetermined performance targets. In this connection, AFCD has no plan to implement similar programme. Nevertheless, we keep an open mind and will assist AWOs that are interested in conducting this type of programme at other specific locations. To this end, AFCD has liaised with AWOs by issuing letters to them last November and released such information on its thematic website
(4) and (5)
In accordance with section 22 of the Rabies Ordinance (Cap. 421) ("the Ordinance"), a keeper of any animal who, without reasonable excuse, abandons that animal is liable to a maximum fine of $10,000 and imprisonment for up to six months. From past experience, in adducing evidence to substantiate a case under the Ordinance, it is difficult for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a person abandons an animal without a reasonable excuse, particularly in those cases where there is no witness. There has been no successful prosecution instituted under section 22 of the Ordinance over the past five years.
Nevertheless, if AFCD manages to identify the owner of a stray dog and learns upon investigation that the dog went astray and has been reclaimed by its owner, a prosecution will be instituted on evidence against the dog owner for failing to keep his/her dog under proper control in a public place in accordance with section 23 of the Ordinance. Any person in contravention of the said provision is liable to a maximum fine of $10,000. Between 2014 and 2018, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11803
there were a total of 1 117 prosecutions instituted in accordance with section 23 of the Ordinance, among which 1 083 resulted in successful prosecution.
In addition, we are currently conducting a public consultation on proposals to enhance animal welfare, including imposing in the legislation a "duty of care" on persons responsible for animals, i.e. persons responsible for animals must take reasonable measures to ensure that the welfare needs of animals are met. Abandoning animals can be treated as a contravention of the duty of care and is liable to prosecution. The proposals, if implemented, will be conducive to supporting the prosecution against animal abandonment. AFCD will take account of the views received during the consultation period when drafting legislative amendments, and deploy necessary manpower and resources to handle the work. AFCD will also continue to strengthen the promotion and education on the proper concept of keeping animals in order to reduce pet abandonment. We are currently unable to estimate whether the number of animals received by the management centres will increase subsequent to the proposed legislative amendments.
If pet owners are no longer able to keep their animals and surrender them to AFCD, AFCD will look into the reasons behind and endeavour to propose possible options to assist owners in continuing keeping the animals. If members of the public are no longer able to keep the animals due to economic or environmental issues, personal or family member's illness or other reasons, AFCD will receive such animals out of consideration for protecting animal welfare. If these animals are assessed by a veterinary surgeon as in good health and having a gentle temperament, AFCD will arrange their transfer to AWOs for adoption by members of the public.
(6) At present, the Government receives animals abandoned by members of the public with an aim to protect animal welfare. Levying a charge may discourage owners from surrendering animals to the Government and increase the possibility of animal abandonment. We therefore have no plan to charge persons for surrendering pets to AFCD at the moment. Nevertheless, AFCD will also continue to provide subventions to AWOs.
11804 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019
(7) If one's pet has gone astray, he/she may report the loss to AFCD through different channels, including calling the Government hotline 1823, emailing to AFCD ([email protected]) or making a report of the loss in person to AFCD's Animal Management Centres ("AMCs"), with detailed information and description of the lost pet, in order to seek assistance. Upon receipt of such a report, AFCD's staff will check if there is any animal in the AMCs that matches with the information/description of the animal, and will inform the pet owner accordingly.
We are aware that pet owners in some overseas places are required to report the loss of their pets to private companies responsible for the management of animal information on microchips, rather than official organizations, which might be different to the situation in Hong Kong. We consider that there are now sufficient channels for members of the public to report the loss of their pets, and AFCD's staff will provide suitable assistance upon receipt of reports.
(8) The number of cats and dogs received and caught by AFCD dropped from 7 995 in 2014 to 2 943 in 2018 while the ratio of their adoption increased from 11.1% to 22.6%.
At present, some AWOs upload information of the animals to be adopted onto their websites and are open to enquiries for animal rehoming. For any mode of rehoming service (including matching on online platforms), it is necessary to assess the suitability of a prospective adopter, the living environment available for animal adoption, and to take follow-up actions to see if the adopter takes proper care of the animal rehomed. It is more appropriate for non-profit-making AWOs armed with the relevant experience and adopter network to liaise with adopters, identify their needs and carry out assessments.
AFCD has been carrying out public education and publicity to remind the public that, before deciding to keep a pet, they have to give careful consideration to a range of factors, including their living environment, time available for taking care of pets, whether their family members are willing to keep pets and the expenditure on pet-keeping. We consider the use of publicity and education to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11805
encourage animal adoption more appropriate than provision of monetary incentives. Currently, AFCD's subventions to AWOs also cover their publicity work on animal rehoming services. Thus, we do not see the need to set up a dedicated fund for this particular purpose.
(9) At present, subventions to AWOs are granted on a project-by-project basis, but do not cover recurrent expenditures such as rentals, staff remuneration, etc. According to AFCD's understanding, many AWOs mainly rely on foster homes to take care of animals to be adopted. This practice can provide more opportunities for the animals to interact with people and increase their chance of adoption. AWOs in need of premises running rehoming centres may consider the suitability of vacant government sites, including vacant school premises sites, under the management of the Lands Department that are available for leasing by non-governmental organizations for community purposes on short-term basis. Non-profit making AWOs may also apply for subsidies from a funding scheme run by the Development Bureau to carry out one-off, basic and necessary restoration works so as to put the vacant government sites fit-for-use as rehoming centres.
Management of streets
18. MR PAUL TSE (in Chinese): President, in early years, the Government signed, with the owners of the land adjoining a number of streets in Causeway Bay such as Great George Street, Paterson Street, East Point Road, Kingston Street and Cleveland Street, agreements under which the land owners would replace the facilities on the streets concerned at their own cost and be responsible for the future repair and maintenance of such facilities (but excluding street management). At present, some of such streets are full-time or part-time pedestrian streets. Some members of the public have complained that there are often busking and commercial promotion stalls on those streets, and that some groups occupy the road space for holding activities, which have caused serious nuisance to the residents in the vicinity and pedestrians. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
11806 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019
(1) of the total number of complaints received by the various government departments in the past three years about the noise nuisance, road obstruction, environmental hygiene problems, etc. which were caused by hawking, busking and other activities on the aforesaid streets, and the follow-up actions taken;
(2) if it has gained an understanding about whether the aforesaid land owners have made profits from the commercial activities conducted on the pedestrian streets; if it has, of the details;
(3) whether, apart from the aforesaid streets in Causeway Bay, the Government signed in the past three years/will sign in the coming three years similar agreements with other land owners and, thereafter, designated/designate the streets concerned as pedestrian streets; if so, of the details; and
(4) of the existing channels and procedure through which individuals and groups who intend to organize commercial, political or performing activities on pedestrian streets may make applications for such activities?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Chinese): President, the lot owners of the developments adjacent to Paterson Street, Kingston Street and Cleveland Street in Causeway Bay had earlier proposed to the Government to replace the road facilities including paving blocks, pedestrian railings and bollards on the public footpaths of the above mentioned streets at their own cost in order to enhance street ambience. After consulting the relevant government departments and stakeholders, the lot owners signed a deed of undertaking in August 2013, pledging to the Highways Department ("HyD") to carry out the replacement works of the above mentioned road facilities, as well as the proper maintenance and repair of these replaced facilities. Replacement works were then carried out and completed in March 2016. Matters other than the replacement, maintenance and repair works of the above road facilities (such as street management of the road concerned) are taken care by relevant government departments, in the same way as other public roads.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11807
As regards the Causeway Bay Pedestrian Zone covering the whole or parts of Lockhart Road, East Point Road, Paterson Street, Great George Street, Pak Sha Road and Lee Garden Road, etc., relevant government departments regulate the activities and conditions therein in accordance with the statutory power vested with them. For instance, the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department ("FEHD") handles matters relating to environmental hygiene, street hygiene and hawking; and the Hong Kong Police Force ("HKPF") is responsible for maintaining public safety and order. Upon receipt of noise complaints regarding pedestrian zones, HKPF deploys officers to handle the complaints in accordance with the Noise Control Ordinance (Cap. 400) ("the Ordinance"); the Environmental Protection Department ("EPD") provides professional advice and suggestions to the Police with respect to the requirements of the Ordinance where necessary; the Transport Department ("TD") is responsible for formulating traffic management measures having regard to the pedestrian and vehicular traffic of the relevant streets; and the District Offices coordinate among relevant government departments for cooperative efforts on district issues and reflect the views of local residents and district councils where necessary. Government departments have been working closely together to manage, regulate and monitor the pedestrian zones.
Having consulted the Home Affairs Bureau/Home Affairs Department, Food and Health Bureau/FEHD, EPD, Security Bureau/HKPF, Development Bureau/Lands Department ("LandsD"), as well as HyD and TD, our reply to Mr Paul TSE's question is as follows:
(1) With respect to the five streets mentioned in the question, the complaints received by relevant departments over the past three years regarding the noise nuisance, street obstruction, environmental hygiene problems, etc. caused by sales activities, performances, and other activities are as follows:
The Wan Chai District Office ("WCDO") received a total of four complaints in relation to environmental hygiene and street obstruction, including two cases concerning street obstruction at Great George Street, one case concerning street obstruction at East Point Road, and one case concerning environmental hygiene and street obstruction at Kingston Street. WCDO already referred the complaints to FEHD, HKPF and EPD for follow-up.
11808 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019
FEHD received 784, 293, 15 and 404 complaints against environmental hygiene, unlicensed hawking, street obstruction by food premises, and street obstruction caused by publicity materials respectively. FEHD's enforcement actions include:
(i) instituted 161 prosecutions for littering and 5 prosecutions for unlicensed hawking, and made 74 seizures of hawker goods;
(ii) instituted 20 prosecutions against persons causing street obstruction by setting up promotional booths at public places;
(iii) instituted a total of 9 prosecutions against irregularities such as street obstruction by food premises or unauthorized extension of business; and
(iv) issued 314 fixed penalty notices to persons illegally displaying commercial publicity material, and seized a total of 672 pieces of publicity materials, including commercial easy-mount frames.
EPD received one complaint in respect of Paterson Street, one complaint relating to East Point Road and two complaints relating to George Street. Upon receipt of a public complaint, the Police will immediately deploy officers to the scene to conduct investigations. If it is confirmed that the noise concerned causes annoyance, the Police will take enforcement action against the offender. EPD will also provide professional advice to the Police to facilitate the Police's enforcement.
The Police does not have the breakdown of the number of complaints received in respect of the five streets mentioned in the question.
Apart from handling complaints and taking enforcement actions by relevant departments, the District Management Committee ("DMC") of WCDO has been concerned about the noise nuisances, street obstruction and environmental hygiene problems in Causeway Bay Pedestrian Zone. These issues have been included under the agenda of DMC meetings for regular follow-up.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11809
(2) and (4)
Any organization which wishes to set up street counters on Government land for holding non-profit making activities may submit an application to LandsD. LandsD considers and approves each application in accordance with established mechanism. Generally speaking, LandsD will not approve applications for setting up street counters on Government land for profit-making commercial activities. LandsD has not received any complaint regarding the conduct of profit-making commercial activities by relevant lot owners on relevant streets.
According to the Home Affairs Bureau, the Government and residents are in general taking a tolerant attitude towards street performances which are not causing complaints over noise, environmental hygiene, street obstruction, or public order. As long as there is no contravention of the law, there is no regulation of the content and artistic level of the performances. Matters relating to street performances are subjected to the prevailing laws in Hong Kong such as the Summary Offences Ordinance (Cap. 228), the Crimes Ordinance (Cap. 200) and the Ordinance as mentioned in the preceding paragraph. Should any street performance breach any statutory provisions, relevant enforcement departments may give advice or take appropriate actions in accordance with the relevant ordinances, having regard to the specific circumstances of each case.
(3) The HK Jockey Club also signed an undertaking in 2018, pledging to HyD that it would be responsible for the replacement, maintenance and repair of paving blocks on the public footpath at Wong Nai Chung Road near Happy Valley Racecourse. The Government has no plans to designate the footpath at Wong Nai Chung Road near the Happy Valley Racecourse as pedestrian zone. The Government is not aware that other lot owners have any plan to undertake to replace, maintain and repair road facilities on public footpaths at their own costs.
11810 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019
Public dental services
19. DR ELIZABETH QUAT (in Chinese): President, there are views that as the population of Hong Kong is ageing, dental services are facing great challenges. There were nearly 310 000 poor elderly persons in 2015, representing a poverty rate of 30%. Quite a number of elderly persons are suffering from various dental problems and rely on public dental services heavily. However, such services are grossly inadequate, rendering elderly persons with financial difficulties unable to receive diagnoses and treatments. Regarding public dental services, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it knows the number of dentists who obtained practising qualifications in each of the past five years;
(2) whether it knows the current number of registered dentists in Hong Kong and, among them, the respective numbers of dentists practising in public organizations and private dental clinics/organizations;
(3) of the specific measures in place to increase dentist manpower;
(4) of the specific measures in place to encourage non-locally trained dentists and graduates in dentistry to come to Hong Kong and practise in public organizations;
(5) whether it has projected the manpower demand and supply situation of dentists in each of the coming 10 years; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
(6) whether it has plans to increase the number of dental clinics under the Department of Health, so as to expand the free emergency dental treatment (commonly known as "general public dental sessions" ("GP dental sessions")) provided for the public; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
(7) whether it will consider increasing the consultation quota of GP dental sessions through means such as allocating resources and streamlining procedure; and
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11811
(8) whether it will introduce a population-wide dental care scheme; if so, of the details and timetable; if not, the reasons for that?
SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Chinese): President,
(1) The annual number of newly-registered dentists in the past five years are set out in the table below:
Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Number 53 58 70 65 71
(2) As at end of May 2019, there were 2 342 dentists on the list of registered dentists in Hong Kong under the Dentists Registration Ordinance (Cap. 156).
According to the 2015 Health Manpower Survey conducted by the Department of Health ("DH"), the distribution of those economically active dentists who were practising in different sectors is set out in the following table:
Sector of Work* Government Private Others# Percentage of Dentists 19.5% 74.0% 6.5%
Notes:
* Figures refer to the sector in which the dentists worked for the main job.
# Figures included dentists working in the Hospital Authority, subvented sector, academic sector and Prince Philip Dental Hospital.
(3) To meet the anticipated demand for dental manpower, the Government has increased the annual intake of University Grants Committee ("UGC")-funded first-year-first-degree ("FYFD") training places in dentistry from 53 to 73 by 20 (about 40%) in the 2016-2017 to 2018-2019 triennium. In the 2019-2020 to 2021-2022 triennium, the number of UGC-funded FYFD places in dentistry will be further increased to 80 per annum. The 11812 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019
Government will also provide for 20 UGC-funded taught postgraduate places in dentistry in the 2019-2020 to 2021-2022 triennium.
(4) Under Dentists Registration Ordinance (Cap. 156), there is an arrangement of deemed registration for dentists recruited from overseas for the purpose of teaching and performing hospital work in the Faculty of Dentistry of the University of Hong Kong.
There are suggestions from the dental profession to introduce a limited registration mechanism similar to that for doctors to facilitate qualified non-locally trained professional to practise dentistry in Hong Kong for teaching, research and hospital work under prescribed conditions, and to abolish the arrangement of deemed registration upon the introduction of limited registration to strengthen professional regulation.
The Government has invited the Dental Council of Hong Kong to make proposal on how to implement the recommendations of the Strategic Review on Healthcare Manpower Planning and Professional Development ("Strategic Review") (including the establishment of a limited registration mechanism for dentists). The Government will continue to actively liaise with the Council on the recommendations of the Strategic Review.
(5) The Government published the Report of Strategic Review on Healthcare Manpower Planning and Professional Development ("Report") in mid-2017. The projections on health care manpower have taken into account demographic changes and other relevant factors, including the known and planned services and developments, the requirements of public and private health care, social welfare and education sectors, as well as the demand for primary, secondary and tertiary care services in Hong Kong.
According to the manpower projections in the Report, the manpower of dentists will be in shortage in the medium-to-long term. The manpower gaps for dentists in 2020, 2025 and 2030 are set out in the table below:
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11813
Manpower Gap
2020 2025 2030 Best guestimate 96 121 127 (4.2%) (5.1%) (5.1%)
Note:
A positive number indicates shortfall. Percentages in brackets refer to the percentages of manpower gaps in full-time equivalent terms over the overall demands for dentists.
Taking into account the findings of the Report, the Government will increase the number of UGC-funded FYFD training places in dentistry from 73 to 80 per annum in the 2019-2020 to 2021-2022 triennium. The Government has commenced a new round of manpower projection exercise. The results are expected to be available in 2020. Subject to the result of the new manpower projection, the Government will further consider increasing the number of FYFD training places in dentistry in the next triennium.
(6) to (8)
The Government's policy on dental services aims to raise public awareness of oral health and encourage the public to develop proper oral health habits through promotion and education. To enhance oral health of the community, the Oral Health Education Unit of DH has implemented oral health promotion programmes targeting different age groups and disseminated oral health information through various channels over the years.
Providing comprehensive dental services for the public requires substantial amount of financial resources. Therefore, besides publicity, education (including the School Dental Care Service) and promotion on oral health, the Government shall allocate resources to the provision of emergency dental services to the public and prioritize resources for persons with special dental care needs, in particular elderly with financial difficulties.
The dental clinics under DH are mainly responsible for providing dental benefits for civil servants/pensioners and their eligible dependents as required of the Government as terms of employment 11814 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019
for civil servants, and therefore civil servants/pensioners and their eligible dependents are the major service targets of these clinics. Nonetheless, the Government provides "general public sessions" to offer free emergency dental treatments to the public through designated sessions in 11 government dental clinics of DH. In addition, the Oral Maxillofacial Surgery and Dental Units of DH in seven public hospitals provide specialist dental treatment to the special needs groups by referral from registered dental or medical practitioners. Currently, the government dental clinics are at full service capacity reaching almost 100% occupancy of all appointment time slots. It is not possible for DH to extend or allocate more slots for general public sessions on top of the existing schedule.
Regarding the question raised about the need of elderly dental services, the Government has launched the Outreach Dental Care Programme for the Elderly through subventing non-governmental organizations to provide free outreach dental services for elders in residential care homes or day care centres, and those residing in similar facilities (e.g. Nursing Homes for the elderly registered under DH).
Moreover, in September 2012, the Community Care Fund Elderly Dental Assistance Programme ("the Programme") was launched for provision of free removable dentures and related dental services to eligible low-income elders. The Programme was expanded in phases in the past few years to cover elders aged 65 or above receiving Old Age Living Allowance in February 2019.
Besides, under the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance Scheme, recipients who are old, disabled or medically certified to be in ill health are eligible for a dental grant to cover the dental treatment items (including dentures, crowns, bridges, scaling, fillings, root canal treatment and tooth extraction).
Currently, the Elderly Health Care Voucher Scheme also subsidizes eligible elders aged 65 or above with an annual voucher amount of $2,000 to use private primary health care services, including dental services.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11815
Default on maintenance payments
20. MR LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG (in Chinese): President, the Social Welfare Department ("SWD"), in calculating the amounts of Comprehensive Social Security Assistance ("CSSA") payments payable to CSSA recipients who are concurrently receiving maintenance payments, makes a deduction of the maintenance payments they may receive. If the CSSA recipients can prove to SWD that they have commenced legal proceedings to recover the arrears of maintenance payments, the deduction of their CSSA payments may be suspended. Some social welfare organizations have pointed out that it is very time-consuming to provide such a proof, and such recipients, who are mainly single parents, will immediately fall into financial difficulties once they are owed their maintenance payments. Besides, the work on implementing the maintenance order system falls within the remit of the Home Affairs Bureau and yet SWD, which provides support to single parents, is under the Labour and Welfare Bureau, resulting in a lack of coordination for and effectiveness of the relevant work. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it knows the number of maintenance orders granted by the court in the past five years, with a tabulated breakdown by the group to which the amount of monthly maintenance payments belonged (i.e. below $2,000, $2,000 to $3,999, $4,000 to $5,999, and $6,000 or more);
(2) of the respective numbers of requests for assistance (i) received and (ii) handled by SWD and non-governmental organizations in the past three years concerning default on maintenance payments;
(3) whether it has compiled statistics on the number of cases in the past three years in which legal proceedings were commenced to recover arrears of maintenance payments;
(4) whether it will dispense with the requirement for CSSA recipients to submit proof of having commenced legal proceedings, and stipulate that as long as they make a statutory declaration stating that they are owed their maintenance payments, the deduction of their CSSA payments will be suspended;
11816 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019
(5) whether it will put the work on implementing the maintenance order system under the purview of the Labour and Welfare Bureau so as to enhance the coordination for the work relating to default on maintenance payments and the support for the single parents concerned; and
(6) whether it will consider setting up a dedicated department to strengthen the support for single parents who are owed their maintenance payments?
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Chinese): President, after consulting the Judiciary, the Legal Aid Department ("LAD"), the Labour and Welfare Bureau and the Social Welfare Department ("SWD"), a consolidated reply to the various parts of the question is as follows:
(1) According to the Judiciary, it does not keep information on applications for maintenance orders, granting of maintenance orders, nor the respective amount of maintenance payments.
(2) and (4)
In assessing the amount of Comprehensive Social Security Assistance ("CSSA") payments to be granted to a CSSA recipient, SWD will first assess his/her recognized needs. If the applicant has assessable income (including maintenance payments), the CSSA payments will be suitably deducted. Before the maintenance payments have been successfully recovered by the recipient, SWD will not, on account of such payments, reduce or stop the CSSA payments for which he/she is eligible. However, the recipients should declare on the designated undertaking their intention to take action in filing claims for maintenance payments.
SWD does not keep information on the number of CSSA cases involving default in maintenance payments.
(3) According to the statistics provided by the Judiciary, the number of judgment summons hearings and applications for Attachment of Income Orders ("AIO") regarding the recovery of arrears of maintenance in the past five years are as follows:
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11817
2016 2017 2018 Number of Judgment Summons hearings 844 839 783 Number of applications for AIO 12 14 9 Number of AIOs made 7 13 14
Note:
AIOs might not be made in the same year as the applications were received.
LAD provides legal aid for eligible applicants who pass both the means and merits tests to recover arrears of maintenance. The number of judgment summons proceedings issued for cases handled by in-house lawyers of LAD is shown below:
2016 2017 2018 Number of judgment summons 126 99 95 proceedings issued Number of cases closed 116 161 141 (i) Number of successful cases (%) 82 104 89 (71%) (65%) (63%) (ii) Number of unsuccessful cases (%) 34 57 52 (29%) (35%) (37%)
Notes:
(1) Cases may not be closed in the same year as the judgment summons proceedings were issued.
(2) LAD does not keep statistics on the number of judgment summons proceedings issued for cases handled by lawyers in private practice on LAD's panel.
(5) The Home Affairs Bureau is responsible for the work on implementing the maintenance order system. The Government has no plan to transfer the work to the Labour and Welfare Bureau at present.
(6) The Government is committed to enhancing the effectiveness of the system of collecting maintenance payments and enforcing maintenance orders. The measures taken so far include relaxing the requirement for the court to make an AIO, imposing interest or 11818 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019
surcharge against defaulting maintenance payers, allowing designated government departments to disclose the addresses of maintenance payers upon the request of legal professionals, increasing the amount of monthly maintenance that may be exempted from the Director of Legal Aid's First Charge, streamlining the referral procedures for CSSA applicants to apply for legal aid for recovery of arrears of maintenance, as well as strengthening efforts in publicity and education.
In addition, the Government commissioned through the Family Council a research team in June 2018 to conduct a consultancy study on various issues related to marriage and divorce, including whether it is appropriate to set up a dedicated department to handle maintenance-related matters, in order to facilitate our consideration of the way forward. The consultancy study is expected to be completed in 18 months (late 2019/early 2020).
Provision and management of public markets
21. MR ANDREW WAN (in Chinese): President, some members of the public have pointed out that the government's efforts in providing and managing public markets have been ineffective. For instances, patronage of North Kwai Chung Market has remained low due to the prolonged delay in retrofitting air conditioning system, Tsuen King Circuit Market was closed as a result of mismanagement, and there has been a shortage of public market in new towns such as Tung Chung and Tin Shui Wai. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it has formulated plans to redevelop the public markets in New Territories West; if so, of the details (including the name of the public markets involved and the timetable for redevelopment);
(2) whether it has formulated plans to renovate the public markets in New Territories West; if so, of the details (including the name of the public markets involved and the timetable for renovation);
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11819
(3) whether it will pursue the "single site, multiple use" model in multi-storey developments in redeveloping public markets, and build municipal complexes to provide the various types of public facilities; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
(4) as the Chief Executive indicated in last year's Policy Address that the Government would build a public market in Tung Chung and Tin Shui Wai respectively, whether the Government will provide more public markets in phases having regard to the current and anticipated future population of the two districts; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and
(5) as the Financial Secretary announced in his 2018-2019 Budget Speech that the Government would earmark $2 billion for implementing a Market Modernisation Programme over the next 10 years, whether it has assessed the number of public markets that can benefit from the funding; whether it will provide additional funding in a timely manner in order that the relevant works can be carried out in more public markets; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Chinese): President, the Government is implementing the 10-year Market Modernisation Programme ("MMP") to improve the operating environment of existing public markets. The Government is also planning to develop new public markets in certain districts. My reply to the various parts of the question is as follows:
(1), (2) and (5)
In identifying markets for implementation of projects of different scales (including redevelopment, fundamental overhaul, and refurbishment and minor improvement works) under MMP, the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department ("FEHD") will select public markets with regard to their geographical location and distribution, condition of facilities, business viability, community needs and tenants' readiness so as to benefit the public as a whole.
11820 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019
Having regard to a preliminary assessment of existing markets and views gathered from the Subcommittee on Issues Relating to Public Markets under the Legislative Council Panel on Food Safety and Environmental Hygiene, FEHD has proposed that, in the first phase of MMP, a fundamental overhaul for four markets and refurbishment and minor improvement works for at least another three will be taken forward. The pioneering project of MMP will be the overhaul of Aberdeen Market while the other three markets to be overhauled are located in Kowloon and the New Territories. We have been actively liaising with the tenants there and other stakeholders with a view to reaching a consensus on the way forward as soon as possible. The overhaul arrangements for Aberdeen Market will set a model for future similar projects. After the details of the Aberdeen Market project are finalized, we will kick-start other first phase projects progressively.
FEHD will continue to follow up on the first-phase projects and identify more markets suitable for MMP, so as to make the best use of the $2 billion earmarked, to improve the operating environment of markets. We will assess the need for more funding at a later stage when the funds earmarked are about to be fully committed.
(3) In line with government policy, where the site is zoned for "Government, Institution or Community" purposes, we will pursue the "single site, multiple use" model in multi-storey developments and welcome collaboration with other government departments to accommodate compatible use.
(4) As announced in the 2018 Policy Address, the Government plans to build new public markets in Tin Shui Wai and Tung Chung Town Centre respectively. The Government has also initially identified suitable sites in the east of Tung Chung New Town Extension Area as well as in the southwest of Hung Shui Kiu New Development Area ("NDA") to build public markets. Apart from the above, we are also looking for locations in Tseung Kwan O and the Kwu Tung North NDA to build new markets.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11821
Providing a new public market requires the use of scarce land resources and entails public financial commitment, both capital and recurrent. We also observe the evolving customer preference for shopping venues in purchasing fresh provisions. Given these premises, in considering whether a public market should be built, we have to duly assess the need for the market and cost effectiveness and to ensure proper use of public resources.
The provision of new public markets would be considered on a case-by-case basis. The Government will take into account relevant factors including demographic mix, community needs, provision of both public and private market facilities nearby and number of fresh provision retail outlets in the vicinity. We would also consider the actual situation of individual districts and the views of stakeholders in the process.
Early withdrawal of Mandatory Provident Fund accrued benefits
22. MR JAMES TO (in Chinese): President, under the Mandatory Provident Fund Schemes Ordinance (Cap. 485), Mandatory Provident Fund ("MPF") scheme members may withdraw their accrued benefits early under specified circumstances (such as early retirement, permanent departure from Hong Kong and terminal illness). In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the following figures on early withdrawal of MPF accrued benefits under each specified circumstance in each year between 2015 and 2018:
(i) the respective numbers of applications received, approved and rejected by the trustees,
(ii) the average age of the applicants,
(iii) the total amount of accrued benefits in the approved cases, and
(iv) the highest, lowest and average amounts of accrued benefits in the approved cases; and
11822 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019
(2) as the aforesaid ordinance stipulates that a member with a "terminal illness" means the member "has an illness that is likely to reduce the life expectancy of the member to 12 months or less", but that definition depends on the subjective estimations by individual doctors on the life expectancy of their patients, whether the Government will formulate a more objective and less stringent definition for "terminal illness", such as setting out, in the form of a table in respect of the various death-causing illnesses, the specific stage(s) for each illness to be regarded as terminal illness?
SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Chinese): President,
(1) (i) The Mandatory Provident Fund Schemes Authority ("MPFA") started collecting from Mandatory Provident Fund ("MPF") trustees the number of claims processed by them for early withdrawal of MPF accrued benefits on various grounds since 2016. From 2016 to 2018, the numbers of claims for early withdrawal of MPF accrued benefits on various grounds processed by MPF trustees are as follows:
Permanent Early Departure Total Terminal Small Year Death Retirement from Hong Incapacity Illness Balance Kong 2016 22 100 32 700 2 100 900 300 6 700 2017 23 400 36 500 2 200 900 200 7 800 2018 20 800 33 800 1 800 800 100 7 100
Note:
The figures above are rounded to the nearest hundredth
MPFA has not collected from MPF trustees the number of rejected claims for early withdrawal of MPF accrued benefits on various grounds.
(ii) MPFA only maintains record of the average age of MPF scheme members who withdrew MPF accrued benefits on ground of permanent departure from Hong Kong. The LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11823
average age of scheme members who withdrew MPF accrued benefits on ground of permanent departure from Hong Kong is as follows:
Average age of scheme members who withdrew MPF Year on ground of permanent departure from Hong Kong 2015 40 2016 40 2017 40 2018 41
(iii) From 2015 to 2018, the total amount involved in the claims processed by MPF trustees each year for early withdrawal of MPF accrued benefits on various grounds are as follows:
(HK$ million) Permanent Early Departure Total Terminal Small Year Death Total Retirement from Hong Incapacity Illness(2) Balance Kong 2015 (1) 3,528 172 28 1 505 (1) 2016 1,859 3,323 157 86 1 502 5,928 2017 2,703 4,573 203 106 1 706 8,291 2018 2,682 4,792 211 114 (3) 689 8,489
Notes:
(1) Before 2016, MPFA did not collect from MPF trustees the figures relating to early withdrawal of MPF benefits on ground of early retirement.
(2) "Terminal illness" has been included as one of the grounds for early withdrawal of MPF accrued benefits since August 2015.
(3) Less than HK$500,000.
(iv) MPFA started collecting from MPF trustees the number of claims processed by them for early withdrawal of accrued benefits on various grounds since 2016. From 2016 to 2018, the average amounts of MPF accrued benefits withdrawn early by MPF scheme members on various grounds are as follows:
11824 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019
(HK$) Permanent Early Total Terminal Small Year Departure from Death Retirement Incapacity Illness Balance Hong Kong 2016 84,100 101,700 75,500 91,000 2,600 74,900 2017 115,500 125,200 92,100 115,000 2,600 91,000 2018 128,900 141,700 117,400 136,300 2,700 97,000
MPFA does not have information on the highest and lowest amounts of early withdrawal of MPF accrued benefits on various grounds.
(2) According to the Mandatory Provident Fund Schemes (General) Regulation (Cap. 485A), if a registered medical practitioner or registered Chinese medicine practitioner is of the opinion that a scheme member has any illness that is likely to reduce the member's life expectancy to 12 months or less, and issues a medical certificate to the member, the member may lodge a claim for early withdrawal of MPF benefits on ground of "terminal illness".
The definition of "terminal illness", as well as the approach to certify one's remaining life expectancy, is formulated after taking into account the views received from respondents (especially medical practitioners) during the consultation exercise in relation to the adding of "terminal illness" as one of the grounds for early withdrawal of MPF accrued benefits. As a result of medical advances, many serious illnesses previously considered as incurable may soon become curable with the development of new drugs or medical treatments. Moreover, the health conditions may vary from person to person even if they suffer from the same illness. As such, it would be difficult to generalize in the form of a table different kinds of terminal illnesses.
We are of the view that the existing definition could better facilitate scheme members and medical practitioners in handling various cases in a practical manner. As such, we currently have no plans to amend the definition of "terminal illness".
(Mr Christopher CHEUNG indicated his wish to speak)
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11825
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Christopher CHEUNG, what is your point?
MR CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I now propose an adjournment motion under Rule 16(2) of the Rules of Procedure ("RoP").
ADJOURNMENT MOTION
ADJOURNMENT MOTION UNDER RULE 16(2) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Christopher CHEUNG, according to RoP 16(2), I must be satisfied that your adjournment motion is of urgent public importance and in neutral wording before granting you the permission to move such a motion.
Mr Christopher CHEUNG, will you now please explain concisely why your motion is of urgent public importance?
MR CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, despite the fact that Chief Executive Carrie LAM has publicly apologized to the public for the Government's deficiencies in handling the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance, peace has yet to be restored in society and the confrontational atmosphere in society remains rather severe, thereby triggering various social protests including the blockage of major roads, paralysed operation of government departments, and even besieging of the Police Headquarters for a prolonged period. Large-scale social conflicts may be sparked off anytime.
In this connection, under the extremely tense social situation presently, I hope to invoke RoP 16(2) to have an adjournment debate right after the end of Members' oral question session and before the scrutiny of Government Bills, with a view to pooling our wisdom such that the Hong Kong Government can come up with effective countermeasures to restore stability and peace in society, and to enable Hong Kong society to start afresh.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now suspend the meeting to deal with Mr Christopher CHEUNG's request to move an adjournment motion.
11826 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019
1:22 pm
Meeting suspended.
2:45 pm
Council then resumed.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Honourable Members, I think the matter that Mr Christopher CHEUNG requests the Council to discuss forthwith is obviously of public concern. Information from various sources has shown that large-scale demonstrations and assemblies will be held over the next few days, and in particular, it is envisaged that a mass procession is likely to take place on 1 July this year. It so happens that this is the last Council meeting before 1 July. Therefore, I am satisfied that the relevant motion is of urgent public importance, which must be debated at this meeting. I hence grant the request of Mr Christopher CHEUNG.
(Mr CHU Hoi-dick stood up)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHU Hoi-dick, what is your point?
MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Cantonese): President, before Mr Christopher CHEUNG moves this adjournment motion, I wish to openly call on him to put off proposing this motion till a slightly later time. If he proposes this motion now, it will, in effect, render us unable to discuss and vote on the resolutions on the Agenda proposed by Mr AU Nok-hin and me on whether the Central Harbourfront site will be handed over to the Chinese People's Liberation Army ("PLA") as its military dock, which will just add fuel to the fire. If Mr Christopher CHEUNG hopes to restore calm in society, we should proceed to discuss the relevant items today. If he uses this means to forcibly disable us from conducting the discussion, he will fuel public anger and prompt more people to come out to join demonstrations and render mitigation of the social conflicts impossible. I hope Mr Christopher CHEUNG will think twice.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11827
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHU, this is not a point of order. Nevertheless, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, are you willing to withdraw the adjournment motion, or propose it between other items of business?
MR CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I consider that my motion is of the utmost importance to our society and Hong Kong's status as an international financial centre. I hope Council will now discuss my motion.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Fine.
(Mr HUI Chi-fung stood up)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HUI Chi-fung, what is your point?
MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): President, I would like you to explain the arrangements later on because the afternoon session of the meeting is scheduled originally to deal with the five pieces of subsidiary legislation on handing over the relevant site to PLA as its military dock, the motion to summon Teresa CHENG and the motion of no confidence in the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region. If this motion is passed, will the President resume the meeting after the adjournment, so that we may proceed to discuss other motions on the Agenda? If not, the public will see that you are colluding with the pro-establishment Members to sidestep the discussion on the motions proposed by the pro-democracy camp seeking to hold the Government accountable. Could you undertake that you will allow Members to proceed to the relevant discussions?
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HUI, the Agenda was made public to all before the meeting, and the voting result of this adjournment motion is not something I can control. Hence, Council should deal with the items of business one by one.
(Mr AU Nok-hin stood up)
11828 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr AU Nok-hin, what is your point?
MR AU NOK-HIN (in Cantonese): President, I would like Mr Christopher CHEUNG to elucidate one point. Now there have been discussions on the online forum LIHKG as to whether they should stage a demonstration at the dock once the relevant legislation comes into effect, and some have also expressed concern about whether PLA will be dispatched to arrest all protesters. Is it the wish of Mr Christopher CHEUNG to see such things happen, which will create more social conflicts?
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr AU, you should put this question to Mr Christopher CHEUNG on other occasions.
(Mr Dennis KWOK stood up)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Dennis KWOK, what is your point?
MR DENNIS KWOK (in Cantonese): President, I wish to raise a point about the ruling you made just now. As stated by you just now, there will be a mass procession on 1 July. I would like to remind you that there is a mass procession on 1 July every year, which recurs year after year. Are you saying that we should discuss an adjournment motion before 1 July every year? That is utterly illogical.
Moreover, if Mr Christopher CHEUNG proposes an adjournment motion today to stop us from discussing the Agenda items that follow, including the motion to summon Teresa CHENG and the motion of no confidence in the current-term SAR Government, it will actually prompt more people to take to the streets on 1 July. I hope he will think twice.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr KWOK, this is not a point of order. In determining whether or not to permit a Member to propose an adjournment motion, I will look at whether it is a matter of urgency and enormous public LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11829 concern. As pointed out by me just now, large-scale demonstrations and assemblies will be held over the next few days, and the 1 July march is just one of them, which is also a factor in my consideration.
(Ms Claudia MO stood up)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Claudia MO, what is your point?
MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): I would like to make one thing clear. I find it very strange that you permitted Mr Christopher CHEUNG to propose an adjournment motion. To begin with, while Mr Christopher CHEUNG, mover of this motion, is someone who cannot even tell the difference among Government House, a welcoming house and a VIP house, yet he presented to you a general picture of society. When you permitted him to propose this motion, did you consider the items that follow on today's Agenda? First, those pieces of subsidiary legislation relating to the military site at the Central Harbourfront are subjected to negative vetting and will come into effect on 29 June. It will be rather risky if we cannot discuss them in detail. Second, the next two motions are both proposed by Mr Dennis KWOK. One of them concerns Teresa CHENG, which seeks to summon her to the Legislative Council, and the other one serves to express our distrust of the entire Government. You have now given the public a bad, if not contemptible, impression. There is really nothing more contemptible than that. How are you going to justify yourself? You cannot say that public perception is a matter of opinion, and that your ruling is final. You really fail the people of Hong Kong.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms MO, every ruling I make on an adjournment motion is based on the two factors mentioned by me just now. If Members are aware, the subject of Mr KWONG Chun-yu's adjournment motion permitted by me at the meeting last week was similar to that of Mr Christopher CHEUNG's motion. Since I permitted Mr KWONG Chun-yu's adjournment motion last week, I permitted Mr Christopher CHEUNG's motion today on the same basis.
(Mr Alvin YEUNG raised his hand in indication)
11830 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Alvin YEUNG, what is your point?
MR ALVIN YEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I would like you to explain it to the public here. Subsequent to the abortion of the meeting last week, you made it clear that the motion proposed by Mr KWONG Chun-yu last week would no longer be dealt with due to the lapse. But since the motion proposed by Mr Christopher CHEUNG this week is of a nature similar to that of the motion last week, as stated by you just now, why it is that the motion last week has lapsed while the current motion proposed by Mr Christopher CHEUNG is immune to the time factor?
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr YEUNG, the adjournment motion that I permitted Mr KWONG Chun-yu to propose could only be moved at the meeting last week. As the meeting was adjourned due to the lack of a quorum, Mr KWONG's motion has lapsed. Nevertheless, I have not ruled out any motions to be proposed by other Members which, in their view, are equally urgent, at the meeting this week, and I will also consider them one by one in accordance with the Rules of Procedure ("RoP") and the established practice.
(Mr HUI Chi-fung stood up)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HUI Chi-fung, what is your point?
MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): President, there is no problem with your permitting Mr Christopher CHEUNG's motion. But there is definitely a problem if you take this approach to evade or thwart the motion on summoning Teresa CHENG and the motion of no confidence in the SAR Government to be proposed by the pro-democracy Members later on. You are colluding with the pro-establishment Members, so …
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HUI Chi-fung, I must clarify …
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11831
MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): President, please let me finish my question first. My question is whether you will undertake that after dealing with Mr Christopher CHEUNG's motion …
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HUI, the two motions that you have just referred to are actually stand-over items from previous Council meetings, instead of being scheduled for disposal only today. For this reason, you should not impute any improper motive to my permitting Mr Christopher CHEUNG's motion. I permitted this adjournment motion only on the basis that the issue is urgent and of enormous public concern, with no other consideration.
(Dr KWOK Ka-ki stood up)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, what is your point?
DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): President, as stated by you just now, you permitted Mr Christopher CHEUNG's motion on basis of a few considerations. The first one is the forthcoming large-scale demonstrations which will aggravate conflicts. While you have now permitted his motion, we can see that there have been online discussions on staging a demonstration at the military dock on 29 June, and a higher turnout is expected on 1 July. What you have done will only cause Mr Christopher CHEUNG and the entire pro-establishment camp to bring Hong Kong into greater chaos and a worsening state, resulting in a higher turnout. Will you be held accountable? Will you bear all the consequences of such chaos?
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr KWOK, I have simply made rulings in accordance with RoP, and as to other matters …
DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): President, if the situation worsens, how are you going to handle it?
11832 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I call on people to stay rational, so that Hong Kong can continue to recover.
Mr Christopher CHEUNG, please move the adjournment motion under Rule 16(2) of RoP.
(Mr KWONG Chun-yu stood up)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Christopher CHEUNG, please hold on. Mr KWONG Chun-yu, what is your point?
MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese): President, a point of order. Just now, you mentioned my name, saying that I proposed an adjournment motion last week …
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr KWONG …
MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese): President, please let me finish it.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr KWONG, please continue.
MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese): President, you mentioned my name just now, wondering why Mr Christopher CHEUNG's adjournment motion could not be permitted this week since my adjournment motion was permitted last week. But my adjournment motion is entirely different from the one proposed by him. My adjournment motion seeks an inquiry into whether there was abuse of power by police officers on 12 June, whether Carrie LAM should be held accountable as well as the ins and outs of the whole incident, while the current motion reads "so as to draw on collective wisdom to restore stability and peace in society". Buddy, will you please stop lying through your teeth? If you permitted Mr Christopher CHEUNG's adjournment motion on the same ground, members of the public, seeing what has been going on, will definitely not accept that. You had better not mention my name. But since you have done so, I will not let you get away with it easily.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11833
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Christopher CHEUNG, please speak and move the motion.
MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese): President, I now seek an elucidation from you under RoP 39(b).
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Whether to elucidate or not is a matter for Members to decide.
(Mr KWONG Chun-yu indicated his wish to raise a further question)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr KWONG, what is your point?
MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese): President, be patient. I now seek an elucidation from you under RoP 39(b). Did you permit Mr Christopher CHEUNG to propose an adjournment motion on the same ground as Mr KWONG Chun-yu's case? President, by virtue of subrule (5) of Rule 41 "Contents of Speeches" of RoP, I consider your remark offensive and seek an elucidation from you.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Just now, I have clearly indicated that both the motions of Mr KWONG Chun-yu and Mr Christopher CHEUNG concern similar issues, which are problems which members of the public in Hong Kong hope can be addressed expeditiously.
I now call upon Mr Christopher CHEUNG to move the adjournment motion under RoP 16(2).
MR CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, before I deliver my speech …
(Mr Jeremy TAM indicated his wish to raise a question)
11834 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Christopher CHEUNG, please hold on. Mr Jeremy TAM, what is your point?
MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): President, my question is very simple. I notice that Mr Christopher CHEUNG's motion only mentioned the need to draw on collective wisdom. There is no problem with that, and we can just take our time to do so. But why can he not consider an alternative? You may also discuss with him whether the motion to be moved under RoP 16(2) can be placed after the fourth Agenda item relating to the military dock of PLA, so that we can at least deal with those time-critical items. You may allow him to propose his motion between those Agenda items which are, in your view, not time-critical, so that we can at least finish the time-critical ones. Why should we not deal with an Agenda item that cannot be discussed after today due to the lapse of time? Will it be more appropriate to place his motion after those time-critical Agenda items? Thank you, President.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Christopher CHEUNG, are you willing to accept Mr Jeremy TAM's suggestion?
MR CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I consider my motion compatible with public interest, and that it is urgent given the prevailing problems in society.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now call upon Mr Christopher CHEUNG …
(Mr Jeremy TAM and Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung stood up)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Jeremy TAM, what is your point?
MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): I have not finished yet, so please let me continue. Even with the urgency as he claimed just now, a few hours will not make a big difference. Christopher, am I right? Should he not let us deal with those time-critical Agenda items that cannot be discussed after today? I am not LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11835 imputing any motive to him. I hope this is not the case, but there is no reason for Mr Christopher CHEUNG to reject our suggestion unless the idea in his mind is to achieve the purpose relating to the military dock as stated by me just now, attempting to prevent us from discussing it so that the motion will lapse automatically. Certainly …
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr TAM, you have raised your point.
MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): … I am not imputing any motive to Christopher. But the urgency as he claimed is not so imminent that he cannot even wait a few more hours.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr TAM, what you have said is not a point of order, and I already called upon Mr Christopher CHEUNG to respond just now.
(Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung indicated his wish to raise a question)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, what is your point?
MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): President, you are the one who decides the order of items on the Agenda. Why did you accede to Mr Christopher CHEUNG's request to debate the adjournment motion now on the ground of public interest, instead of scheduling it for a later time? The President may make an arrangement …
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, in accordance with …
MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): … why did you commence this motion debate forthwith on the ground of the so-called social interest, instead of placing it after other Agenda items?
11836 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, RoP 16(2) clearly stipulates that a Member may move without notice an adjournment motion between two items of business, which is the right of Members. A few Members have made suggestions to Mr Christopher CHEUNG just now. Mr Christopher CHEUNG, are you willing to put this motion on hold and propose it after other Agenda items have been dealt with?
MR CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, just now I clearly stated that my motion is urgent, and I hope this Council will debate it now in accordance with RoP.
(Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung expressed his views in his seat)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Had the President been given the power to decide the order for disposal of a motion moved under RoP 16(2), I would certainly have considered it. But such a right actually belongs to Members. Under RoP 16(2), a Member may move without notice an adjournment motion between two items of business.
Mr Christopher CHEUNG, please move your motion.
MR CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President …
MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese): President, point of order.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr KWONG Chun-yu, what is your point of order?
MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese): President, it is now time to have a lesson with you on the studies of the wording of RoP. Pursuant to RoP 16(2), "Such a motion shall not require notice and may be moved only between two items of business. It may be moved by a Member or any designated public officer attending the meeting, with the permission of the President, if the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11837
President is satisfied that the adjournment is for the purpose of discussing a specific issue of urgent public importance." It is clearly stipulated in RoP, and the President should not simply shift the responsibility onto Mr Christopher CHEUNG. Perhaps Mr CHEUNG moves the adjournment motion under RoP 16(2) only at the request of the pro-establishment camp. However, the President, Andrew LEUNG, must be satisfied that the motion is for such a purpose for Mr CHEUNG to be granted the permission to move it.
If the President is not satisfied that the motion is for such a purpose, still he can propose the motion, then we, the opposition camp, will propose an adjournment motion between every two items of business―that is what the President refers to as the opposition camp filibustering in proceedings to the fullest extent for the sake of causing delays; does it mean that we can do the same as well? If so, then we will move an adjournment motion here in every meeting from now on. But it is not the case now. The decision is made by the President. Do not assume that we do not understand it. People now watching the live television broadcast have to understand what Andrew LEUNG is satisfied with so that he allows the Member to propose an adjournment motion under RoP 16(2). I request that the President explains the reasons for him being satisfied that the motion is for such a purpose. Andrew LEUNG, will you answer?
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr KWONG, when the meeting resumed just now, I clearly explained at once that I am satisfied that the motion is of urgent importance.
Mr Christopher CHEUNG, please move your motion.
(Mr WU Chi-wai indicated a wish to raise a point of order)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WU Chi-wai, what is your point of order?
MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): I would like you to clearly explain what "being satisfied that the … is for the purpose" means. What are the reasons for being satisfied? As the basis on which the adjournment motion is proposed is 11838 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 you being satisfied that it is for such a purpose, but it does not suffice to only say "being satisfied", what exactly is the contents that you are satisfied with. What is the basis? Can you explain it to us?
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WU, I have repeatedly explained it, that I consider the matters on which Mr Christopher CHEUNG requests this Council to immediately debate is obviously of enormous public attention. Information gathered from various channels indicate that there will be large-scale demonstrations and assemblies over the next few days, especially 1 July of this year, when a large-scale procession is expected to occur. And this …
MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): President, Mr Christopher CHEUNG exactly said we needed to pool collective wisdom …
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): … this meeting is the very last meeting of the Legislative Council before 1 July. Therefore, I am satisfied that the motion is of urgent public importance and must be debated in this meeting …
MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): Does it imply that when you are satisfied that a demonstration is to be staged, the Legislative Council can then be adjourned?
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): … and thus I granted Mr Christopher CHEUNG's request.
Mr Christopher CHEUNG, please move your motion.
MR CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, before I deliver my speech, I wish to point out that Members of the pro-democracy camp have repeatedly criticized me for harbouring an ulterior motive in proposing this motion and that this motion is not urgent while only those proposed by them are urgent. Secondly, Ms MO launched personal attacks at me, and her behaviour was rather unethical.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11839
President, I now begin my speech. I move under RoP 16(2) that this Council do now adjourn for the purpose of debating the following issue: "given that society has suffered a sustained laceration and large-scale demonstrations and conflicts are on the verge of breaking out any time as a result of serious disagreements in society over the handling of the amendment of the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance, the immediate countermeasures adopted by the Government to expeditiously restore social order and stabilize the business environment, so that members of the public can resume their normal life."
President, with complex emotions and a heavy heart, I have proposed such an adjournment motion on restoring social harmony. Like everyone else, I live in Hong Kong and love Hong Kong―of course I also love our Motherland. Over the past two weeks and more, scenes displaying social laceration have been staged one after another: over a million people taking to the streets and serious clashes between the Police and the public. I believe every citizen in Hong Kong, just like me, felt very frightened and yet heartbroken. People would ask, "Is Hong Kong sick? Why is there such serious hostility and heavily noxious atmosphere in society, so much so that the relationships among different social groups, as well as that between the people and the Government and Police have become so irreconcilable?
A video has recently been in wide circulation on the Internet, and it is titled "致年青人：你哋冇上街嘅父母根本冇愛過你"("To young people: your parents who did not take to the streets have never loved you"). Such propaganda of sophistry and irresponsible brainwashing publicity …
(Mr Charles Peter MOK stood up)
MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): President, point of order.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Christopher CHEUNG, please hold on. Mr Charles Peter MOK, what is your point of order?
MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): President, is it possible to ask Mr Christopher CHEUNG to make an elucidation? Because this video has proved to be fake news online. Will he please clarify this point and stop 11840 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 spreading fake news here. That video is fake news. May I ask him not to spread such fake news written, directed, performed, filmed and watched by the pro-establishment camp itself?
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Christopher CHEUNG, are you willing to give a clarification? If you decide not to do so, please continue speaking.
MR CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I think the press …
(Mr Charles Peter MOK yelled in his seat)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Charles Peter MOK, please keep quiet.
MR CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG (in Cantonese): They simply do not let me speak, so I will just go ahead and not make any elucidation. Undeniably, the amendment of the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance ("FOO") has caused a significant controversy in society while provoking a crisis of confidence in the Government. But the Government is apparently aware of its mistake, sincerely reaching out to the people for their understanding and offering an apology to them. As the saying goes, to err is human. Even saints make mistakes. But what matters most is to learn the mistake and correct it. Why can we not hold an attitude of tolerance in order to make the social atmosphere more peaceful? Regrettably, the turmoil stemming from the amendment of FOO has so far shown no signs of waning, and it has even developed into the so-called non-cooperation protest campaigns to paralyse the operation of government departments and obstruct members of the public using the public services provided by the Government, causing inconveniences to many people. But I wish to stress that it punishes not the Government, but the community as a whole and the innocent general public using public services.
President, I do not mean to do any explaining for the Government. Initially, the Government introduced the amendment of FOO for the purpose of bringing the suspect of the Taiwan homicide case to justice as soon as possible and seeking vindication for the deceased, while plugging the long-standing loophole in law to prevent Hong Kong from becoming a haven for fugitive offenders. It was understandable in terms of both reason and sentiment. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11841
Nevertheless, the Government might have acted with haste back then, hoping to deal with the Taiwan homicide case while filling up the loophole that had been left open over the past 22 years. After commencement of the legislative amendment exercise, the tight schedule and insufficient consultation or explanation work, coupled with the issue being played up by those with ulterior motives, eventually ignited the grievances long harboured in the mind of a group of young people who lacked confidence in the future, which were then translated into public demonstrations and processions.
In fact, after listening to public views, the Government has time and again made revisions to the legislative proposal concerning the surrender of fugitive offenders, replacing the original 46 items of offences punishable with imprisonment for one year or more with those punishable with imprisonment for three years or more, and excluding the most controversial nine items of offences. Subsequently, it has even raised the threshold to crimes punishable with imprisonment for seven years or more, stipulated that only requests made by the Supreme People's Procuratorate of the People's Republic of China on the Mainland side shall be valid, added some provisions on human rights safeguards and made repeated assurances of non-extradition of political offenders. Hence, the actual implications of the Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019 ("the Bill") have significantly been narrowed down. People's worries are basically unwarranted. As a matter of fact, 99% of the members of the public will not be affected by the Bill. Regrettably, the Government's insufficient publicity and consultation work, coupled with the interventions by European countries and the United States one after another that added fuel to the fire, has politicized the incident and rendered it impossible to drive home any argument, and in the end, things have gone completely out of hand.
President, since things have come to this point, I believe we should take remedial measures to quickly mend the rift in society and contain conflicts. Nevertheless, it takes two to tango. While the Government has now taken the right first step, calling the legislative amendment exercise to a halt, we should also step back and look at the bigger picture. I am aware that a good many people are still demanding revocation of the legislative amendment due to confidence issues. But the Government has actually made it clear that the legislative amendment exercise has now come to a complete halt, which is no different from a withdrawal. People should no longer split hairs and make a fuss out of obsession with individual wording.
11842 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019
As to the responsibility on the Chief Executive's part, she has borne the blame, extending her sincere apology for the conflicts, disputes and anxieties in society caused by the legislative amendment exercise. Should we not move on and accept the Chief Executive's confession, instead of dwelling on the issue?
Another thing that saddens me most is an undesirable atmosphere of hostility towards the Police that has taken shape in society. Just look at the more than 10-hour siege of the Police Headquarters in Admiralty by tens of thousands of protesters last Friday, during which it was bombarded with insults from protesters. The police insignia and headquarters were splattered with hurled eggs and defaced with graffti, and some police officers were cursed. Some police officers and their families even fell victim to cyber bullying, doxing and threats, which I believe no society that upholds the rule of law can condone.
The fact that Hong Kong, being one of the safest and most livable cities in the world, where people can lead a peaceful and contented life with the status as an international financial centre, hinges on our excellent Police Force maintaining law and order and upholding the rule of law. We should support stringent law enforcement by the Police Force to uphold the rule of law of our society.
As the Vice-Chairman of the Independent Police Complaints Council, I recall that in the past, we also dealt with some tough issues concerning Occupy Central in 2014 and Mongkok Riot in 2016. For the complaints received on this occasion, I am confident that we will handle each of them in a fair and impartial manner under the sun.
But no matter what, I think it is imperative to mend fences between the Government and the young people, re-examine the problems with youth work and practically reach out to the young people, so that social policies will connect to them, thereby preventing them from losing confidence in the work of the Police and the future of our society, or even being sandwiched in the middle of social conflicts.
I wish to tell the young people that they are not destitute. Being wise, committed and capable, they are the future of our community. We are actually one family in the same boat. I appreciate their expectations for society and the Government, but they need not resort to radical means of struggling at the cost of their own bright future.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11843
Next, President, I will talk about the possible aftermath stemming from the turmoil over FOO from the financial perspective. Amid the acute social conflicts now, incessant episodes of clashes and demonstrations have severely tarnished our image as an international financial centre and undermined the competitiveness of Hong Kong, rocking the confidence of foreign investors and the business sector in making investments in Hong Kong.
The prevailing atmosphere surrounding the China-United States trade war is calm but still tense, while the international landscape is wildly volatile. Earlier on, some financial predators have resorted to verbal tactics to test the waters of Hong Kong. Yesterday, The Washington Post of the United States suddenly brought up old scores, alleging the involvement of three Chinese banks in assisting North Korea in evading sanctions by the United States. No one can tell whether it will turn the China-United States trade war into a financial war later on. We should therefore put in place contingency measures with one heart and one mind, leaving no chance for the financial predators. In the event of a confidence crisis or even a capital flight emerging in the financial market, the harm done to Hong Kong's prosperity and stability as well as people's well-being will be irreparable.
President, experience is the mother of wisdom. I think from now on, the Government can no longer hold the belief that having secured enough votes in the Council will obviate the need for lobbying, consultation and detailed explanation when introducing measures. Before gauging the pulse of public opinion, any move to push things through can easily end up in trouble. It is now imperative for the Government to take prompt action in response to the aspirations of the community. Externally, the Government should further demonstrate that its resolve in upholding "one country, two systems" and creating a favourable business environment remains unchanged, while domestically, it should strive to restore social peace and order as well as its efficiency in administration, and step up efforts in consolidating economic development and improving people's lot.
I sincerely hope Members from the pan-democratic camp can put aside differences and disputes, stay calm, reopen dialogue, concentrate efforts on resolving livelihood issues and jointly maintain social stability, so that people's life can be put back on the right track. The Government should also be inclusive and better take on board the relatively rational views from the pan-democratic camp for smoother administration and a more peaceful social atmosphere.
11844 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019
With these remarks, President, I hope the Government and members of the public, irrespective of being leftists or rightists at whatever level, can walk side by side to embark on a course afresh for Hong Kong, so that Hong Kong, the Pearl of the Orient, will see the rainbow after the rain, and everyone will find hope for the future. Thank you, President.
Mr Christopher CHEUNG moved the following motion: (Translation)
"That this Council do now adjourn for the purpose of debating the following issue: given that society has been continuously torn apart due to serious disagreements in society over the handling of the amendment to the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance, and large-scale demonstrations and conflicts may spark off anytime, the immediate countermeasures adopted by the Government to expeditiously restore social order and stabilize the business environment, so that people's life can return normal."
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the adjournment motion moved by Mr Christopher CHEUNG be passed.
Chief Secretary for Administration, please speak.
(A number of Members yelled in their seats, punching their benches)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please keep quiet.
CHIEF SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION (in Cantonese): President, I thank Mr Christopher CHEUNG for proposing this adjournment motion, such that the Legislative Council is given an opportunity to discuss the countermeasures that should be adopted in response to the controversy in society caused by the Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019 ("the Bill") so that order and peace can be expeditiously restored in the community and the stability of the business environment maintained.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11845
The Government fully appreciates that in the past few weeks, because of the widespread controversies in society brought forth by the amendment of the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance ("FOO"), many people …
(A number of Members talked aloud in their seats)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please keep quiet.
CHIEF SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION (in Cantonese): … have expressed their concerns and views on the Bill through peaceful and rational processions and demonstrations. But unfortunately, some serious clashes broke out in the process, causing some people injured and plunging the community into a state of grief, regret and sorrow.
These controversies stemmed mainly from the inadequacies of the Special Administrative Region ("SAR") Government in handling the amendment exercise, which have given rise to conflicts, disputes and anxieties in society. The Chief Executive has sincerely apologized to the public for the Government's inadequacies in the amendment exercise, stressing that the Government will give audience to the people in an open, humble and sincere attitude, accepting criticisms from the public while continuing to exert its best in serving the public, with a view to ensuring that the Government's administration stays close to public opinion and better meets people's aspirations, particularly over the next three years. It is hoped that the various stakeholders in the community, including Members, will show understanding and forbearance.
I wish to point out here that we absolutely respect the public's rights to take part in processions and assemblies and express their opinions. This has been the key to Hong Kong's success, the epitome of our core values and the protection accorded to us by the Basic Law. However, since the mass demonstration on 12 June, some protesters have repeatedly laid siege to the Central Government Office ("CGO") at Tamar and the Legislative Council and blocked some passages and main roads. Moreover, as Members all know, CGO was forced to close for four working days in the past two weeks purely out of consideration of the safety of our staff, as there are many female colleagues working in CGO and we attach particular importance to the safety of our colleagues. The operation of the Government was somewhat affected. While overall operation could more or 11846 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 less be maintained, some colleagues had to work from home with the use of computers, mobile phones and even WhatsApp, an instant messaging app, which was most inconvenient. On the other hand, in the evening last Friday, we all saw on the television scenes of protesters in huge numbers blocking the streets around the Police Headquarters for over 10 hours. The siege rendered immediate response to some emergency requests made through 999 impossible, which was unsatisfactory and made the public gravely concerned. This Monday, some protesters twice occupied parts of the Revenue Tower and Immigration Tower, among others. While the number of protesters was small, government services still suffered some disruptions with members of the public hindered in their access to the necessary services, especially the urgent ones.
President, the litany of events, demonstrations and struggles has taken a big toll financially, emotionally and physically on society as a whole. Not only is the relationship between the Police and protesters strained as a result, there is also a sense of gravity―even mistrust―permeating the social atmosphere in general.
(THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, MS STARRY LEE, took the Chair)
Even though the Government and the Chief Executive have said so many times, I still wish to reiterate once again that we have halted the FOO amendment exercise completely and made clear that the Bill will automatically expire in July next year as the current term of the Legislation Council comes to an end, a fact and a reality that the Government will accept. This is very clear, and people should rest assured.
I wish to point out that the demonstrations and struggles in the past two weeks or so have, to a certain degree, affected the economy of Hong Kong, a point also highlighted in Mr Christopher CHEUNG's motion. This we must make a careful evaluation. Generally speaking, large-scale demonstrations or violent clashes would inevitably hit the retail and tourism sectors, with temporary and regional impacts unavoidable. If such large-scale demonstrations spread or last for an extended period of time, the impacts would widen and weigh our normal business activities down further, thereby dealing a blow to our economy. It is common knowledge that the external environment is particularly unfavourable to the business environment of Hong Kong. A reversal in the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11847 global economy coupled with the impacts of demonstrations would deal a double blow to Hong Kong economy. Indeed, it is well-known among Members that the trade war between China and the United States has cast a shadow over Hong Kong and the global economy since last year. The Hong Kong economy grew by just 0.6% in the first quarter over a year ago. The newly released value of total exports of goods dropped 2.4% year on year in May. The performance of retail, meanwhile, obviously struggled. If clashes induced by the social strife continue, the negative sentiments and overall economic picture described just now would darken somewhat. The SAR Government will continue to keep a close watch on market changes, maintaining vigilance and maximum alertness while keeping close contact with the business community for timely implementation of support measures …
(Some Members talked aloud in their seats)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please stop talking in their seats.
CHIEF SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION (in Cantonese): Members, in the days to come, the Government will proactively adopt measures in a bid to expeditiously restore order in society, stabilize the business environment and enable people to resume their normal life.
Let me cite two simple examples, the first of which concerns the needs of small and medium enterprises. As the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau has been keeping close contact with the business community, Members should be well versed in the support measures rolled out by the Bureau. In the Budget for the current financial year, the Government proposed an injection of $1 billion into the Dedicated Fund on Branding, Upgrading and Domestic Sales ("BUD Fund") with the aim of further extending the geographical scope of BUD Fund to include all economies which have entered into a free trade agreement ("FTA") with Hong Kong, thereby enabling enterprises, particularly small and medium enterprises, to take advantage of FTAs to explore new markets and new business opportunities. The injection also makes possible an increase in the cumulative funding ceiling per enterprise under BUD Fund to $3 million.
11848 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019
Another example I wish to cite is the determined effort made by the current-term Government in developing innovation and technology as a way of promoting the diversified development of our economy. As a matter of fact, the entire ecosystem of innovation and technology has been transformed, thanks to the large amount of practical work undertaken by the Chief Executive in respect of innovation and technology in the last two years. As I pointed out in a media session this morning, the Chief Executive has outlined eight major areas for innovation and technology development and invested over $100 billion in total for the implementation of various innovation and technology projects. Among these projects are two new measures on re-industrialization, including the $2 billion Re-industrialization Funding Scheme. The Government will also allocate $2 billion to the construction of a microelectronic centre. In citing these examples, I seek no more than to drive home the fact that the Government will enhance the innovation and technology ecosystem in Hong Kong further. I hope Members will look to the future and work with us in promoting innovation and technology development in Hong Kong. Innovation and technology is the answer to our future, the key to the diversified development of Hong Kong economy …
(Some Members talked aloud in their seats)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please stop talking in their seats.
CHIEF SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION (in Cantonese): … improving people's livelihood and providing wider horizons of development for our young people.
In face of the challenges ahead, it is most imperative that financial stability be maintained. The Government and the various financial regulators will monitor various financial links in Hong Kong closely to ensure financial stability and the orderly operation of the Hong Kong dollar foreign exchange market, the money market, the banking system, the securities and futures markets as well as the insurance market.
Deputy President, I hereby call on everyone to cast aside their differences, animosities and mistrust, express their opinions peacefully and rationally, give consideration to the living and needs of other citizens and avoid causing LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11849 disruptions to the Government's public service or keeping civil servants from performing their normal duties. At this difficult time, all civil servants will stay committed to their work in serving the public.
Deputy President, I must reiterate once again that I hope to see society return to peace and order as soon as possible. As Mr Christopher CHEUNG pointed out in his speech moving the motion just now, it is hoped that society can embark on a fresh start, rebuild mutual trust and strive to develop Hong Kong. I stress again that the SAR Government team, under the leadership of the Chief Executive, has been exerting its best to serve the public. This amendment exercise has made the Government team appreciate most profoundly that, as well as formulating policy measures professionally and reliably, we must strive to learn with an open and humble mind, listening and understanding public views and sentiments while striking a better balance of the views expressed by various sectors in the community.
Deputy President, I again express my earnest hope that the rift in society will be quickly mended and Hong Kong will soon return to peace following this painful episode. I believe the majority Hong Kong public would loath to see again scenes of street clashes, violent confrontations and disruptions in public services. Instead, they would expect the Government to move forward with everyone, looking to the future, making a fresh start and rebuilding mutual trust. The current-term Government will continue its approach to care, listen and act, enhance communication and interaction with the public―especially with our young people, improve the economy and people's livelihood, and not least maintain and safeguard Hong Kong's core values, i.e., human rights, rule of law, judicial independence and other major elements on which our success are founded, thereby building a better society in Hong Kong.
I so submit, Deputy President. After Members have spoken, I will deliver my concluding remarks. Thank you.
MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): Initially, I thought Mr Christopher CHEUNG decided to propose this adjournment despite the humiliation it might bring. Yet, as Members have heard clearly just now, the purpose of the debate is to prevent us from discussing the Agenda items following this adjournment debate. As I listened to the speech of Mr Christopher CHEUNG and then the speech of the Chief Secretary for 11850 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019
Administration, I could feel anger boiling up in me. I will refute his arguments one by one later. My anger is bubbling up. The size of the audience watching the live broadcast outside is growing, for they want to watch this "monkey show". More and more people are gathering outside to watch the broadcast, and I think their anger will flare up as they hear these speeches.
I always consider Mr CHEUNG an extremely competent Member from the functional constituency, for everything he does he does it for his sector and local brokers. I urge all citizens and brokers to examine carefully the causes of the problems we are now facing, including the economic problems. The existing situation is precisely caused by the incumbent Government and the pro-establishment camp. Yet, they have shifted the blame to the young people now. Mr CHEUNG also said that the young people are wise and so they should be able to look through the truth. I have to point out that rightly because the young people are wise, they see through the tactics applied and have come forward now. When the young people watch that video, they know it is fabricated. But he dared to bring this up in discussion. In fact, members of the public have already discovered the identity of the director and the actor. Yet, Mr CHEUNG knows nothing about it, as he is simply reading from the script.
He mentioned the impact on Hong Kong's status as a financial centre. Does he think we do not care about that? In fact, early this year, we already told the Government that such practice was problematic and would surely cause problems, and that foreign investors would definitely withdraw their capital. In the midst of the capital outflow of foreign investors we all see now, they remain obstinate, and dare to be unrelenting. Now, they are telling us that we must be united to protect Hong Kong's status as a financial centre from damage. Yet, will it be adequate to just be united? They should rectify the wrong and improper practices of the past. Given what they have done now, how can they restore the confidence of the international community in Hong Kong and the confidence of the people of Hong Kong?
Deputy President, the problem does not lie merely with the Government. From the speech of Mr CHEUNG, we know that the Government cannot but swallow it reluctantly, as various sectors have already split with the Government and condemned the Government for its inadequacy in prior consultation. Some Members have even criticized the Government for the insufficient time in consultation and its failure to heed public views. Yet, back then, who decided to ride roughshod over all opposition and supported the Government in taking it LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11851 forward? None other than they. Now, a group of friends outside this Council are using civil force to collect the remarks made by and the articles written by these Members as evidence of their deeds, lest these Members think that they can readily sever their tie with the Government. In contrast, it is straightforward for us in conducting ourselves, for we are not like them, we have not changed our stance.
We can note from the speech of the Chief Secretary for Administration that though they have split up on the surface, they managed to maintain some degree of teamwork, for the Chief Secretary had the time to prepare his script in advance. I cannot but commend the high efficiency of the Government, for the script was ready in just an hour or so and the Chief Secretary could arrive in advance waiting to enter the Chamber for the adjournment debate. Yet, after hearing the Chief Secretary's speech, I discover that the Government still does not know the crux of the problem and it is merely repeating its previous line.
First, I must point out that government officials should stop saying that there are a lot of problems in Hong Kong which require them to deal with. I have never heard a person to be fired or being requested to resign tell his or her boss that he or she still has a lot of work left unfinished and must stay in the post to continue to work on these issues. After that, he cited achievements in education and innovation and technology. Yet, these are the obligation of the Government in the first place. At present, the gravest problem is that Hong Kong society is divided, a problem precisely created by them. No matter how well they perform in other aspects, it does not help. If their performance in innovation and technology, as well as education, is so outstanding, they should indeed take up the post of the Secretary for Innovation and Technology or the Secretary for Education. Why do they have to be the Chief Executive and the Chief Secretary for Administration? They should stop finding excuses. The Government is responsible for those tasks. Stop pretending they cannot deal with the work in this aspect because they have to handle other tasks, or that they cannot handle other tasks if they have to deal with the work in this aspect. They are paid for the job. All of these tasks are their job and they should be responsible for them. The Government should stop diverting the focus from the incident. It should not use our sector as an excuse. The sector I represent is very angry. They also joined the march and they will not thank the Government because of the resources allocated to the sector, for this is what the Government should do. Does the Government understand this?
11852 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019
Last week, the pro-establishment camp caused the meeting to abort. At that time, I joked that the pro-establishment camp might like Japanese drama series, like "Escape though shameful is useful" starring "Gakki BB". Regrettably, they are not happy with aborting one meeting, and they are doing this again this week. Is the pro-establishment camp trying to evade declaring their stance on the following motion? If this motion on the adjournment of the Council is passed, they do not have to state their stance. The military dock is close to the Legislative Council Complex, yet it will soon be provisioned as a site for the Chinese People's Liberation Army ("PLA"), and the pro-establishment camp will be spared stating their stance on the issue. If this Council cannot debate the relevant proposed resolution today, the amendment will be passed automatically, and they will be happy about it. If this is not the reason, are they trying to pre-empt the outbreak of another issue before the commencement of the Group of Twenty (G20) Leaders' Summit, fearing this may add fuel to the present situation?
Deputy President, I really do not know. I am not trying to make any speculations. Yet, I believe many members of the public are pondering who has thought up this "brilliant idea". Is this the idea of the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("LOCPG")? Why would Hong Kong come to this pass? Look at the present situation in the legislature. Meetings will be held if the pro-establishment camp desire so, and if they want to abort the meeting, they can also do so. In the past, they criticized us for causing meetings to abort and filibustering, but now they have done both.
Mr CHEUNG, what a painful task for you to sit here by yourself―there are indeed two persons here―bearing all the humiliation to help with the present task. For items the pro-establishment camp want to discuss, they will be discussed, but for items they do not wish to discuss, those items will not be discussed. Chief Secretary, did you know that this debate would be held today? Is it because you have to hurry for this meeting that you turned down the pro-democracy camp's request to meet with you and refused us on the excuse of a busy schedule? I meant to skip mentioning this originally, for I thought the Chief Secretary might really be busy. Yet, when a large number of citizens have come forward to protest, no matter how busy he is, there is nothing more important than discussing issues about which the public are concerned today, is there? Would it really be the livelihood issues as the Chief Secretary claimed? Is it true that no other Directors of Bureaux can handle those issues?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11853
The Chief Secretary said he had no time to talk to us or to have dialogue with us. Does the Chief Secretary think that the people of Hong Kong do not know the reasons? In fact, everyone in Hong Kong knows that, and the world knows that, too. I implore the authorities to think twice before they act, for everything done by the authorities seems to be ridiculous and going too far. Now, the incident is known worldwide, for the reports concerning the incident have been translated into various languages.
Hence, I implore the Government and the pro-establishment camp to stop driving Hong Kong into the dead alley. The people of Hong Kong care very much about Hong Kong. Do they love Hong Kong less than we do? They have betrayed Hong Kong as a whole to follow the route of the Central Authorities in respect of both the economy and society. Why have we come to this pass?
I have read the content of the motion of Mr Christopher CHEUNG which mentions that people's life has to resume normal. This can be achieved easily if the Government responds to those five requests. We have stated these requests many times. Actually, we have not demanded an apology from her. I do not want to use the four-character Chinese expression people are now using to express my view. Yet, the people have pointed out that they have never asked her to apologize. They query if she can show some sincerity. It may be desirable to give a bow, yet she has not. People are now asking for a "withdrawal", and I do not want to repeat the explanation about the difference between the two, for there is no reason that she does not know the difference. The people are asking for a true withdrawal of the Bill, retraction of the categorization of the clashes as a "riot", no prosecution of protesters (particularly the many injured protesters arrested in hospitals), an independent investigation and resignation of Carrie LAM. Regarding these five requests, the authorities may sit down and talk with us. We are not demanding a 5:0 result. The authorities may sit down and discuss with us, explaining which requests can be met. We consider there is room for discussion and we believe some protesters also hope to discuss with the Chief Secretary. Regrettably, the Government seems to have turned a deaf ear to the five requests. What can we do then?
Now, they are saying they hope to expeditiously restore social order. Actually, this is our hope, too. We hope that the normal order of the Legislative Council can be restored, for there are many issues which we wish to discuss and many items which we wish to see passed in the Finance Committee. 11854 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019
Nonetheless, the Government simply resorts to escape without feeling ashamed. Yet, this approach is useful. The Government adopts the avoidance tactic, and the pro-establishment camp does the same. They pretend that they have severed their tie with the Government, but they are indeed on the same side. What can we do to restore normal life? Do the authorities think that their procrastination in responding will cause the public to forget the five requests? The date 1 July is approaching. Even if it can make it through 1 July, how can it make do further? How can Hong Kong bear further? I am concerned about my financial status. My friends have started saying that they have to sell their flats, and Honourable Members have such thoughts, too. What can we do?
At present, the pro-establishment camp has seemingly joined the pro-democracy camp in pointing out the wrongs done by the Government and has made articulated remarks. Yet, they have a part to play in causing the incident. They have taken part throughout the course. We have offered them a number of opportunities and urged them to join hands with us to stop the Government from going down the wrong track. Yet, they chose to collaborate with the Government. Now the incident has developed to the present state, they are criticizing the Government. As Mr CHEUNG said, the young people nowadays are wise and they can perceive clearly what is happening. It is true that what the pro-establishment camp does today has prevented us from debating the proposed resolution on the military dock. They have enough votes to ensure the passage of the amendment despite the debate, yet under the present approach, they can enable the amendment to come into effect without stating their stance. In the absence of a debate, the public will not know the ins and outs of the incident. Yet, the pro-establishment camp should not think that they can escape by acting in this manner. Let me tell him that it does not work to escape this time around. Even though I am not willing, I have to thank him, for it is rightly because of their deeds that additional protesters numbering several hundreds of thousands will come forward on 1 July. I wonder if we should give thanks to him, for we have an assembly tonight, and there will be 100 000-odd people joining by then. I wonder if such practices will mend the division in society. I implore him to reflect on this. In fact, the only reason is that some people want them to do so, so they listen to that person or observe those instructions strictly.
I have spoken for 15 minutes not because I want to filibuster. This motion is proposed by them. Yet, I would like to seize this last opportunity to draw a conclusion. At present, not only the Government should be condemned, the pro-establishment camp as a whole should also be condemned. Though they LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11855 claim they have severed their tie with the Government now, they have indeed made a significant contribution to the problem. Had they not rendered their support, the Government would not have adopted the assertive attitude in seeking passage of the Bill because it has secured enough votes. For this reason, the pro-establishment camp should also be condemned.
Mr CHEUNG said that order of Hong Kong society should be restored, life should return to normal, disputes should be resolved and continual division of society should be stopped. If so, I implore them to reflect again if their acts are truly good for Hong Kong. Will they continue to do so? Will they continue doing these things? I am not anxious. I have no fear in all circumstances. The worst scenario is that they will "DQ" (disqualify) us who have won the votes of the public. Even if it came to that eventuality, it would not matter, for I am a man of clear conscience. I do this for Hong Kong but not on the order of someone in the superior. I urge them to think twice. I also urge the Government and civil servants, not merely accountability officials, to think twice. Regarding what they have done in the past six months, we had been telling them that it is impracticable, yet they continued to do so and led us to this pass. But now, they are shifting the blame to us and the young people. Do they think this is a solution to the problem?
DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Deputy President, had one known these consequences today, one should not have done all that in the first place! Be it Christopher CHEUNG or Matthew CHEUNG, you people know clearly that you have played a part in creating this saga and now you are "feigning your own death", claiming that if this saga continues, foreign capital would be pulled out, the corrupt officials from the Mainland would flee, and even the most ordinary citizens in Hong Kong would go away. Jeffrey LAM and Priscilla LEUNG have sold their properties, and we have all seen it. Be it Christopher CHEUNG or Matthew CHEUNG, the fact remains that in this incident, the entire Government has put Hongkongers on the spot. Now that when things have gone wrong, you people are crying like spoiled kids stomping their feet on the ground?
Had Matthew CHEUNG been smart enough to know what he should do, he should have told Carrie LAM to come forth and stop hiding in Government House every day. No meeting of the Executive Council is held, and its meeting has been cancelled twice so far. What is happening now? If, in this incident, those people in the Executive Council had got her into this mess, thus rendering 11856 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 her performance compromised, then these people should all be dismissed. But I think I may be wrong because if she would revamp the Executive Council, probably her sole purpose would be to find a scapegoat. This trio of Carrie LAM, John LEE and Teresa CHENG who has condemned Hong Kong to such a sorry state today can hardly absolve themselves of the blame.
Earlier on Chief Secretary for Administration Matthew CHEUNG spoke at great length on how the Hong Kong economy would be affected and stressed the need for reconciliation, and so on. Why did he not make these remarks at the outset? Did he ever say all this to Carrie LAM? His years of service in the civil service are no shorter than hers, and he has been an accountability official for a time no shorter than hers either. Did he ever tell her that she would be sending Hong Kong to hell in what she was doing? Not only will we be sent to the Mainland, but Hong Kong will tumble down in its entirety. Why did he make those remarks only now?
In fact, let us look at why Christopher CHEUNG is given this task. Because he carries little significance. He is one of the functional constituency Members who can win in the election with zero votes or in a haphazard manner. Look at those directly-elected pro-establishment Members. Their whereabouts are not known now. Where is the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong ("DAB")? Where is Ms Starry LEE? And, where is that "foul-tongued Alice" who spoke foul language whom he was talking about the other day? I really wish to listen to how she would swear at people or hurl abuses once again.
This Government is callous, and the entire Hong Kong has been put on the spot. The Government knew full well that the amendment of the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance ("FOO") would tear Hong Kong apart since it has been conducting opinion polls covertly and the Central Policy Unit has also conducted so many opinion polls. So I think it knew before pushing forward the Bill that things would go wrong. Some people who had conducted big data analytics already estimated that over a million people would be taking to the streets. On 9 June, 1.03 million people took to the streets, and Carrie LAM had the guts to announce at 11:00 pm that the Second Reading debate would resume as scheduled. Did she think that the circumstances of Hong Kong were not dire enough? Did Matthew CHEUNG tender any advice to her? Did he give his endorsement to these statements issued by Carrie LAM? She was adding fuel to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11857 the flames, and to make sure that Hong Kong would be caught in serious trouble, she even redoubled her efforts to fan the fire. Everyone is saying that this Government is a "good fighter" and that it is very smart. These officials who have been civil servants for several decades know only to ride roughshod over others. They are incapable of making a judgment on such a simple issue, and they cannot even make a judgment of such a low level.
Moreover, Christopher CHEUNG, your good friend, Abraham SHEK, already said it. The company of which he is a non-executive director forfeited a deposit of over $10 billion (sic) and from this you should have smelt a rat. You should have seen the trouble coming. Did you, before the Government introduced the amendments, say to Carrie LAM, "Don't go any further, for members of my sector would meet their doom, my stock brokers would become jobless, and Hong Kong would be tumbling down, and three more Mainland banks have gone bankrupt today; alas, we are finished!" Did you say all this? And you are saying it only now, sheding crocodile tears? It was only after 2 million people had taken to the streets that you called for a halt, saying that society is torn apart and the situation is bad. Have you, Christopher CHEUNG, fulfilled a bit of your responsibility rather than proposing an adjournment motion here? Have you betrayed your sector? Your sector would certainly meet its doom in relying on you. For the sake of your sector, you should have told the Government not to forcibly push forward the amendments which would drag all the people of Hong Kong into a doom. Did you say it? You can tell us later whether you had said so and if you did but the Government did not heed you, then you can be absolved of the blame.
On the contrary, you people will only greet Carrie LAM with abject servility, saying that she is wise and brilliant. I recall that at meetings of the Bills Committee, you people, including the Deputy Chairman, "foul-tongued Alice" et al., all lined up to sing praises of the Government. Why did you not voice these views? Why do you care to voice these views only now? Shame on you! And you even moved an adjournment motion because you are concerned that Hong Kong would be torn apart, that it would be plunged into great miseries, and that it would be degenerating. What you have done will only make more people take to the streets. There will be even more people taking to the streets on 1 July because they can see that this is a conspiracy by Christopher CHEUNG, Matthew CHEUNG and Andrew LEUNG in that by proposing this adjournment motion, the motion on the military dock would be barred from being 11858 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 put to a vote, and Teresa CHENG would not have to be summoned and what is more, the motion on no confidence in the SAR Government would not be proposed for discussion. What use is there in doing this?
Have Members listened to the story of "The Emperor's New Clothes"? In fact, the situation now is that Carrie LAM does not have any clothes on her but you people are telling her that her clothes are beautiful, that she is really smart and that her clothes are gorgeous. You are the people who are telling her this, and you even have to shield her? When she said that "suspend" the Bill is tantamount to "withdrawing" it, you said that the Bill being suspended is equivalent to it being withdrawn. Are you not puerile? Then she apologized to Hongkongers with a long face, and everybody knows that she was insincere. Would anyone pull a long face in tendering an apology? She even said that the original intent of the Bill was to deal with the murder case in Taiwan. Were I the family of the parties involved in the murder case in Taiwan, I would really slap her on the face. How dare she piggyback on this case to serve her purpose, eating steamed buns dipped in human blood. She knew clearly that this was impossible, and she intended to turn Taiwan into part of Mainland China through the amendment of the extradiction law. Is she nuts? Anyone with a bit of ability to make a judgment or a bit of common sense will know that this must not be done and this would definitely court troubles. Even if it has to be done, it should be done on a one-off basis. In fact, before the amendments were introduced, the Taiwan authorities had thrice contacted the SAR Government but they were not given a response on all the three occasions. Then John LEE could even brag blatantly in the Legislative Council about China having an open, sunshine judicial system with its rule of law system ranking among the top. This is indeed unbearably shameful! What a brainless fool he is. All of them are brainless fools. Now that they have created this mess and they want to wash their hands of it. Don't ever think about it, for Hongkongers will definitely remember what happened this time around.
The number one person enabling unity in Hong Kong is Carrie LAM, for she has awakened Hongkongers. She took office two years ago, though there was no other choice. But she defeated "moustache", and we all thought that we might as well accept it, and since the "moustached guy" could not make it, there was, after all, this person who was acclaimed as a "good fighter". But how can she qualify to be a "good fighter"? She simply used words to substitute actions all the time. She once said that she would do something to fix the "country bumpkins" and that their unauthorized building works would be removed but then LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11859 she forgot it. Then she said that the Central Harbourfront would be developed and now the harbourfront is eventually turned into a military dock. Which vow made by her has ever been honoured? We all know it only too well.
Actually Hongkongers are contented with their life, and people taking to the streets have all been prompted to do so. In the march against legislation on Article 23 of the Basic Law, it was because "old TUNG" suddenly pushed forward legislation on Article 23 for no reason that Hongkongers were forced to come forth. When the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress ("NPCSC") shut the door with its 31 August Decision in relation to the constitutional reform, Carrie LAM was the group leader and she knew clearly that NPCSC's 31 August Decision was even worse than having no election because that would be bogus universal suffrage. Hongkongers were smart and they knew that if bogus universal suffrage was introduced and implemented, functional constituencies would last forever, and we all know that it is a grossly detestable, shameful system. You people have all along denied the public democracy, and we certainly will not accept it, but you cannot arbitrarily change the name of the poison into "coke" and then tell us to swallow it. The 31 August Decision was a case in point, and Hongkongers certainly refused to swallow it. But by whom the amendment of FOO was proposed this time around? It was DAB, and it is precisely their wish to kill with a borrowed knife. Why do they have to do so? Had they not forced Hongkongers to accept the China extradiction law, why would Hongkongers have taken to the streets? Do they think that Hongkongers have a lot of spare time?
Members of the public have taken to the streets over and over again. They started to wait at 1:00 pm and finished the march only at midnight. It took them seven or eight hours, and they had to squeeze into the fully loaded compartments of MTR trains. They were all exhausted, and sweat-soaked, and children had to sit in the strollers for hours. This was what many friends of mine had gone through, but they still came forth no matter how tiring it was to them. They said that Hong Kong would meet its doom if they did not come forth. We all know that there can be no compromise. As for these senior officials such as Carrie LAM, John LEE and Teresa CHENG, what have they done? They have added fuel to the flames. Honestly, we all know that they connived at the Police arbitrarily assaulting members of the public on 12 June. The Police kept beating up people as if they were animals. They even fired shots at that patient with terminal cancer, and there was also that unarmed mother. The Police even had to fire pepper spray on her, and she would get beaten up had she not gotten away in time.
11860 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019
These policemen are a disgrace to Hong Kong. No wonder the public are calling them "corrupt cops". How can they hold up their heads? Then, worse still, they told lies. I was at the Police Headquarters that day, helping to talk the protesters out of charging. When we saw an ambulance arriving, Dr Fernando CHEUNG and I exerted ourselves to help make way for it to get through. We also went along with the ambulancemen to provide assistance to the patients and asked about their condition one by one. But the Police outrageously dared to lie an hour or so later. We found out later that the police officer is a Deputy Director of the Police College, and this person responsible for teaching and training policemen had outrageously lied all the while. Shame on the Police! Were I the Government, the first thing I would do is to fire LO Wai-chung. How could he connive at the cops telling lies continuously and deliberately breaking the law?
They also used the word "riot", and as we all know, it is a most malicious word. Honestly, charging is an offence, so is illegal assembly, and even assaulting police officers is an offence. But the penalty for the offence of riot is the heaviest. I do not know if they had hired someone to put on a show and then turn the assembly into a riot because as we all know, there are many "moles" in Hong Kong, and I cannot tell who is a "mole" and who is not. But if the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("LOCPG") wants to put on a show, it has the ability, resources and channels to do so, and after the show is over, all they need to do is to call those people rioters, and then they can besmirch the whole incident. How sinister they are!
Worse still, I am not sure if it is LOCPG or DAB or the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions or other people that have recently turned into propaganda machines, mounting an array of campaigns resembling those during the Cultural Revolution and filming a video showing a young man telling his story. We all know that he is an actor, and the purpose is to aggravate the rift between parents and their children. Their motive is condemnable. Do they want to transfer the Cultural Revolution into Hong Kong so as to achieve the Mainlandization of Hong Kong early? That video was first reported by Wen Wei Po and Ta Kung Pao and so, we know what it is all about. Do you not get it, Christopher CHEUNG? That was reported by Wen Wei Po and Ta Kung Pao. What else can you say? You people were secretly collaborating with each other, and you think that Hongkongers are idiots?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11861
Now her damn stupidity has really become known internationally. On the eve of the G20 Osaka Summit, a few million dollars were raised with money chipped in by Hongkongers for placing advertisements with most newspapers all over the world, hoping to draw the attention of the world to the amendment of FOO. These "brainless fools" in the SAR Government have not only brought Hong Kong into disrepute but also made the Mainland lose face. So how would Carrie LAM not be embarrassed in remaining in office? Right, when we ask her to do something now, she nevertheless said that the Government would refrain from doing anything that is controversial. How can she stop carrying out work? Have we asked her to increase the provision of hospitals, elderly welfare and housing? When did we ask her to stop carrying out work in these areas? It is she who said that she would not do them anymore and then she passed the buck to us. How shameful she is. If, in future, she cannot do her job properly, she would blame us for getting in her way. When have we got in her way? When have we obstructed her improving people's lot in Hong Kong? We only told her not to inflict harm on Hongkongers.
Lastly, concerning this military dock, let me tell Christopher CHEUNG that this is no fun. If he moved this motion with the intention of avoiding discussions on the military dock today, in case members of the public besieged the military dock after the 29th of this month, and as clearly pointed out in the Subcommittee, the People's Liberation Army ("PLA") can carry guns with them there, is it his wish to see conflicts between Hongkongers and PLA? Why should this site be given to PLA? They already have a naval base on Stonecutters Island, so why do they still have to occupy this site of ours? Do they want to stir up troubles? Hongkongers must definitely stand up for themselves. We must take to the streets on 1 July, and we must register as voters in order to sweep all of this rubbish away, and vote them out! I so submit.
MR JIMMY NG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I speak in support of the adjournment motion proposed by Mr Christopher CHEUNG so that this Council can calm down, cast aside political bickering for the time being and focus its discussions on some urgent economic and livelihood policies.
There is no denying that the recent legislative amendment saga has huge ramifications on the Government's governance and society at large. The Government should expeditiously mend as its prime task the divide in society while concentrating its efforts on stimulating the economy and safeguarding 11862 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 people's livelihood as dark clouds continue to gather over the international political and economic scene. Suspending the resumption of the Seconding Reading debate of the National Anthem Bill by the Government, for instance, was a constructive move which we should find understandable.
While the tree may long for calmness, the wind will not subside. Despite the Special Administrative Region ("SAR") Government having made clear that the amendment exercise of the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance has stopped, or the Chief Executive and several officials primarily responsible for the exercise having apologized to the public and society, there remain in the community some vocal detractors set on kicking up a fuss by hyping up political issues. By going so far as blowing the issue way out of proportions, they have brought the confrontational sentiment triggered by the amendment into international limelight in the hope of inviting flagrant interference from external forces. It is definitely a dangerous sign. As a Member of the legislature, I hope this Council will act as a stabilizing force in society, not a perpetuator of endless political strife.
Over the past period of time, the frontline officers and management of the Police, health care personnel and civil servants have stayed committed to their posts professionally. People's lives have also been affected. That was hard for everyone.
As the saying "a fall in the pit, a gain in your wit" goes, I am sure the Chief Executive and the SAR Government have gained a deeper insight into social aspirations and public thoughts in this legislative amendment saga. I also noted from the blog posts penned by government officials that the SAR Government will concentrate on economic development, improving people's livelihood, and strengthening communication with the young people with a view to creating room for development and more opportunities of upward mobility for them. On the other hand, the public crave after prosperity, stability and development, not political strife and intense conflicts, still less the prevalence of confrontations and violence in the entire society.
As a final note, I hope all sectors in the community and the public will put the unpleasant episode in the period just past behind them so that society can return to rationality, make a fresh start and develop Hong Kong.
I so submit, Deputy President.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11863
MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Cantonese): Deputy President, for starters, would those Members from the pro-establishment camp who are going to speak today, including Mr Christopher CHEUNG, please stand up and apologize to all Hong Kong people―I asked Mr Holden CHOW to do so last time … He is the first one to eat "steamed buns dipped in human blood" by making use of the family members of the deceased of the Taiwan murder case. He had made such a fuss over it for several months, and it turned out that he had done this to assist the Government in implementing "extradition to China", but he has not even said a single word of apology so far. Well, Mr Christopher CHEUNG has taken the turn to act as a clown today. Will he please make an apology to the Hong Kong public when he rises to speak? Yet, he now pretends that nothing has happened, and he even talks about stabilizing the business environment and restoring social order. It is precisely you people, this gang of pro-establishment Members, and the Government who did nothing since February but only sought to amend the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance ("FOO"), which finally led to serious troubles in the city. Now you want to just shrug and leave, passing the buck to the Government? Of course, the Government does not have the backbone either and they have sent the Chief Secretary for Administration to stand in today. Where is the trio? Where has Carrie LAM gone? What about Teresa CHENG and John LEE? What is the point of sending Matthew CHEUNG to stand in for them? Is it not reflecting that you, the Government, have no backbone? Now, even the proposer of the motion is leaving the Chamber. Mr Christopher CHEUNG, you will be scolded when you walk down the streets.
When I searched for news relating to Mr Christopher CHEUNG on the Internet, all of the results were so unsightly. At a meeting of the Panel on Security in June, he expressed his support for the Government, asserting that the opposition camp talked nonsense by blowing the issue out of proportions, and that people could choose to emigrate if they had no trust in the judicial system of the Mainland. Yet, he is now making all sorts of pretences, saying that he hopes to mend the rift in society. Why did he talk rubbish at that time then? What is even more ridiculous is that while the Government indicated in mid-June that the amendment exercise had been suspended, he disclosed that Ms Alice MAK used swear words to scold Carrie LAM at Government House. He, being a member of the pro-establishment camp who loves the country and loves the party, treated one of his numbers in this way? Can they be a little more united? In a closed meeting, he was recorded "bad-mouthing" his ally as he had not turned off the microphone. Deputy President, please take a look, you should control them. We can keep our eyes closed even though he often sleeps or reads the words 11864 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 wrong when reading directly from the scripts. But now I feel sorry for you, for there are such kind of lowly people who throw swear words in the "love the country and love the party" camp. I have sympathy for Ms Alice MAK as she may lose her seat anytime. She is a person who would express her sentiments freely, so we would have a little bit more empathy for her after she has scolded Carrie LAM. Yet, Mr Christopher CHEUNG talked behind her back, and now they have made a fool of themselves in front of the whole world.
Today, they have arranged for Mr Christopher CHEUNG to act as the clown and propose this adjournment motion. Mr Christopher CHEUNG would of course think: "I should have done a deed of merit in proposing the adjournment motion, as the subsequent Agenda items include the five pieces of subsidiary legislation relating to the handover of the Central Harbourfront to the People's Liberation Army. If the adjournment motion is passed, we from the pro-establishment camp might not request resumption of the meeting"―just like the case last week, but I do not know what kind of reasons they will cite this time―"We can, therefore, render an outstanding service to 'Grandpa'". In this way, it will not be necessary to vote on the proposed resolutions―including the repeal and postponement of giving away the Central Harbourfront to China―to be moved by me and Mr AU Nok-hin. He thinks that he has made a great effort in solving these minor problems for "Grandpa", but he does not know that he has already fallen into a trap.
Mr Christopher CHEUNG, please come back to listen to me. How have you fallen into a trap? As the Chief Secretary for Administration has said, the SAR Government has now deferred handling controversial issues such as the Lantau Tomorrow Vision and the National Anthem Bill. They even fear that we will spring a surprise attack on the Government, whilst Mr CHAN Kin-por also said that he would not allow us to discuss the item even if the Finance Committee has time to scrutinize the Lantau Tomorrow Vision. Why are they in such a panic? They are not afraid of us, Members from the opposition camp, they are just afraid of the public, because an "elephant of public opinion" is now standing in front of them, and tens of thousands of people would easily besiege Matthew CHEUNG and the pro-establishment camp to prevent them from going to work. As a result, they can only chicken out. Yet, Mr Christopher CHEUNG has not read thoroughly the content of the proposed resolutions to be moved by me and Mr AU Nok-hin at all. We exactly hope to postpone the dispute, and this is related to what the Government intends to do now. I propose that we should only discuss the five pieces of subsidiary legislation for giving away the Central Harbourfront to the People's Liberation Army ("PLA") only a year or two later, so LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11865 as to give everyone some time. It is so surprising that Mr Christopher CHEUNG does not appreciate our favour, but hopes to expedite the implementation instead by barring us from discussing and voting on the proposed resolutions. In this way, these pieces of subsidiary legislation would come into effect automatically on 29 June, and this will become the first bomb. I saw from the news report that just now Matthew CHEUNG still talked loudly to the reporters outside that this would only have a very slight impact on the public. Are these remarks not so similar to what they said in promoting the amendments to FOO, claiming that 99.9% of the public would not be affected? The public will, just like seeing through the amendment exercise of FOO, also see through the "second-round giveaway to China" in which the Government would hand over the Central Harbourfront site to PLA. The New Central Harbourfront, being such a nice place, is not returned to the public for their use after reclamation. PLA has already established a naval base on the Stonecutters Island, what is the military usage in the past 20-odd years? I remember that Mr MA Fung-kwok even pretended to be a military expert in the Subcommittee, claiming that the absence of a military dock in Central would seriously undermine the defence effort of PLA. This is precisely the same as what they said in promoting FOO, claiming that there is a loophole in law in Hong Kong which has remained not plugged in the past 20-odd years. The public will not believe it, and the more they talk about it, an additional 100 000 people will take to the streets to join the demonstrations.
Chief Secretary Matthew CHEUNG should not be so stupid. What happened before has been taken up by the "extradition to China trio". Does he want to become the fourth person now, so he has taken up the leading role in this "second-round giveaway to China"? Secretary John LEE has hided himself away today, though he should have faced Members of the Legislative Council. Members from the pro-establishment camp should also have the chance to vote for the proposed resolutions to be moved by me and Mr AU Nok-hin after listening to my speech, so as to put off the crisis. Nevertheless, they insist on putting the problem in front of us and let it explode. Now, let us see what will happen then.
The five pieces of subsidiary legislation will come into effect on 29 June. Will the Deputy President please witness with us whether the people of Hong Kong would not only clash with the Hong Kong Police Force but also PLA and their authorized guards. We are really not afraid of that protection order as the heaviest penalty is only a fine, but I would like to see how PLA would deal with 11866 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019
Hongkongers. It is in fact not necessary for the Government to cede any land of Hong Kong, for such a move is obviously made for the sake of swaggering. This year marks the 70th anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic of China by the Communist Party of China ("CPC"). They originally thought that Carrie LAM would make a meritorious deed with the amendment of FOO and everyone would applaud for her. Then the top ranking officials of CPC would have some military vessels berthed in Hong Kong, hold a ceremony at Tamar Park, and it would be the best if they could conduct a military parade at Lung Wo Road. I venture to forecast that it is their intention to do so. Yet, the entire Government is so devastated now, do they dare come out? There might be 100 000 people surrounding the two sides of Victoria Harbour when Carrie LAM and the state leaders show up on 1 October, do they dare come to Hong Kong? Therefore, the urgency of their plan to swagger has disappeared. They are now making a bomb for themselves on 29 June. If they insist on inaugurating the dock on 1 October, they are making another bomb for themselves as well. By embracing the bombs until the District Council elections in November and the Legislative Council Election the next, they would be happy if the bombs explode and kill us all.
Coming back to the adjournment motion, this is absolutely hypocritical. We requested a discussion last week, but they said that we should not discuss the adjournment motion proposed by Mr KWONG Chun-yu since the matter was provoking anxiety, whereas the content was repetitive and not quite meaningful. Then why do they propose an adjournment motion today? Will Honourable Members from the pro-establishment camp please apologize to the public when they rise to speak later on, and then explain why they did not request resumption after the adjournment for lack of a quorum last week. Why should we discuss the adjournment motion this week? Is the motion proposed by them more "desirable"? One should be logical and should not be self-contradictory.
The problem laid before us now is very simple. Mr Christopher CHEUNG has repeatedly mentioned the serious rift and dissension in society, whereas large-scale conflicts may spark off anytime. After all, the direction in which they are trying to divert attention is very clear, that is, they would express support for the Police. Whether we say that police officers are beating up the protesters or managing the protesters, everyone has in fact been put on the spot by those high-ranking officials. Police officers who have violated the law should definitely be subject to investigation and punishment, but why do some people LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11867 call police officers as "corrupt cops"? Why are police officers placed between a rock and a hard place? Will police officers please ask themselves after watching the news and the live broadcast of this Legislative Council meeting why 1 million and 2 millions people took to the streets to join the demonstrations? Why did tens of thousands of young people have to besiege the Legislative Council Complex? Members from the pro-establishment camp now allege flatly that the United States is paying for all this, is that the truth? Could they sober up? They want to divert people's attention after doing something wrong, so they focus on the clashes between the Police and members of the public, and then say they support the Police, thinking that it would bring less adverse effect on them, thus alleviating the impact on the District Council elections. Members from the pro-establishment camp―it is fine whether they address themselves as the pro-establishment camp or anything else―have to build up our society. Are they building up our society now? They are now causing dissension and damaging our society. Mr Christopher CHEUNG, who is engaged in speculation of stocks, talks about Hong Kong's financial industry, but now they are fleeing exactly because of FOO. Why should we not solve the problem at root?
The four demands of the public are: Carrie LAM to step down, withdraw the draconian law, rescind the "riot" categorization, drop charges against protesters and investigate the Police for unlawful acts. These four demands are all articulate, clear and specific. Matthew CHEUNG has all along evaded all this, and he spoke publicly for the first time only today. I wonder if he has got news of Carrie LAM resigning that he would be lucky for advancing to a higher office in the future. If such a day comes, I hope he will act as an official prepared to face the public upright today. He should clearly respond to the four demands of the public in his response later on.
DR CHENG CHUNG-TAI (in Cantonese): Deputy President, just now, Mr Christopher CHEUNG moved the adjournment motion. He proposed the adjournment motion in response to the increasingly dire situation or the imminent crisis at the international, financial and even economic levels. To be fair, concerning such a trend, over the past week, at the meetings of individual committees and even among Members of the pro-democracy camp, the same view may have formed. For example, the Bills Committee related to electronic cigarettes also passed a non-binding Member's motion requesting the Government 11868 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 to put on hold legislative amendments that may give rise to disagreements and even escalate conflicts. For this reason, insofar as the stance or spirit is concerned, I believe both the pro-establishment camp and the pro-democracy camp actually share the same view, that is, it is hoped that the aspirations or wishes of the great majority of Hong Kong people can be addressed. In fact, ultimately, all we want is just to live in peace and work with contentment.
However, the bone of contention now is: Who actually are the perpetrators? As regards the issue of accountability, who should be held accountable? Before I talk about two basic messages later, I wish to make one point clear: Of course, I will vote against Mr Christopher CHEUNG's motion when the vote is taken but this is actually because I think several motions today are also worth discussing, including the subsidiary legislation related to the dock for the People's Liberation Army ("PLA"), which is made through the negative vetting procedure. If we cannot deal with the motions to be proposed by Mr AU Nok-hin and Mr CHU Hoi-dick today, since it is a piece of subsidiary legislation, there is nothing else we can do about it, at least in the legislature.
Second, on the motion on "No confidence in the Fifth Term Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region", and even the adjournment motion proposed subsequently to discuss the latest developments, all these subject matters should have been discussed last week but due to the circumstances, it was not done, so this week, the legislature should give its response. This response should not consist simply of various Members stating their respective stances because when people are making use of social actions, struggles, demonstrations and even physical clashes without the establishment to voice their demands, all Members in the legislature have the political responsibility and must also have the political courage to state their choices in such a social situation and how they can represent the people's wishes. Therefore, by not allowing the legislature to express its views on the three subject matters mentioned by me just now, he will bring about the opposite effect of making the general public query why the Legislative Council should be restrained, since it can no longer perform its functions of representative deliberations. We may as well close down the Legislative Council.
On the first message that I wish to put across, I hope the Chief Secretary for Administration can jot it down word by word: On the governance crisis facing Hong Kong nowadays, my camp―the Deputy President also understands that in the legislature, I "perch on high, attracting no eyes" … no, it is not true that no one attaches any importance to me, many people do think that I am LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11869 important―concerning the governance crisis facing Hong Kong nowadays, in fact, the 2 million people who came out to join the march have sent a message to the Government. It is inadvisable for me to say too much about this message in the legislature but I believe all Members will understand that this message is about what the majority public of Hong Kong will pursue if no changes can be seen in Hong Kong in the future.
Therefore, the prevailing crisis in governance does not lie in the public, nor does it lie in the indignation felt by the 2 million people who took part in the procession but within the Government. The first thing that needs to be done now is to ask all Members of the Executive Council to shut up. They have to shut up first and the representatives of various factions should say as little as possible. I am speaking from the angle of the pro-establishment camp and governance. The team in the Executive Council is divided and this is telling Hong Kong people that what used to be called the administrative absorption of politics in the past cannot bring about any organic equilibrium among the representatives of various factions in the Executive Council of the fifth SAR Government. That is to say, this group of people are unable to represent their own factions, yet they still deemed it fit to come out and make all sorts of comments. From the angle of Beijing, simply put, this group of people just cannot be made truly loyal despite all the favours bestowed. What is the use of giving them favours for more than a decade?
Therefore, the crisis facing the Executive Council or the prevailing crisis in governance of the SAR Government does not lie in the distrust of the Hong Kong Government among the public, nor is it simply about the distrust of 2 million residents of Beijing, rather, it lies in the lack of trust in you as the governing team. Therefore, do not think of returning to the honeymoon period one and a half years or two and a half years ago. Do not think that the pro-establishment camp is always loyal to the party and that as soon as the bell is rung, all of them will sit here together. When it comes to the situation of "who moved my cheese", various parties will tell one another that the other parties have their own calculations. In view of this, Chief Secretary Matthew CHEUNG, you have to take this message back with you: The crisis in governance does not lie in the 2 million people, nor does it lie in the public opinions expressed by the 2 million people in the procession. Public opinion is very clear, that is, there will be no change in Hong Kong in the future. This is the basic judgment made by my camp.
11870 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019
Of course, our emotions are a bit complex and personally, my mood is even somewhat restive, a little depressed and there are even some pent-up emotions. Why did we strive so hard in 2016, in the hope of launching the campaign for a constitution drawn up by all people and maintaining the Basic Law forever? Five people would be elected into the Legislative Council, they would serve as Members for two years and the plan was to carry out a de facto referendum. Deputy President, the goal was to hold a de facto referendum that would also involve 2 million people. Now, 2 million people have taken to the streets but on the next day, the Government remained indifferent. In that case, about this crisis in governance, the Government has to do some soul-searching. There are many things that I have no intention of talking about but this is a crisis of governance to the Government, not a crisis of governance for Hong Kong society.
In contrast, I wish to take this opportunity to give my most heartfelt solicitude to the fighters at the frontline and people who were arrested. Coupled with the choice of martyr LEUNG to die for his country or Hong Kong some time ago, these are the grief and collective karma that must be borne by all Hong Kong people. However, at the same time, I hope that friends and Members of the pan-democratic camp who are still organizing campaigns in the streets and their friends whom they think still have rallying power will know that I think public sentiments are still running very high and the campaign is ongoing. It can be foreseen that Hong Kong society will experience restiveness for a couple of years and all of a sudden, this restiveness … this is something that happened yesterday: A case seeking legal assistance was referred to me. When some friends were having a meal, two off-duty police officers were seated at the table next to them and initially, the two sides quarrelled, then the situation turned violent. A family of six and three people on the other side were all arrested. This kind of restiveness occurs purely because the relations between the police and the public, society, frontline health care workers and frontline police officers are all in a restive state. Deputy President, even in this legislature, a fight can break out anytime, only that I did not start any, or a fight would have broken out. Nevertheless, a fight broke out among those people but it is another matter.
However, this kind of restiveness is not simply an occurrence in the last couple of weeks, rather, it will persist in the next couple of years, so what do I wish to do? In this period of time, many Hong Kong people were indeed willing to come out to express their stances through marches or in various ways. Of course, my camp has no criticism of this and only hopes that all people can be LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11871 safe. This in itself is a good thing. However, if the Government clearly adopts this kind of attitude when responding to Hong Kong society, that sense of frustration will make many young people feel confused and lost. This is the situation that I am most worried about.
Yesterday, I met with some interns in the Legislative Council. There were some 10 to 20 of them and all of them were university students. They asked me one question: What will happen to Hong Kong? What are we going to do? Deputy President, this requires counselling, so I counselled them. I hope all of us will understand one thing, that is, what we are campaigning for is not something immediate. No one would sacrifice his life on account of a dock for PLA―sorry but some people would―but we should set our eyes on farther ahead. The fate of Hong Kong's future for generations to come, or the Hong Kong culture, is not being decided this week. We should not be so naïve―or rather, I should say they should not have fond hopes―that at the G20, Donald TRUMP would one day come forward and say to XI Jinping, "Hong Kong will be ruled by me. You step aside.". No such thing would happen and this is not how politics goes. However, why do we have to pause? Because such restiveness makes Hong Kong people or us treasure our own lives even more. Hong Kong has got only one thing, that is, beliefs. What kind of beliefs?
In this "anti-extradition to China" campaign, or even in the campaign related to the PLA dock, allow me to say there is a vacuum in which clear exposition is lacking. I hope that the opposition camp can think long and hard about this: In order to sustain a cause, there is only one issue we must really address now, that is, the vacuum in the exposition of civic nationalism. Without any exposition, without any theory, what follows is that, in the face of the regime taking such a stance in its response, many young people will only fall back on one thing, that is, they dash out and want to fight with you regardless of whether they end up alive or dead. This is not the kind of struggle we hope to see because it is not possible to apply force on the appropriate or correct points. Simply put, this is not about having no clear goal; rather, it is about having no clear aim.
On the goal, it is actually possible to give a few simple responses to the four demands of the Civil Human Rights Front. Apart from not being able to achieve the goal of making Carrie LAM step down for the time being, basically, all of them are achievable, only that the authorities are unwilling to do anything no matter what. However, what I wish to say now is not about these four points. 11872 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019
If the pro-establishment camp or those Executive Council Members who jumped ship halfway can clear their minds a little, think clearly, they will understand that all along, I have been saying that the amendments to the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance ("FOO") threaten Hong Kong people's private property rights―it is private property rights. Originally, Hong Kong is a place with its own legal system where "Hong Kong people rule Hong Kong", so why is a breach suddenly created by dint of the amendments to FOO for Mainland China to lay its hands across the boundary and freeze our properties? Even with various safeguards, it is still not possible to avoid one thing, that is, if the amendments to FOO are passed, our private property rights will be threatened by the Chinese Government. I am talking about private property rights.
Conversely, on the issue of the PLA dock, why can the Chinese Government plunder, divest or strip us completely of our public property rights anytime in Hong Kong? It can build a dock on this piece of land and in front of your home, it can … there is such a large piece of PLA military land next to an education institution but it is not used, nor are we allowed to use it for housing construction―I am talking about that land lot next to The Polytechnic University of Hong Kong―why? That is a matter of public property rights. In fact, be it private property rights or public property rights, they cannot be protected and this is because of the loopholes in that Basic Law kept in our drawers. In 2016, we wanted to have a constitution drawn up by all people and maintain the Basic Law forever by amending "shall remain unchanged for 50 years" in Article 5, that is, the end in 2047. A couple of years ago, they also raised this for discussion and next, at the end of this year, they will also raise this for discussion because the Legislative Council elections will be held next year―it is not us who will raise this for discussion, rather, other people will do so. Therefore, basically, Members have to understand that it is necessary to clarify the concepts. Deputy President, I understand that you may think I have strayed somewhat from the subject matter but actually, this is relevant because I hope that all people can cool down and pool collective wisdom.
Now, I wish to strike home one point, that is, it can be seen clearly that this campaign is gradually waning in intensity. You will feel gratified for this but the crisis in governance facing Chief Secretary Matthew CHEUNG has not been resolved. As the first step, he must deal with the internal problems and he should have let Stephen LO step down long ago. Those people on the 42nd floor, why should they push frontline officers to the fore to take the eggs hurled at them, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11873 while they stayed inside to enjoy the air conditioning? The people on this side should not get so excited either. If we pause and think, be it FOO or the PLA dock, they are all about the same matter: How can the Basic Law protect Hong Kong's autonomy? This time, the existing de facto sovereign power can be manifested and thrown into relief due to foreign interventions but this cannot resolve the loopholes in our Basic Law or the constitution, nor will we be able to face Hong Kong's future, that is, all of us will only face continuous restiveness and for some time, I have not directed too much criticism at this because I understand we all treasure (The buzzer sounded) … this last chance for Hong Kong people to speak up. I so submit.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHENG, your speaking time is up.
MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): Hong Kong has been degenerating, and it has been degenerating to the extent that it is really going to be thrown into a deep abyss of despair. Having said that, I think there is still hope because we have our young people. While the priest climbs a post, the devil climbs ten. The devil is everywhere, in the Legislative Council or the Government, seeking to sell out Hong Kong. You people are so blatantly colluding with each other. Look at this Christopher CHEUNG, and let me say once again that he referred to the Government House as "迎賓館" and "禮賓館" in Chinese. He cannot even tell properly its Chinese name, which is "禮賓府", and all of a sudden, he proposed an adjournment motion. Then Matthew CHEUNG came forth, and when he was reading out his script, he was so close to the script that his nose was touching that piece of paper, so he was all prepared. Is it that they already talked it over at "迎 賓館" last night and then they are here to play this game? This is ridiculous, and they are shameless indeed. There is no such thing as the most nasty behaviour, for the more nasty has yet to come.
(THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair)
Let me just talk about Mr Christopher CHEUNG and leave Matthew CHEUNG aside for the time being. When he read out his script, he did not even raise his head once, with his eyes glued to the script while he was reading it out. He is actually pouring kerosene to the fire, and he is pouring keorsene one bucket 11874 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 after another. How dare you pro-establishment bootlickers. When the Government said that it would force through the amendments to the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance ("FOO"), you threw weight behind it; when the Government suddenly chickened out and said that the Bill would be suspended, you threw weight behind it; and when there were calls for a withdrawal by the Government admist surging public anger, you also render them your support. Indeed, you people are so shameless, so devoid of principles, and so devoid of convictions. There are such kinds of people not only in the Government but even in the Legislative Council. It cannot be clearer that in Mainland China there is neither separation of powers nor fair trials, not to mention humane punishment. But he dared say that there is an open, sunshine judicial system and people can emigrate if they do not trust it. This is something that you people have said. People from the pro-establishment camp have said it, and have you not heard it before? Now it is suggested that everything should be restored to the original state. This is indeed unimaginable.
The degeneration of Hong Kong now is like a caisson being driven down all the way to the rock bottom. We have to rely on the young people in the next generation. Their passion persists and they keep on fighting because it is their Hong Kong, their future. Much to our regret, news and the historical facts have played a most cruel joke on Hong Kong.
Nowadays, colonialism is considered wrong universally. However, what remains vivid before our eyes is the popularity of the last Govenor before 1997, Chris PATTEN, who could be seen cuddling a baby, sipping Chinese herbal tea, and eating egg tarts on the street anytime. And this incumbent? Did Members read about Carrie LAM's popularity taking a nosedive yesterday? So she even beats TUNG Chee-hwa and LEUNG Chun-ying. She is really awesome. She is No. 1, for sure, and she is really brilliant. This is ridiculous because she personally said that if the majority of Hongkongers do not support her administration, she would step down and resign. Are the poll findings of yesterday not clear enough? Sixty-eight percent of the people do not support this Government and her personal support rate is only 32%. Knock it off! Carrie LAM is really the "mother of scorched earth".
What are you people saying now? You said that we should not render the economy affected and then using the tone of voice of Teresa CHENG, you said, "Let me properly talk about these procedural matters with you; there is something complicated here", and then you think you can coax the young people to give in? By speaking softly and gently and saying "Oh, my Chinese is not very good"? LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11875
What are you telling them? It is zoo politics that you are telling the young people. You are telling them, "Now you are locked up in a cage; somebody will come to feed you, and there is a shelter for you―not even tenants of subdivided units will listen, but never mind―there is a roof over your head and in short, everybody is happy, the country is prospering and people are living in peace, and everything is going to be just fine, and this is life." You think the youngsters in this generation are fools?
Carrie LAM and her Administration have successfully shoved off and deserted an entire generation of Hong Kong people. You are here making pretences, saying that achievements have been made in technology and innovation and everyone can make a fortune. It cannot be clearer that Shenzhen is going to replace Hong Kong as an IT hub, as she already made it very clear and her gestures have entirely betrayed it. Really, this is utterly shameful. You think that your purpose can be served with this "cage" theory, telling them, "Come, be good, you all go into the cage and stay locked up. I am not going to beat you up, and you will have food and a dwelling place, and you will not be scorched by the sun. Isn't it very nice?"
You have really underestimated the wisdom of a whole generation of young people. You think that this campaign is the same as the previous Umbrella Movement and that by wearing down their enthusiasm gradually, there will be less and less voices from them and then they will disappear. You people like best to employ judicial means, charging people with the offence of riot and putting them behind bars for six years. Look at the example of Edward LEUNG, and are you not afraid? How low-down you are! Yes, you may scare some young people and this is why they have to put on masks. Why should I show my true face? Why should I let you find out who I am? Why should I let you arrest me? But I am putting up a fight right here!
You think you can scare off the young people with the offence of riot or the offence of incitement, and you still keep on doing it now. I have read about the latest view of South China Morning Post, that Carrie LAM will indiscriminately ignore the demands made by the protesters, including us in the pro-democracy camp and the Civil Human Rights Front. This is also what we have seen. They stressed the need to maintain the confidence of the Police Force and uphold their morale, adding that the prestige or credibility of the Government must not be undermined. Ha ha ha! Prestige? Credibility? What nonsense is this, 11876 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 really. Prestige? Credibility? I invite you to take a look at the latest poll results published by the University of Hong Kong yesterday and see what kind of public sentiments the Carrie LAM Administration faces now.
At the time of the Umbrella Movement, our main objective was to call for the election of the Chief Executive by genuine universal suffrage, but in vain, as the candidates have to be screened by Beijing before we are allowed to vote. Now we call on Carrie LAM to step down, and it is said that she cannot step down unless her boss in Beijing grants her the permission to do so. Anyone with some sense of shame will resign on his own initiative and if you really have to resign, saying that you have health problems, no one can stop you. But the problem is: Is anyone ready? Could it be Matthew CHEUNG? Could it be Mr Andrew LEUNG? Who should take up the job?
Fortunately, the Court of Final Appeal has just found Donald TSANG innocent. He is found totally innocent, and is this not a big joke? The biggest difference between the Umbrella Movement and the fight against the China extradition law now is that in the Umbrella Movement, we were fighting for something we did not yet have, that is, the full implementation of genuine universal suffrage. When it was something that we did not yet have, even though our fight for it was in futile and we felt a bit discouraged back then, at least we could revert to the original state. But it is a different case now. This time, the purpose is to take away the freedoms already in your hands, and "one country, two systems" will turn into "one country, one point one systems", if not worse. So how will the young people not be mad about it and seething with anger? In 2047, none of us will be here anymore. That is just impossible. But this is young people's Hong Kong, and young people's future, and they have the right to fight for it. So, let us clearly think about the difference. If you take away from a person something originally in his possession, it would be really strange if he does not fight with you till his last breath.
This generation of young people know full well what they are doing. They do not need people like Mr Christopher CHEUNG nagging here and telling them that the businessmen were affected and that inconvenience was caused to the public. Any demonstration, protest or strike will definitely cause inconvenience. How is it possible for the 1 July march not to cause any inconvenience at all? There must be it, but Hong Kong people understand it and they will put up with it for the time being in exchange for a future for a whole generation of people. Can you give some help to the young people? How LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11877 much loss will you suffer? In fact, how many small and medium enterprises had closed their shops for a day in support of the general strike? But why was there no complaint from them? Why did Mr Christopher CHEUNG not cite their cases? All he said is indeed gibberish.
Teresa CHENG told us not to be pedantic about the wording, and Mr Christopher CHEUNG also said earlier that suspending the Bill is tantamount to withdrawing it. He is really sick. The wording is crucially important. If you are charged with either manslaughter or murder, will you say that there is no need to be so pedantic about the wording since both offences involve the killing and death of someone? There is a sea of difference between them. There is a difference between manslaughter and murder. Do you hear it? You still do not see it even now. Under Rule 61 or Rule 64 of the Rules of Procedure―I do not remember which―Under either Rule 61(2) or Rule 64(2), there are only two things that the Government can do. In other words, the official, namely, John LEE, may announce either the withdrawal or postponement of a bill. Former President of the Legislative Council, Andrew WONG, said that there is no such thing as suspending a bill under the Rules of Procedure. A bill is either withdrawn, meaning that it ceases to exist, bye-bye, or it is postponed, meaning that it can be tabled again. The National Anthem Bill is a case in point. The Legislative Council is colluding with the Government to postpone this Bill. We will see how the Government faces the public in Hong Kong on 1 October as the National Anthem Bill will not yet be passed then. This Government sometimes really renders people speechless.
To mend the rift? Bullshit. What makes Mr Christopher CHEUNG qualified to make such bold, shameless remarks? He was touching the script with his nose when he was reading it out and then he talked about mending the rift. What rift is there to mend? What makes him qualified to mend the rift? He just does not understand the slightest bit of what is going on. In fact, how many pro-establishment Members in this Chamber understand what exactly is happening to Hong Kong politics now?
(Mr Christopher CHEUNG indicated his wish to raise a point of order)
He has a point of order.
11878 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Christopher CHEUNG, what is your point?
MR CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, Ms Claudia MO is such an ignorant fool. She said that I am sick. How come she knows that I am sick? Which part of me is sick? She should be careful with her tongue and should not hurl abuses at people. I do not see …
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHEUNG, please state your point of order.
MR CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG (in Cantonese): She was talking nonsense. President, she should clarify why she chided me and said that I am sick. What an ignorant fool she is.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHEUNG, please sit down.
MR CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG (in Cantonese): She is really an ignorant fool.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Claudia MO, do you wish to elucidate?
MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): Of course not. I only wish that he can doze off for a longer while and talk less, in order not to cause any annoyance to other people.
(Mr Christopher CHEUNG spoke in his seat)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Christopher CHEUNG, please do not speak in your seat.
MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): Why don't you go back to "迎賓館" or "貴 賓館" or whatever … Yes, I recall it now.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11879
Never mind, let me come back to the motion. Speaking of how to really mend the social rift, it is indeed necessary for Carrie LAM to come forth and respond to the several major demands. The first is to withdraw―withdraw, not postpone―the amendment of FOO to show that the Bill is dead, that the Government will stop pursuing it, and that it will never come back.
Second, she should withdraw the labelling of the protest as a riot. What riot? Of course, she can say that on the question of whether it was a riot, prosecution will have to be based on evidence, and whatever comments made at present bear no direct relation to it. Then why did she say that it was a riot? They said that it was because some people had assaulted police officers and stormed the Legislative Council. Then how many people were there? They said four or five people, and it was considered a riot with four or five people committing those acts? No kidding me. What exactly were they talking about? Then, we hope that she can release the young people and that no prosecution will be brought against them but she said no and so on and so forth. If she really wishes to mend the rift, Carrie LAM, being the Chief Executive, has infinite powers to do so, and she can grant an amnesty without having to wait until they are convicted. She can simply announce that the Government will not institute prosecution in order to heal the wound. She is in a position to do it.
Of course, on the setting up of an independent commission of inquiry, surely she will adamantly refuse it. Now I can conjecture that the highest order on the firing of gunshots or bean bags or whatever types of bullets might precisely come from her and therefore, an inquiry definitely must not be conducted. The last demand is the stepping down of Carrie LAM. She has never given a response to this point but we all know that her days are numbered.
Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Mr Andrew LEUNG, I hope that you heard it, too.
MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): President, as I said just now, this adjournment motion obviously seeks to evade discussion about the military dock. Just now we said that today is the last day we can have a discussion because after today, there will be no more regular meetings of the Legislative Council before the deadline. With no more regular meetings, these five pieces of subsidiary legislation will automatically come into effect on 29 June by virtue of the 11880 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019
"negative vetting" procedure. Just now I also made it clear that even if Mr Christopher CHEUNG finds it necessary to hold an adjournment debate on this important issue and pool collective wisdom to think about how to make Hong Kong move forward, he actually needs not mind about waiting for a few more hours. By merely postponing it for a few hours, we can discuss the motions relating to the military dock first. But he refused. The reason is just too obvious.
I wonder why the President approved his motion. In fact, you could have said that you agree the motion is urgent, but it is not of such urgency that we need to rush it through. You might as well disallow it and ask him to propose it after the following Agenda item. It is also feasible. But you did not do so. What does it illustrate? When the pro-establishment camp makes use of the Rules of Procedure and acts in this way, you consider it fully justifiable. If it is proposed by the pro-democracy camp, you will, as a matter of course, lose no time in saying that the President's ruling is not subject to challenge and will not grant permission. Of course, since Mr Christopher CHEUNG is a member of the pro-establishment camp, you read out your ruling according to the script.
Back to the "China extradition bill". As we have seen, Hongkongers have taken a most shocking lesson over the past two weeks. It is not simply about the "China extradition bill". It also involves a series of events behind it. We saw why the administration of the Hong Kong Government could be so hegemonic and unreasonable, and how blindly the pro-establishment camp in the Chamber approves of everything the Special Administrative Region ("SAR") Government does. A more thought-provoking point is that we thought the SAR Government and the pro-establishment camp were good pals, but it turns out to be otherwise. I must quote again a news report of Sing Tao Daily last week which mentioned how the Honourable Ms Alice MAK had spoken in a foul tongue. Why must I mention that news report here again? Because a merit of the regular meetings of the Legislative Council is the verbatim records. It will soon be Mr Christopher CHEUNG's turn to speak. This part may be related to him. Thanks to Mr Christopher CHEUNG's disclosure of the "foul language incident", the public came to know how the pro-establishment camp burst with anger.
Back to my question. Why did I quote that news report on this occasion? Because a merit of the regular meetings of the Legislative Council is the verbatim records. I think such an important news report is absolutely worthy of being LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11881 entered into the records of proceedings of the Legislative Council forever. It should be perpetually recorded in the files of the Legislative Council. Anyone who reviews the records of proceedings of the Legislative Council meeting today will note Mr Jeremy TAM's word-for-word quotation from that news report to this effect: "Alice MAK said aloud at the meeting: 'How naïve you are! Even if it is suspended now, the people will not accept it.' Carrie LAM explained that the work done had not been good enough. Infuriated, Alice MAK said, 'Don't lay the blame on the explanatory work. Right from the beginning, the SAR Government has underestimated the political situation. My buddies have been f***ed every day when making explanations to the public. F***er! How about you going to the districts to be f***ed every day?' Carrie LAM looked stunned, but she continued to try hard to defend herself. Unleashing her anger, Alice MAK continued to hurl criticisms and said the pro-establishment camp had been persistently asked not to waver, so even though over a million people had taken to the streets to oppose the legislative amendments, FTU still went to the American Consulate General with a banner to reproach the Yankees. MAK continued, 'Now you just give the word and withdraw it right away. That day, more than a million people took to the streets. On what grounds did you stand so firm then?' Alice MAK kept scolding her for five minutes, unable to stop. At this moment, Carrie LAM finally could not hold back her tears. Alice MAK immediately said, 'What is the use of crying now? You know how to cry. So do I!'" President, this part is an extract from a news report of Sing Tao Daily last week. As I said just now, I consider it absolutely important, so I have especially quoted it.
In the quotation, apart from seeing many F-words, a more important point is that Ms Alice MAK, who looks like a fair lady, surprisingly spoke in a foul tongue. I do not know if I should describe her in this way. Even I myself feel embarrassed after recounting it. However, what is the thrust? Why did Ms Alice MAK dare rebuke Carrie LAM, the head of SAR, with foul language? On no occasion should this have happened. What does the reprimand with swear words mean? The pro-establishment camp gives no regard to Carrie LAM at all. She does not receive the most basic respect. Of course, Members would say that she does not receive any respect from the pro-democracy camp either. But we did not connect with her, whereas the pro-establishment camp always did. Why did such things happen? In fact, this reflects a lamentable situation, that is, she actually needs not care about us because the boss behind her is the "Western District". When Members were having a meeting, Mr Martin 11882 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019
LIAO mentioned that his gravest worry about the National Anthem Bill was "the Western District flying into a rage". He did not worry about the Hong Kong SAR Government or the people of Hong Kong. Instead, he only worried about the "Western District".
This is a vicious cycle. Some 10 years ago, after the reunification, Members of the pro-establishment camp, including those from the functional constituencies, mostly garnered the votes by themselves. They secured the votes with their own efforts, thereby obtaining the seats in the Legislative Council. However, over the past years, the "Western District" has actually changed the rules of the whole game. It has also gobbled up numerous networks originally possessed by the pro-establishment camp, controlling the votes and the choice of candidates who can participate in this game and get elected.
Nowadays, if someone in the pro-Government camp wishes to stand in election to the Legislative Council, without the support of the "Western District" or the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong SAR ("LOCPG"), it is simply impossible. This is the objective reality. Now the entire governance is in fact "the Western District ruling Hong Kong". It is undeniable. Does Ms Alice MAK dare swear at WANG Zhimin, say F-words to him or call him a f***er? It is absolutely impossible. Ms Alice MAK certainly will not even dare to swear at WANG Zhiman's driver, let alone WANG Zhiman.
In fact, this further accentuates the absurdity, showing how this bunch of Members in the pro-Government or pro-establishment camp are manipulated by the "Western District". They will only follow the orders of the "Western District". What are the causes of the whole incident? The pro-establishment camp offered its networks to the "Western District", as a gesture of licking boots, in exchange for other benefits. Then the "Western District" took over everything and subsequently gained total control over the elections, thereby directly controlling Hong Kong. When the Chief Executive assumed office, the "Western District" would tell them to listen to the Chief Executive, uphold "one country, two systems" and support the SAR Government. But they support the SAR Government not because of Carrie LAM's capability, and Carrie LAM has secured the present title of Chief Executive because it was bestowed by the "Western District".
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11883
As we can see, when the amendment exercise of the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance was drawing to a close, Members of the pro-establishment camp had actually raised a lot of views, but eventually, they were pacified by LOCPG. The SAR Government almost has no role to play in the whole issue. Today she has apologized, but in my opinion, even if we speak of the need for principal officials to resign today, it will not be her turn because, to put it bluntly, she really cannot even decide her own demise. Even if she wishes to step down herself, she cannot do so of her own accord in Hong Kong. She has to seek prior approval of Beijing before she can do so. How pathetic!
I find them quite pitiful. This bunch of people said on the surface that they support the administration of the SAR Government and love Hong Kong, but behind the scenes, they merely follow the orders of the "Western District" to which they are accountable. This is the greatest problem of "the Western District ruling Hong Kong". Why does Carrie LAM lack recognition? The reason is that from beginning to end, she was not elected by Hongkongers. She was only elected with 777 votes from 1 000-odd members of the Election Committee. Where did these 777 votes come from? Again, they came from the "Western District". Hence, so long as there is no universal suffrage in Hong Kong and the Chief Executive is not genuinely elected by Hongkongers, the "lame duck" Government will just persist.
Certainly, a question I must ask is whether Carrie LAM is really a "good fighter" as in the eyes of many. I do not know how good she can "fight", but I only see that she is now fighting against herself. The only thing she has achieved is uniting the Hongkongers. At least 2 million Hongkongers took to the streets in unity. Now many people, united together, oppose her and demand her resignation. Carrie LAM has demonstrated that she has problems not only with her ability. She also lacks global and national acumen.
After committing all the various deeds, she actually knows the situation is not good. Why? Because now Taiwan has been implicated. This serious incident has occurred in Hong Kong, and the Taiwan presidential election will be held in January next year. We can look at the present respective popularity rating of TSAI Ing-wen and HAN Kuo-yu. Come to think about it. Beijing has expended extensive manpower, resources, efforts and time to pave the way for HAN Kuo-yu, resulting in the continuous rise in his popularity in Taiwan. It thought it could finally succeed this time. After years of hard work, the reunification of China could finally be achieved and the China dream realized. But now Carrie LAM has suddenly turned it into a nightmare. The Taiwanese 11884 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 have completely wakened up, seeing why Hong Kong would turn into such a state, and the Police would throw tear gas and fire their guns. This shows how lousy Carrie LAM is, mistaken that she could fix Hong Kong and she, a local official, was in XI Jinping's good graces. Such thinking is the reason for her getting into trouble. She has "licked the wrong boots". Why would she think in this way? Because she is not a Chief Executive returned by universal suffrage. She is not responsible to the people of Hong Kong for what she did. Everything she did was not done in public interest. Rather, it was directed by Beijing. Yet what is more unbearable is that sometimes not everything was ordered by Beijing. She second-guessed her master's wish and then acted arbitrarily, thus ending up in trouble.
Back to Mr Christopher CHEUNG's motion. He mentioned the need to "pool collective wisdom". Actually, there is no such need. All in all, so long as there is no genuine dual universal suffrage in Hong Kong, these things will only keep recurring. Come to think about it. Decidedly intelligent, she is even more awesome than LEUNG Chun-ying. She has unexpectedly outperformed the latter in serving as Chief Executive, leading Hong Kong to such a miserable state. It is really unexpected to me. Among the Chief Executives of various terms, the most popular one is, to our surprise, Donald TSANG, whose appeal has been allowed by the Court today. Looking back, we feel disheartened. Why is Hong Kong in such a miserable state? Because none of these so-called Chief Executives was elected by Hongkongers. Instead, they rely on the power of Beijing. Similarly, today Members of the pro-establishment camp can sit in this Chamber on power of the support from Beijing or the Central Authorities, rather than their personal capability.
Given such a vicious cycle, how can Hong Kong possibly move forward? How can there possibly be a government in Hong Kong which genuinely listens to public views rather than only being occupied in second-guessing its master's wishes? Now Carrie LAM has got into such a mess. It turns out that the so-called "good fighter" has knocked out herself before all else. I hope we will learn a lesson. To date, the SAR Government has yet to give us an account of the way forward. There is no mention at all, and it does not even have the basic common sense in tendering apologies. Not only does she have to point out her own faults and who should be held responsible. More importantly, she has to tell us how she will correct her mistakes in the future, and what matters most is sincerity. Yet regrettably, the SAR Government lacks everything I mentioned just now.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11885
MR DENNIS KWOK (in Cantonese): President, Mr Christopher CHEUNG has proposed this motion today. Such a motion is proposed by a Member who did not wear a microphone when he spoke and did not realize the need to turn off the microphone after a meeting. Many people wish to scold Mr Christopher CHEUNG, but I think we should be somewhat fairer to him. First of all, he said that a "girl" had scolded the Chief Executive at the "Guest House" ("迎賓館"), but where is this "girl" today? We cannot see this "girl", the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions ("FTU")―cameraman, please take a shot over here at this side―where have all the Members from the pro-establishment camp gone? In particular, where has that "girl" gone? Has she gone to the "Guest House"? I have no idea whether she has gone to the "Guest House". Neither do I know where the "Guest House" is. Is there such a place in Hong Kong?
Nevertheless, I would like to tell this "girl": "FTU, you should have the courage to admit to what you have said. There is nothing that cannot be said, and you should not be afraid of admitting what you have done. As you can throw swear words to scold the Chief Executive, you should scold the Chief Executive here if you dare. Whilst swear words are prohibited in this Chamber, you can use other words. As you are brave enough to scold the Chief Executive behind the doors, then you should come to this Chamber to face Matthew CHEUNG upright in front of Hongkongers. Or you can rebuke Carrie LAM in her face when she comes to the Legislative Council next time. Just do not scold the Chief Executive passionately only behind the doors. Whether you are that "girl" or anyone else, please tell me, are you brave enough to get it straight to voice out your own feelings in front of Hong Kong people and to speak out your anger, telling us how much you distrust this Government? I, Dennis KWOK, have submitted a motion of no confidence in the Fifth Term Government, which is now pending discussion, are you bold enough to vote for this motion?"
In fact, those from the pro-establishment camp should vote for my motion. She made you perish together, she made you took the wrong side, she made you felt ashamed to face Hong Kong people when you walked down the streets. You should be the one to vote in support of my motion of no confidence. Yet, you do not face the people, you do not dare to attend meetings. You left the Chamber deliberately last time, but you have proposed an adjournment motion today. Do you dare not to attend meetings, dare not to face up to the reality, and dare not to face Hong Kong people? You are really miserable! In fact, I really take pity on you for being part of the pro-establishment camp.
11886 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019
Everyone knows what is going on with FTU, so I am not going to talk about that "girl" again. Where is Mrs Regina IP then? Regina IP, you should come out to face Hong Kong people! The New People's Party, come out! What did Regina IP say on 3 June? She said she had no idea why Hong Kong people were so afraid of the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance ("FOO"), she did not know what they feared, and wondered if they were afraid that their wife or husband had done something in the Mainland, so they feared that their husband would be extradited for keeping a mistress.
I would like to ask Regina IP this question. Does she really have no love? Is she very lonely in her daily life? Why did she have to make those remarks? Does she really not understand Hong Kong people to such an extent? Her party comrade held a piece of paper with the words "This is not a meeting" on it to obstruct WU Chi-wai's sight. Does she think it is very great of her to do so? She said that members of the public were afraid of being extradited because of keeping a mistress, so they opposed FOO, does it mean that she understands public opinions? I do not know, as a Member returned from the functional constituency, how would I understand public opinions? Being a directly elected Member, she should have a better understanding of public opinions, but she remarked on 3 June that Hong Kong people were afraid of FOO because they kept a mistress.
One million people took to the streets in the large-scale procession on 9 June. The New People's Party immediately issued a statement and continued to support the resumption of the Second Reading debate on FOO on 12 June. This is in the record. We will not forget the New People's Party, we will not forget Regina IP. Later on, she said in a news programme of the Television Broadcasts Limited ("TVB") on 16 June that the Chief Executive should apologize to the public because this matter had given rise to worries among many people and the business sector and caused repercussions in the stock market, Carrie LAM should apologize for that. She then reiterated in another interview that Carrie LAM should apologize for dealing a hard blow to Hong Kong.
Mrs Regina IP, I tell you, everyone knows that you are desperately eager to run in the Chief Executive election, everyone knows that you dislike Carrie LAM and would like "777" to step down. We all know that. Yet, I tell you, Regina IP, one should not run in the Chief Executive election in this way. This is not the making of a Chief Executive either. She wants to be the Chief Executive. Regina IP, you are dreaming!
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11887
This incident reflects that Regina IP has a despicable personality, she is so narrow-minded, and it shows how she changed her face and hoped to wash her hands of the matter. Regina IP supported FOO and vigorously promoted it back then, and she was even more anxious than John LEE, advocating that the Second Reading debate should be resumed immediately. She also asserted that members of the public were afraid that their husband would be extradited for keeping a mistress. Yet, despite all these, she said on 16 June that this matter had nothing to do with her, and the Chief Executive should make an apology.
Given the despicable personality of Regina IP, she should never wishfully hope that the pro-democracy camp will nominate her in future. Regina IP, no way! She wants to be the Chief Executive? She is dreaming. Hong Kong people would see clearly how contemptible she is this time.
In addition, I must mention Priscilla LEUNG as well. The Legislative Council hosted a luncheon for the consuls of various countries on 27 May. What did Priscilla LEUNG say? She said that during the luncheon, she could see from the eyes and faces of the foreign consuls that they strongly supported FOO. Priscilla LEUNG also said on 26 April that many people strongly welcomed the legislative amendments and they felt happy that FOO could protect Hong Kong people. Yet, Priscilla LEUNG made a turnaround after 16 June, claiming that the Government should suspend the legislative amendment exercise and respond to people's aspirations. On 25 June, she said in the radio programme "Talkabout" that she had repeatedly expressed her opinions on FOO to the Chief Executive, but no reply was received.
I see, Priscilla LEUNG acts as a "slave" to this extent. Being a "slave", she told her "master" that she thought there were some problems and raised a lot of opinions, but no one has ever made a response. The "master" is too busy to give a reply. There are several reasons for the "master" not having the time to reply, not because the "master" does not understand, since the "master" must be smarter than her. There must be some reasons for the "master" not giving a reply, so she would continue to support FOO blindly. The Chief Executive and the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ignored her even though she had performed so well in raising so many questions and opinions. She then said that the Government had certainly considered it and there must be some reasons for not giving a reply. Now we know that members of the Business and Professionals Alliance for Hong Kong and the pro-establishment camp like Priscilla LEUNG act in this way. 11888 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019
Having raised some questions and opinions with the Government secretly, they would continue to support the resumption of the Second Reading debate although the Government has yet to make a response.
We should bear this in mind and see what kind of mentality is adopted by this gang of "lackeys" from the pro-establishment camp―I wonder if they should still be called humans―We should never forget, who is the initiator of this amendment exercise of FOO? It is the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong ("DAB"). Now, only one of the Members from DAB is present, where are the others? Where is Ms Starry LEE? Where is Mr Holden CHOW? DAB held a press conference on 13 February, holding on to the excuse of the Taiwan murder case …
(Dr Priscilla LEUNG indicated her wish to raise a point of order)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Priscilla LEUNG, what is your point of order?
DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, a point of order. Mr Dennis KWOK described me as a "slave" just now. I consider the term offensive. Besides, he did not sit with me at the same table, but he took what was reported in the newspaper as true and read it out directly, and he used the term "slave". I request him to withdraw his remarks.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Dennis KWOK, will you withdraw the term in question?
MR DENNIS KWOK (in Cantonese): I did not use the term "slave" just now. I called her "lackey", because she is exactly a lackey.
DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): I heard it just now, please listen to or review … I think he did use the term "slave" …
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11889
MR DENNIS KWOK (in Cantonese): President, I will not withdraw the terms even if I have said "slave" or "lackey". I consider I have given her credit in describing people like Priscilla LEUNG with those terms.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now suspend the meeting.
5:13 pm
Meeting suspended.
5:41 pm
Council then resumed.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Just now I suspended the meeting to review the video recording. I consider that it is offensive and insulting for any Member to refer to another Member as a "slave" or "lackey". Mr Dennis KWOK even directly referred to Dr Priscilla LEUNG as a "lackey" and "slave" just now. I consider both terms offensive and insulting.
If Mr Dennis KWOK does not withdraw the terms in question, I will regard his behaviour as grossly disorderly and order him to immediately withdraw from the meeting.
Mr Dennis KWOK, will you withdraw the terms in question?
MR DENNIS KWOK (in Cantonese): President, please allow me to cite a famous quote of Winston CHURCHILL: Some people are slaves because they have not learnt to pronounce one word―"no". Let that not be the epitaph of the Hong Kong people. I have let them off lightly by describing such kind of people as "lackeys" or "slaves". Therefore, President, I will not withdraw, nor will I suspend them, and my remarks will not lapse automatically after the end of the current legislative session. By using the terms "slaves" or "lackeys" to describe this gang of people, I am definitely giving them credit!
11890 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Dennis KWOK, I have already made the ruling on the terms in question. Given that you do not withdraw them, I order you to immediately withdraw from the meeting.
(A number of Members tapped the bench and yelled in their seats)
MR DENNIS KWOK (in Cantonese): President, I reiterate once again, using the terms "slaves" or "lackeys"…
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr KWOK, please stop speaking and leave the Chamber immediately.
(Security officers came forward to try to help Mr Dennis KWOK leave the Chamber but he refused to leave. At this point, a number of Members shouted aloud in their seats)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please do not use offensive language.
(Mr Dennis KWOK still refused to leave the Chamber. At this point, a number of Members talked aloud in their seats)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now suspend the meeting.
5:43 pm
Meeting suspended.
5:55 pm
Council then resumed.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11891
MR ALVIN YEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I would try to hold back my emotions a little. Be it "slave" or "lackey", after all, it all depends on whether the person in question admits it or not. In fact, does any radical reaction not suggest that someone has taken the remark personally in a certain way? But, as the saying goes, "a hare-lipped person shuns a dented-rimmed bowl", I do understand that. I believe Members present, or I should say Mr Dennis KWOK, may not be considerate enough in treating other Members from the pro-government camp present. I think Mr Dennis KWOK should learn the meaning of the saying "a hare-lipped person shuns a dented-rimmed bowl". I think he has to learn it slowly.
President, I wish to talk about history. In fact, it is not easy to be a lackey. One can gain insights into it by watching period dramas of the Qing Dynasty, the filming and screening of which have now been banned by the Motherland. How can anyone casually call himself a lackey? Those who were not the vassals of the Qing Court could not call themselves "lackeys" but only "servants". Some people may not fully grasp the history or may be too sensitive. Such a word may not be derogatory but complimentary, and yet the person in question lacks self-knowledge.
President, Mr Christopher CHEUNG is extremely audacious today. Other than his relatively conspicuous body shape, he does not draw the most attention from us normally. But today, he is at an extremely accurate geographical location. He is standing at such a location that renders the President unable to not look at him. Also, I have noticed that the President of the Legislative Council, who is normally not the most eloquent in responding to and dealing with any emergency, did not stammer at all just now and fluently read out every single word. We cannot help thinking that party comrades indeed think alike. I certainly am not suggesting they are working in collusion. I find such a notion absolutely incorrect. I believe it must be because Members from the same political party have the same views on the same matter that the President of the Legislative Council gave such a slick performance.
As a matter of fact, we must not leave out Chief Secretary for Administration Matthew CHEUNG in our compliment. The Chief Secretary for Administration is indeed so free and unoccupied that, for an adjournment motion without notice, he could have actually prepared the speech and documents to read slowly in the Chamber of the Legislative Council. He has even set aside time to attend the debate on this motion. Our high-ranking official, the number two 11892 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 man in the Special Administrative Region ("SAR"), can actually be on call. Should the people of Hong Kong not be very grateful? To our Chief Secretary, the pro-democracy camp wanted to discuss the sequencing of agenda items of the Finance Committee with him but he declined, claiming he did not have the time. His time is indeed reserved for Mr Christopher CHEUNG to propose such a motion without notice.
The passage of the motion proposed by Mr CHEUNG will produce the objective outcome of making it impossible to deal with the two important items of business originally on the Agenda, namely, first, the matter relating to tax concessions and, second, as it is known to all Honourable colleagues, that relating to the military dock at the Central Harbourfront. I thought the Government cares a lot about the people, their livelihood and the economy. Just now Chief Secretary Matthew CHEUNG gave a voluble speech, with much compassion and sympathy, caring about our economy as much as about the CHAN Tong-kai case. But why is the matter relating to tax concessions not being dealt with? It will benefit 1.9 million Hongkongers. Why is it completely abandoned? Why does each Member from the pro-establishment camp have to ignore the middle class? Have they not said we should not politicize the issues but focus on people's livelihood and economic improvements instead?
At any rate, to them, the interest of these 1.9 million Hongkongers can be ignored and the measures that practically pay back the people of Hong Kong can also be ignored. Exactly, who is toying with politics and manipulating the procedures of the Council? And our Chief Secretary can actually turn a blind eye to such matters. I really do not understand how the SAR Government can so unabashedly claim it wishes to improve people's livelihood. How long can it keep saying such things? I really hope that Chief Secretary Matthew CHEUNG will look squarely at the camera and tell Hongkongers: the Government indeed very much cares about it and he does not support the adjournment motion.
At the same time, I consider it incumbent upon myself to clearly say, on behalf of the Civic Party, the words that the Party originally did not have the chance to say at this very moment. We oppose the Government turning the site at the Central Harbourfront into a military dock. It is utterly wrong. And the SAR Government also fails to justify its own decision.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11893
(THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, MS STARRY LEE, took the Chair)
The reason is that in 2009, the Government already mentioned the plan of setting up a 10-hectare public open space in the Central Harbourfront and developing a cycle track for leisure and recreational use when the papers of the Urban Design Study for the New Central Harbourfront were published. The design of the harbourfront promenade would dovetail with that of the military dock of the People's Liberation Army Hong Kong Garrison and other public facilities. That was clearly stated in the 2009 papers. Times have changed. In 2013, the Planning Department, blatantly reneging on such an undertaking, zoned the site for military use. Simply put, it will bisect the harbourfront that the people of Hong Kong have the right to access. And in effect is it necessary? Certainly not. LEUNG Chun-ying, after taking office, volunteered to rezone the site in front of the military dock for military use and made the gazettal with no consultation at all, with a view to zoning it for military use permanently and handing it over to the People's Liberation Army ("PLA") for management.
Why can such a matter not be debated in the Council? Why can Members from the pro-government camp not openly and fairly negative the resolutions proposed by Mr AU Nok-hin and Mr CHU Hoi-dick? Why do they dare not do so? Why do they fail to speak out for the country and for PLA but evade doing so? Why are they just like the SAR Government? Why do they have no courage whatsoever to debate this matter with the pro-democracy camp? I thought they carried the word "courage" on their chest. I thought they loved the country, the party and the army very much. Why do they not take this opportunity to say something for PLA? Why do they have to create such an objective outcome to enrage the people and add stoke the heated atmosphere of taking to the streets on 1 July?
They have absolutely failed their jobs. They have already been failing to do their jobs for months. And today they have failed their jobs once again by using some trifling ploys and manipulating the procedure of the Council. They rely on their majority to bully the minority so that they will manage to pass the motion and thus deny any discussion of the other items of business. However, having taken note of it, will Beijing appreciate their actions? I know that Mr Christopher CHEUNG has proposed the motion today originally against the background of the amendment to the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance ("FOO"). 11894 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019
Everyone feels at risk here and some people have said "misleading the Central Authorities"? Back then, every one of them boasted without shame about the people not understanding the amendment and that the ordinance would not affect ordinary citizens and would definitely be passed smoothly. However, within days they all "chickened out" in unison and made a 180-degree turn in their stance. Mr Dennis KWOK has already enumerated in detail their moves.
However, Deputy President, Mr Dennis KWOK has forgotten one point. The Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong ("DAB") held a press conference on 13 February and claimed that it had been providing assistance for the family of the victim of the CHAN Tong-kai case and supported the amendment to FOO. And on 5 June, people considered that the amendment to FOO would arouse very little argument―also as stated by DAB. Shortly afterwards, on 10 June, right after the first large march on 9 June, DAB reiterated their support for the Second Reading of the Amendment Bill. There was no problem about it. Following their original aspiration through, they should continue to support what they thought was right without any flinch. Who could have envisaged that on 18 June, after Carrie LAM had made her apology, DAB said it accepted her apology and that it had previously been relaying public opinions to her. Deputy President, to whom exactly did they say those words? To Hongkongers or the "Northern overlords" who are now looking into such a big mess resulting from the amendment to FOO? I am really baffled.
In only eight days, why could they make a 180-degree turn in their stance? I consider that it requires superb skills. Is it true that in order to be the pro-government camp, especially the flagship in the pro-government camp―DAB―such an ability is a must? Deputy President, I truly blush with shame. I think that the pro-democracy camp does not have such an ability.
Deputy President, will you please not sneer. I am not sure if, when I mention CHAN Tong-kai, you can keep smiling. Deputy President, that day you were among the company of the family of CHAN Tong-kai in meeting the reporters, and now they are ignored and cast away like used shoes. Exactly what have they done for the family? Do not assume that there is no way. Alvin YEUNG has proposed a private bill. If they really wish to face the family of CHAN Tong-kai, it is at their disposal anytime. It can be introduced under the name of Ms Starry LEE, Mr Holden CHOW or any DAB Member. I will LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11895 definitely not mind. But why have they now completely forgotten such a family whom they wanted to help that day? Why can they now sweep their original aspiration under the carpet? It beats me indeed.
I particularly hope that, Deputy President, you will not forget how you sternly spoke with a sense of justice, as if you were "possessed" by righteousness, in front of the camera on that day in February. The Chief Secretary cannot keep himself out of the matter neither. Chief Secretary Matthew CHEUNG, as a representative of the Government, came to the defence of the amendment to the ordinance. It was our Chief Secretary who said the headcount of the procession did not matter. I very much hope to know that: as the number two man in SAR, exactly how could the Chief Secretary face "the family of the CHAN Tong-kai case" that he once made a high-profile reference to? I also very much hope to know that: having been a civil servant for almost 50 years, in the face of such a mess, how could he completely dissociate himself from the issue and say it was not related to him?
(Dr Junius HO indicated a wish to raise a point of order)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr YEUNG, please hold on. Dr Junius HO, what is your point of order?
DR JUNIUS HO (in Cantonese): I heard Mr Alvin YEUNG mention "the family of CHAN Tong-kai" several times. Has he mixed up the dead and victim …
MR ALVIN YEUNG (in Cantonese): Anyone who carries his ears would know that I said the family of the CHAN Tong-kai "case" …
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr YEUNG, please hold on. Dr Junius HO, are you asking Mr YEUNG to make an elucidation?
DR JUNIUS HO (in Cantonese): Deputy President, yes, I am only asking him to clarify it.
11896 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr HO, please sit down. Mr Alvin YEUNG, it is your choice whether or not to give a clarification. If you do not wish to do so, please continue your speech.
MR ALVIN YEUNG (in Cantonese): I think here only DAB has the gall to keep mentioning the deceased. DAB also has sufficient ability to dispose of the deceased immediately after using her. It is the true colours of DAB, as well as the prowess of the pro-Government camp. We in the pro-democracy camp absolutely have not such ability. And just now I was settling scores with Chief Secretary Matthew CHEUNG direct. Please do not divert the attention. The Chief Secretary, as the number two man in SAR, and in response to two marches with over a million people taking to the streets, dared to shamelessly boast about it in the Council―though he just read from the script―and pretended that nothing had happened. Admittedly, it could be the capability of experienced civil servants. But does it not have anything to do with the Chief Secretary? The entire SAR Government has seemingly been operating on an "autonomous-drive" mode in the last two weeks. And the officials have passed the responsibility down rank by rank, completely shirking it. I thought the SAR Government has put in place the Principal Officials Accountability System. But the Principal Officials Accountability System is indeed a "no one held accountable system". Without anyone to bear accountability, it has been pushed downwards rank by rank, official to official, and to what extent? That is when the entire SAR Government went missing. I thought the Executive Council is the most important framework in Hong Kong. And yet it needed not meet for two consecutive weeks. Exactly what kind of city is it? What kind of system is it?
Deputy President, I very much hope to find out: what will the high-ranking officials or Members from the pro-government camp present here write in the report to Beijing? Certainly, it is definitely beyond our power to manage or control. We are not so blessed that we can write a report to Beijing in such a manner. However, now when responsibility is to be assigned, is it not true that everyone has then started saying he or she had reminded her and told her already? If those people uttering such words think Beijing will buy them, I dare say they are really very naïve. Exactly how long will this "autonomous-drive" stage of the SAR Government last? Until when will the SAR Government keep deceiving itself? Until when will it keep evading the sharp eyes of Hongkongers? We are facing not only the political issues ensuing from the amendment to FOO, but also problems in the systems of the entire SAR Government.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11897
Of course, just now some other Honourable colleagues have mentioned the several requests made in the second million-people march. But, do not forget that even if such requests were eventually addressed, the crux of the problem right now is still that the entire political system is totally unable to effectively solve the complex issues of Hong Kong. Any attempt to address new problems with the old way will only continue to push Hong Kong to the abyss and sweep the old problems under the carpet. And such a carpet will only be stacked higher and higher, and eventually calamities will befall us all.
Undeniably, the pro-democracy camp may not be able to negative the adjournment motion, because it is a script carefully crafted by the pro-establishment camp. Nevertheless, I wish to point out that, even if they managed to pull it off this time and succeeded in adjourning the Legislative Council, they could dodge this time but they could not do so forever. Hongkongers will keep an eye on them and continue to pursue them to "collect the debt". If they have enough courage, they should actually bow and apologize. Only by doing so will they have taken the first step to open the path of reconciliation, and it is the badly needed step. Should they continue to lie to themselves, eventually they will drag Hong Kong into doom.
MR AU NOK-HIN (in Cantonese): Mr Christopher CHEUNG mentioned the reasons why society has been caught in continual rift. In fact, the response given by Secretary John LEE at the Legislative Council this morning is the reason. To date, he is still thinking up excuses, claiming that the incident should be attributed to inadequate explanation. Though he apologized with extreme reluctance last week, he is unwilling to admit to his mistakes and he washes his hands of the violent suppression of peaceful protesters.
Over the past couple of weeks, Hong Kong society has experienced lots of heart-rending moments. We saw the degeneration of the Government and its ignorance in creating its own political crisis. The hearts of the people of Hong Kong are aching, for the SAR Government always follows the lead of Beijing but never stands by the people of Hong Kong.
According to the report of Radio Television Hong Kong ("RTHK"), Mr Christopher CHEUNG met with reporters outside the Chamber just now, stating that he is concerned about his sectors, for there have been dramatic fluctuations and a significant drop in transactions in the financial market recently. He said he was purely acting in response to changes in the market. As the 11898 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 representative of the financial services sector, he should know full well that the approaches adopted by the ruling authorities in addressing political instability are the major cause of economic problems. Does he want me to send him this piece of "elderly graphics"1? This piece of "elderly graphics" shows that after the passage of the Bill, the property market and the stock market will be game over―I will give this piece of "elderly graphics" to him later. Hence, I may not agree with Mr CHU Hoi-dick's point, that Mr Christopher CHEUNG is trying to earn merits by proposing the motion on adjournment of the Council. I think it is more likely that Mr Christopher CHEUNG is doing this as an attempt to remedy his frank disclosure of Ms Alice MAK using swearing words some time ago. He kept provoking disputes and stoking the conflicts in his speech. He can hardly convince the public that he is sincerely doing this for society, and that he really aspires for restoration of stability and peace, and a new start.
People, inside and outside the Legislative Council Complex, know that the pro-establishment camp and the pro-Government camp will very likely force the passage of the motion on adjournment of the Council. By then, this Council cannot debate the resolutions proposed by Mr CHU Hoi-dick and me, which include repealing the amendment to hand over the 150-metre site of the Central dock to the People's Liberation Army ("PLA"). Regarding the amendments to the five pieces of subsidiary legislation to be passed today, I propose repealing them. In fact, regarding the motion proposed by Mr Christopher CHEUNG today, I noticed that certain people started discussing at LIHKG an hour ago where they should go picnicking in the next few days.
In my opinion, the SAR Government is now facing a political crisis greater than that of the procession of 2 million people. During the G20 Leaders' Summit to be held this Saturday, if the SAR Government proves to have failed to learn the lesson from the "China extradition bill" and introduces the draconian law to hand over the Central Harbourfront site to China, provoking large-scale protests and resulting in clearance by the Police, it will be a crisis to the Government. By then, will the authorities call out the PLA Garrison? Will the authorities request the Police or PLA to clear the scene? The authorities may choose either the Police or PLA. Regarding the political responsibility involved, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, as well as all Members from the pro-establishment camp, will definitely have a share.
1 Originally created as inspirational quotes superimposed on images which circulation is said to be most common among elderly people. But such graphics have now gained popularity in use as carriers of social movement messages. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11899
An area of the waterfront open space in the New Central Harbourfront is ceded to PLA for use as a military site by the SAR Government. As we have long since mentioned, in the discussion on this amendment in 1994, it was specified that the reprovision would only involve a dock but not the cessation of a site. In 2003, the Government designated the site as open space. But now, the authorities fawn over them and offer this site to PLA. Worse still, this is implemented by the "negative vetting procedure". In other words, the Government can do everything at will. If we do not have a meeting today, the relevant amendment will become effective automatically on 29 June.
In other words, if no Member takes the initiative to voice opposition, the Government will regard Members as having given consent, and the amendments to the subsidiary legislation concerned will come into effect automatically. Had not Mr CHU Hoi-dick and I put forth the proposed resolutions today, the Hong Kong community would have been represented and regarded as agreeing to the cessation of the harbourfront site to PLA unnoticeably. Is it not ironic that the SAR Government is saying it will listen and walk with the people? What is the Government trying to connect? These accountability officials are utterly shameless.
Before I come here to deliver my speech, I received a message from former Member Kenneth CHAN. He reminded me that I must raise this issue, for if we do not discuss this issue today, the amendments would be implemented quietly in future. The issue of the Central Harbourfront "being handed over to China" may not even appear in the Hansard of the Legislative Council if no one raises the issue at the meeting of the Council. Though the content of the five pieces of subsidiary legislation is not directly related to the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance ("FOO"), the pro-democracy camp has noted a common point. Be it in the case of the "draconian law on China extradition" or the "second handover of the habourfront site to China", the Government is bulldozing the legislation through without heeding views of dissent in the course of amendment. How do the authorities treat the 9 000-odd opposition views?
Chief Secretary Matthew CHEUNG asserted with dead certainty just now that the authorities had acted in accordance with procedures, that a thorough examination had been conducted and that it was completely lawful. Yet, the two cases are cognate, which rightly reflects that the SAR Government disregards public opinions and lacks justifications. Two and a half months ago, on 2 April, 11900 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 at the meeting of the Panel on Security, we discussed the five pieces of subsidiary legislation concerning the military dock of PLA. At that time, Secretary John LEE put on a face of imposition same as the one he put on in promoting the amendments to FOO, yet he could hardly explain his case. When we asked him questions, John LEE bluntly said that "the Member's remark is wrong" and that "the Member lacks knowledge about defence". What a display of arrogance of government officials? Had he been so well versed in defence, the Police would not have come to this pass, still less pulling police officers from police posts at hospitals.
When Members asked how the Garrison would manage the site which used to be a public open space for use by the people of Hong Kong, the Secretary could only hum and haw, failing to disclose any specific information and details. Certain Members and I queried why the Government has to hastily enact the amendments to the subsidiary legislation which will be effective on this Saturday, and why it has to bulldoze the passage of the amendments when specific arrangements have yet to be provided. Does it want the amendments implemented by October, so that …
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr AU Nok-hin, please pause for a while. I have to remind you that Council is now debating the motion on adjournment of the Council proposed by Mr Christopher CHEUNG. Have you entered into the discussion on the agenda item concerning the subsidiary legislation on the Central Military Dock? Please point out in what way is the content of your speech related to the present motion?
You still have about seven minutes to express your views, so please come back to the motion on adjournment of the Council.
MR AU NOK-HIN (in Cantonese): I talk about the discussion on the military dock because I wish to point out that the dispute over the military dock and the "No China extradition" incident are two sides of the coin, because the Government as a whole fails to appreciate public opinions and has misjudged the political situation. Ms Starry LEE has also severed her tie with the Government, and everyone in the Government knows this point. At that press conference, she said "withdrawal" is acceptable, which means the Democratic Alliance for the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11901
Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong ("DAB") also wants to sever its tie with the Government. When DAB also splits with the Government, Matthew CHEUNG should ponder over why they have come to this pass. The Chief Secretary cannot but agree with this point, and he knows at heart that it is the case.
Ms Starry LEE, at the Subcommittee, I asked government officials from the Security Bureau whether they had discussed the details of the site with PLA. Ms Starry LEE, I will come back to the subject, for you require me to speak on the subject, which Mr Christopher CHEUNG considers that the Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019 ("the Bill") has caused dissension in society. Yet, not only the Bill will cause dissension in society, the issue concerning the PLA dock which cannot be discussed today will further deepen the division in society, shattering the community.
At that time, I asked the Security Bureau whether it had discussed the details with PLA, which in my opinion is a very humble request. Why? For according to Article 10 of the Law of the People's Republic of China on the Garrisoning of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, "The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall solicit the Hong Kong Garrison's opinions when it makes policies or drafts bills involving the Hong Kong Garrison". I believe when the Government proposed the handover of the dock, it should have discussed with the Garrison. My questions include the opening hours and terms of opening of the site, whether protests are allowed, whether people are allowed to stay and the management arrangement, and so on. Yet, the answer is that specific opening hours and details will be decided by the Garrison, and the SAR Government will respect the decision of the Garrison. They did not even tell us what have been discussed …
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr AU Nok-hin, I have to remind you again that I consider the content of your speech falling in the scope of another Agenda item. Please come back to the question of the motion of adjournment of the Council.
11902 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019
MR AU NOK-HIN (in Cantonese): Yes, Ms Starry LEE, I have to talk about this. I have to discuss this. If the motion on adjournment of the Council is passed today, I will not have any chance to discuss the issue even if I wish to do so. Hence, if I do not seize this opportunity to talk about it, when will I have the opportunity to do so?
(Mr Jeremy TAM indicated a wish to raise a point of order)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Jeremy TAM, what is your point of order?
MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): Deputy President, in fact, I do not mean to interrupt Mr AU Nok-hin. Yet, according to the content of the motion proposed by Mr Christopher CHEUNG this time around, the adjournment motion seeks to pool collective wisdom with a view to restoring stability and peace in society and adopting effective measures correspondingly. I definitely believe what Mr AU Nok-hin was talking about is relevant to the administration by this Government in the future, such as the forced passage of the arrangement for the PLA dock amid the lack of public support. He has merely adopted a broader perspective in discussing the issue in his speech, which includes corresponding measures to be taken this time around or in the future. Hence, I think Mr AU Nok-hin is definitely speaking on the subject. On the contrary, the Deputy President has interrupted him twice in the course of his exposition, and I consider that a problem. Thank you.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Jeremy TAM, what you have stated is not a point of order. Just now, I asked Mr AU whether he could point out how the content of his speech was related to the motion on adjournment of the Council, yet he continued to talk about the questions he had asked the Secretary at the Panel on Security and on other occasions. I then decided that he had already entered the discussion on another Agenda item.
Mr AU, please come back to the question on the adjournment motion. Please continue.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11903
MR AU NOK-HIN (in Cantonese): Ms Starry LEE, since the motion seeks to pool collective wisdom, I have to put forth some new ideas and policies here for the consideration of Chief Secretary Matthew CHEUNG. I do not know if he will suspend or withdraw the "handover of the dock to China", yet this is one way to mend the dissension in society, which is one of the goals proposed by Mr Christopher CHEUNG at this meeting. Insofar as mending the dissension in society is concerned, I will send him a piece of "elderly graphics" later, wishing that peace and health be with him.
Hence, how can the Chief Security tell the public that the authorities' approaches are strictly in compliance with the procedures, thoroughly examined and absolutely lawful? I have yet to point out that among the amendments to the five pieces of subsidiary legislation to be passed, it is stipulated that any citizen passing by an authorized guard but does not stop at the request of the authorized guard may be liable to a sentence of six months' imprisonment. In future, the public may pass by that area, and I do not know how they will manage it. At the meetings of the Subcommittee, I had asked these questions a number of times, yet I did not get any answer at all.
Has the SAR Government ever realized that the social disputes arising from the coercive promotion of the Bill would have expanded to such a large scale, driving people to take to the streets on 9 June and 16 June in succession, with 1 million and then 2 million people taking to the streets. The Government has obviously underestimated the public reaction. As for the incident of "handing over the dock to China" this time around, I believe the authorities may have underestimated the public reaction involved too. Hence, the present incident of "ceding the military dock to China" has run beyond a matter of legal principle or policy, and the SAR Government is making another bomb, causing dissension in society once again and dealing another blow to the economy. The property market will be over and the stock market will be over.
Mr CHU Hoi-dick and I have put forth proposed resolutions to repeal or postpone the amendments in question. The Government must be unhappy about this, so they went outside to host their press conference. Yet, should Chief Secretary Matthew CHEUNG reflect on this deeply? I do not know whether the Executive Council had conducted meetings in private last week or had skipped the meetings for two weeks, or whether they have conducted any brainstorming sessions on their own. If the authorities can prescribe the right remedy, informing the public that it will not resort to "forced implementation" at an earlier 11904 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 time, then the authorities should withdraw the amendments to the five pieces of subsidiary legislation altogether so as to pre-empt the dispute today. Worse still, they pulled the little trick by proposing a motion on adjournment of the Council, preventing Members from proposing amendments to the relevant subsidiary legislation.
If the Chief Secretary is still stuck in the rut and fails to learn a lesson, it will only embarrass the SAR Government as well as the Central Authorities at the G20. I sincerely hope that the SAR Government will repent and conduct comprehensive consultation afresh to ease the tension in society. More so, it should stop adopting this approach and attitude of riding roughshod in taking forward the relevant subsidiary legislation. All Members from the pro-Government camp who always brag about their patriotism should convince certain obstinate government officials and the SAR Government that the meeting should be continued and no adjournment should be caused, and that they should support the proposed resolutions put forth by Mr CHU Hoi-dick and me. I hope they will think about it carefully and learn a lesson from Carrie LAM's case. They should not express their loyalty blindly in the midst of the great uncertainties in the international arena, bringing more troubles to the State. Or else, on 29 June, Saturday, when the 1.3 billion of people in China look forward to seeing progress in the China-United States trade talk at the G20 Leaders' Summit, the coverage of the international media will focus on the "China extradition law" and the continued protests in Hong Kong, or even the large number of people protesting at the military dock ceded to PLA. By then, the media worldwide will query whether "one country, two systems" has come to nought. I hope the Secretary will respond to this point seriously when he gives his reply.
When the meeting was suspended just now, I had a heated debate with Dr Priscilla LEUNG. She was emotional and she made a response again after leaving the Chamber. I told her that if she truly loves her country, she should reconsider whether this piece of legislation should be bulldozed through the Council, and I said that she had betrayed the spirit of the Student Union of The Chinese University of Hong Kong ("CUHK"). A line of lyrics in the anthem of the Student Union of CUHK carries the meaning that "we shoulder the task to bring glory to the entire nation" (承擔着整個民族的光輝)。When she stands by the ruling regime, unwilling to voice condemnation of it as she did about the massacre in the past, she has betrayed …
(Dr Priscilla LEUNG indicated a wish to raise a point of order)
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11905
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr AU Nok-hin, please pause for a while. Dr Priscilla LEUNG, what is your point of order?
DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I have a point of order. I consider the word "betrayed" used by Mr AU Nok-hin offensive, for this is his subjective view about betrayal. On the contrary, what they are doing may be considered by the public as betraying the interests of the country and the nation. We are Chinese people. CUHK is named the "Chinese University" because we are Chinese people. Mr AU Nok-hin, you should read the history of CUHK again before you speak here. You do not qualify to say that.
I wonder if he has ever been a committee member of the Student Union. We oppose the three unequal treaties …
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Priscilla LEUNG, please stop speaking. Are you saying that Mr AU Nok-hin has used insulting language about other Members? As for other views, you may respond later.
(Dr Priscilla LEUNG continued to talk aloud in her seat)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Priscilla LEUNG, please stop speaking.
Mr AU Nok-hin, please continue.
MR AU NOK-HIN (in Cantonese): As a former executive of the 38th Student Union of CUHK, I now hope that she can regain the spirit of CUHK. What does New Asia College say? What did TANG Chun-I say? Nationalism falters like fallen flowers.
(Dr Priscilla LEUNG indicated a wish to raise a point of order)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Priscilla LEUNG, what is your point of order?
11906 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019
DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I am from the United College but not the New Asia College …
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Priscilla LEUNG, if you want to clarify …
DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): The Chinese University of Hong Kong is a university for Chinese people, but not for people like them … We support that Hong Kong is a part of China, and anything against national interest is also against the spirit of CUHK. Does he understand that? Go back and study more!
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Priscilla LEUNG, please stop speaking.
Dr Priscilla LEUNG and Honourable Members, Council is now conducting a heated debate. If any Member considers that in the content of the speech of other Members, you have been misunderstood or your background or other matters have been misunderstood, please press the "Request-to-speak" button and wait for your turn to express your views.
(Dr Priscilla LEUNG continued to talk aloud in her seat)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Priscilla LEUNG, please stop speaking.
(Dr Priscilla LEUNG was still talking aloud in her seat)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Priscilla LEUNG, please stop speaking.
Mr AU Nok-hin, please continue.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11907
MR AU NOK-HIN (in Cantonese): With a peaceful mind, I implore Dr Priscilla LEUNG to repent. I am just asking them not to be blind towards "China extradition" and not to support the subsidiary legislation concerning the PLA military dock blindly. If they do so, how can XI Jinping maintain his demeanour at the international summit? I so submit.
MR TOMMY CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the incident that took place outside the Legislative Council Complex on 12 June 2019 has aroused concern among people in Hong Kong and around the world …
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Tommy CHEUNG, please hold on. Your microphone …
MR TOMMY CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I have already put on the microphone. Can you hear me?
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Yes, please continue.
MR TOMMY CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Can you hear me?
Deputy President, let me start again from the beginning. On 12 June 2019, …
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Secretariat staff please reset the timer for Mr CHEUNG?
MR TOMMY CHEUNG (in Cantonese): … the incident that took place outside the Legislative Council Complex has aroused concern among people in Hong Kong and around the world. Different sectors have different views, but I trust history will pass a fair judgment on the matter. However, Hong Kong seems to have lost its orientation at this point. The urgent task before us is figuring out how to settle the matter and make a start afresh.
11908 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019
In the past two weeks, a series of irregular, so-called wildcat demonstrations has plunged society into a state of instability. Many sectors, including the catering and retail industries, have told me that the spending power of the public has dropped significantly, particularly in areas affected by the demonstrations where business has plummeted significantly. Some businesses had to close to avoid losses caused by the conflicts. Nevertheless, they dare not voice their anger for fear of becoming targets of attack by cyber warriors. I do not intend to give any explanation on behalf of the Government, but it is indeed difficult for the Government to agree to all the demands of the protesters. If they insist on going on in this way, Hong Kong people will be the victims.
According to recent media reports, more and more people have expressed discontent over the demonstrations which affected their work and daily errands. For instance, taxpayers were unable to pay taxes, business operators could not enter the Inland Revenue Department, people could not collect their stamped tenancy agreements, and taxis were forced to drop off passengers midway. In other words, they are paying the price that protesters initially wanted the Government to pay. Is this reasonable?
I understand that people want to hold the Government accountable for the incident. In particular, they want Chief Executive Carrie LAM to respond with concrete actions, such as resignation, instead of merely an apology. However, the Liberal Party thinks the effort and contribution made by her to Hong Kong so far should not be totally negated due to one mistake. If Mrs LAM is to be held accountable, she should all the more remain in office and tidy up the aftermath.
The Liberal Party holds that most people who participated in the assemblies since 9 June sought to express their concern over the amendments to the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance in a peaceful and rational manner. Regardless of our diverse views on the amendments, we still respect peaceful protesters. However, we do not believe we can thus rationalize the violent acts of some people, or else we may issue a wrong message, that resorting to violent and unlawful acts whenever there is any dissatisfaction is a tactic acceptable to society and the judicial system in Hong Kong. This will only indirectly incite more young people to engage in violent and unlawful acts and place them at high risks, which is not a responsible approach and the Liberal Party cannot approve of it.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11909
In fact, many scenes in the multiple clashes between the Police and the public on 12 June were heart-wrenching and agitating. According to the descriptions by Honourable colleagues in the Legislative Council Complex on that day, the situation deteriorated rapidly in the afternoon as protesters gradually approached the Legislative Council Complex, causing the matter to run out of control. The situation outside the Legislative Council Complex that day was indeed very chaotic and dangerous. Bricks, iron bars―sharpened iron bars―wooden boards and flower pots were flying in all directions. Many policemen were injured during the multiple confrontations; some of them were assaulted and bleeding in the head. The situation almost ran out of control.
As everyone can imagine, the consequences could be very serious if the Legislative Council Complex lost its final line of defence that day and thousands of people rushed in, in which case Honourable colleagues and Secretariat staff working inside the building would be exposed to immediate danger. For this reason, the use of non-fatal weapons by the Police is understandable. Personally, I think the Police took appropriate actions that day and their overall performance was professional and restrained.
The Chief Executive and the Commissioner of Police clarified last week that they did not categorize the activity on that day as a riot, nor did they say that the large number of people participating in the public meeting around Admiralty, in particular students, were rioters. In the past two weeks, we have received many video clips of alleged violent acts involving not only protesters. However, the general public should not jump to any conclusion merely on basis of these video clips. The Liberal Party urges various sectors to calm down. Instead of blaming each other just like what Honourable colleagues did just now, the best solution is addressing the matter through Hong Kong's proven judicial procedures and established complaint mechanism.
As a matter of fact, among the persons arrested by the Police, only 15 so far were involved in violent acts, with five of them being suspected of involvement in the riot, while 17 people were arrested for other offences, such as failure to produce proof of identity, loitering and possession of instruments fit for an unlawful purpose, etc. Last Tuesday evening, upon investigation and seeking legal advice, the Police granted an absolute discharge to the seven men and one woman arrested for alleged loitering on 12 June due to insufficient evidence. I also believe that even if the Department of Justice found sufficient evidence to institute prosecution against the other arrested persons, they would be tried openly, fairly and impartially under our independent judicial system.
11910 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019
We must understand that it is the duty of the Police to maintain law and order. We hope people will refrain from being hostile to the Police as police officers are subjected to tremendous pressure in the face of large-scale, prolonged demonstrations, thus inevitably becoming emotional under constant verbal abuse and provocation. Nevertheless, some members who do not understand this often direct their criticisms at individual persons instead of the matter. Recently, there have been cases of public insults against police officers and cyber-bullying of police officers and their families. I have even heard of incidents in which children of police officers were subjected to verbal abuse in school. Police officers and their families became targets of attack as their information was profiled and made public online. More than 500 persons have been doxxed and one of them was harassed at the workplace. These are all irrational and unlawful acts seeking to vent hatred on innocent public servants. The trend should never be encouraged and must be stopped.
Certainly, we have to be fair and should not allow the Police to abuse power or use excessive force, but just like how we handle demonstrators suspected of committing violent acts, everything must be evidence-based. Therefore, it is most impartial, fair and open to handle the issue in accordance with the existing disciplinary mechanism and judicial procedures. It is understood that the Complaints Against Police Office ("CAPO") has received 61 complaints so far, mainly concerning assault, poor attitude and abuse of power.
Some people said that it is hard to hold anyone accountable without police officer numbers. But in fact, there have been past cases in which relevant police officers could be traced without their numbers based on video clips as well as time and place at which the incidents occurred. Shortly after the incident, the Independent Police Complaints Council ("IPCC") announced the establishment of a three-tier special task force comprised of a secretariat, the management and committees, of which all members are experienced in dealing with large-scale conflicts, to handle the issue according to a uniform standard. IPCC also undertook to draw on overseas experience in reviewing all the cases before submitting a report. To my understanding, the report will definitely serve as useful reference if the cases are tried by the Court in future.
IPCC is not a "toothless tiger" as some people claim. As we can see in the "Franklin CHU case", IPCC and CAPO classified the assault allegation as substantiated as early as in 2015. More importantly, IPCC has played an important role in this case. According to media reports, IPCC was dissatisfied LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11911 with and rejected the investigation findings of the "Franklin CHU case" by CAPO on three occasions. On the first occasion, CAPO found that the assault allegation was unsubstantiated, but IPCC asked CAPO to consider substantiating the allegation. On the second occasion, CAPO amended the allegation to unauthorized use of authority and listed it as substantiated, but the finding was again rejected by IPCC. On the third occasion, CAPO reverted the allegation to assault unsubstantiated, which was once again rejected by IPCC. After seeking advice from the Department of Justice, CAPO agreed that the assault allegation against Franklin CHU was substantiated and issued him a written warning. Subsequently, the Department of Justice initiated a prosecution against Franklin CHU in 2017.
Some people may consider the process mentioned a bit long, but repeated deliberations and an opportunity of appeal are necessary to ensure impartiality and fairness. The procedural justice manifested by the mechanism should not be denigrated because of the long duration. Let us not forget the case in which seven police officers assaulted someone in the dark corner, and the seven police officers concerned were eventually convicted and sentenced to two years' imprisonment by the Court. Therefore, the public should have confidence in the judicial system in Hong Kong. Do the public not always consider that there is separation of powers in which Hong Kong takes pride? The Court of Hong Kong is capable of acting as the gatekeeper.
Nevertheless, I do not wish to see the efforts of the Police Force written off because of individual suspected cases or unverified cases of power abuse. Therefore, I would like to say a few words to the Police Force here. First, I have to thank them. I know that they have worked very hard during the last two weeks and others may not appreciate the tremendous pressure exerted on them, but we have confidence in them because they are all professionally trained. We trust that they will perform their duties well and restrain from getting furious over the presumptuous conduct of a small group of people as justice lies in the heart of the people. I also advise the protesters who have blocked major roads and surrounded various government buildings over the past few days to refrain from going too far. The global political, economic and social situation is undergoing intriguing changes. As an externally-oriented international city, Hong Kong can get caught in the eye of the storm easily. If society continues to remain in chaos and torn apart, Hong Kong may not be able to withstand it and the healthy development of Hong Kong will be impeded.
11912 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019
The container throughput of Hong Kong port has declined for 15 consecutive months from February last year to April this year. The container throughput in the first four months this year has declined by 7% over the same period last year and there is no sign of future improvement. Following that will be a downturn of the overall economy of which small and medium enterprises will definitely suffer. The Government should introduce relief measures expeditiously in order to tide over this difficult period with Hong Kong enterprises.
In response to various social issues in recent years, such as the shortage of health care manpower, excessive waiting time for public housing, and shortage of land, the Government must introduce measures capable of producing immediate results. The Liberal Party thus hopes society can get back onto the right track as soon as possible and concentrate on improving our economy and people's livelihood. Nevertheless, in view of the boiling social atmosphere, the Liberal Party finds it appropriate for the Council to adjourn so as to give society more time to calm down and think about how Hong Kong may continue to move forward.
Deputy President, I so submit.
MR JEFFREY LAM (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the past two weeks or so saw Hong Kong undergo a litany of unpleasantness. I am sure every member of the public who loves Hong Kong would find these past two weeks seemingly endless and heart-rending. It is especially true for the public meeting held in the vicinity of the Legislative Council Complex on 12 June. While it was mostly peaceful, some clashes indeed broke out. Scenes of clashes, broadcasted via social media, plunged many a Hongkonger into a state of emotional turmoil. Once again, people of different stances attacked and lashed out at each other, with two camps locking horns and society torn asunder. Recently, protesters have escalated their actions, blockading the Police Headquarters, the Revenue Tower and even the Immigration Tower, while engaging in verbal and physical altercations with some members of the public. We really do not wish to see such things happen again.
I understand there is this view that the upheaval in Hong Kong was triggered by the amendment of the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance introduced by the Government. Having known the Chief Executive for years, I believe her amendment proposal was driven initially by the Taiwan murder case of which the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11913 victim's grievances have yet to be redressed. Given that the imperfection in Hong Kong's arrangement in relation to the surrender of suspects has allowed the suspect of the Taiwan case to escape from the long arm of the law, she found it incumbent upon the Government to perfect the legal system, rather than turning a blind eye to the problem.
However, there was no denying that public sentiments have shifted dramatically in a matter of weeks. In view of the rapidly deteriorating atmosphere in society, the Special Administrative Region ("SAR") Government decided to suspend the legislative amendment exercise. I think the Government had arrived at that decision after sizing up the situation and striking a balance among the aspirations of various parties. I understand that some members of the public remain not happy with the decision of "suspension", holding out instead for a pronouncement with the wording of "withdrawal" from the Government. Yet, in terms of the objective effect, there is in fact little difference between a suspension and a withdrawal. And the Government has explained time and again that the Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019 ("the Bill") will not be presented to the Legislative Council, meaning the Bill is finished. Hence, I very much hope that, as well as giving their appreciation and understanding, the public will cease to be obsessed with wording. If we refuse to make the ultimate compromise, Hong Kong will never see another day of peace.
I must first thank the Hong Kong Police Force for affording years of protection to the Hong Kong public and safeguarding our lives and property. Thanks to their work, Hong Kong has become one of the safest cities in the world. Above all, I wish to take this opportunity to say a few words in defence of our frontline police officers. Those frontline police officers on duty in the vicinity of Admiralty on 12 June were all public officers committed to their work and dedicated wholeheartedly to serving the community. I find it somewhat irrational and biased for us to judge their behaviour as out of control and abuse of power based on some extraordinary circumstances or video clips. It should be noted that in some other video clips, many police officers were seen retreating farther and farther until there was no more ground to retreat to in the face of repeated stormings and chargings and their personal safety under threat. Some of them were beaten badly with their heads broken and bleeding. Many of my friends feel sorry for the Police after seeing those images and seethe with indignation when talking about the incident.
11914 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019
Last Friday, large crowds of demonstrators besieged the Police Headquarters, pelted it with eggs and insulted the police officers on site, venting their frustration of the entire saga on frontline police officers. I find such acts way out of line. No matter what stance we take, we must calm down and examine the incident comprehensively. It would be utterly unfair to the Police if we succumb to generalization and premature judgement.
Deputy President, everyone has his or her own identity and role to play. Underneath their uniforms, police officers too are ordinary citizens with families who are―to put it coarsely―the offspring of some mothers. Yet, the prevailing trend of animosity towards the Police in the community is the most serious since the reunification, with some people seeing the Police as their punching bags. Police officers are often hurled insults of "corrupt cops" on the street. On the social media of Facebook and Instagram (IG), police officers are routinely flayed. I am sure it must be hard for the victims and their families. Police officers on duty are also in a bind. The constant fear of Internet vigilantism over their slightest outbursts has put them under enormous―and ever growing―work pressure. More outrageous still is the online disclosure of personal information of some police officers by many a netizen, with over 500 officers affected so far. These officers and their families were subjected to various degrees of harassment with their children falling victim to bullying in schools. In my view, such behaviour flies in the face of the peaceful and rational expression of aspirations originally intended by many people.
I also noted that numerous actions, including processions, demonstrations, labour strike, class boycott, suspension of business and various non-cooperative moves, have been initiated in the community. These actions go on and on and escalate further and further still, from besieging the Legislative Council Complex, storming first the Police Headquarters and then recently the Immigration Tower and Revenue Tower, to the suggestion of clogging the Mass Transit Railway. I find such acts of public nuisance, perpetrated in the name of the so-called justice, most unreasonable. Not only will the daily lives of innocent people be affected, it will also reflect badly on Hong Kong to foreign countries which would wonder why Hong Kong has become a city of demonstrations with protest actions taking place daily. Some foreign friends asked me whether the continuation of demonstrations would hamper the business environment of Hong Kong, given that the city has long been renowned for its robustness in the rule of law and great efficiency. Hence, if the pervasion of such an atmosphere goes on unchecked, not only will society be down in the doldrums, foreign investors too may have feel concerned about the environment of Hong Kong.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11915
Deputy President, I appreciate the hope of many young people to express their views on the legislative amendment exercise, defend Hong Kong's core values of democracy and freedom, even redress the injustices in their eyes by means of their actions. Yet, the legislative amendment exercise has been discontinued, while the Chief Executive, the Secretary for Justice and the Secretary for Security have personally apologized to the public. I believe they will embrace criticisms with the utmost sincerity and humbleness. Hence, I hope people of different views or divergent stances could calm down, so that the saga can quiet down as soon as possible with society returning to normal operation and the public resuming their normal lives.
Deputy President, many members of the business sector have relayed to me their fervent hope for this saga coming to an end. If some people continue to escalate their actions, to the detriment of people's normal lives and business operation, another wave of social confrontations could arise with implications on Hong Kong's image as an international financial centre. As we have learnt from television and newspapers, some protesters recently besieged the Revenue Tower and caused inconveniences to many people, notably during the tax filing season when members of the public come in droves to submit their tax returns to the Inland Revenue Department and many companies submit documents on behalf of their clients. I also heard some operators of nearby shops complain about the impossibility of operation if the situation continues for an extended period of time. As rentals have to be factored into the daily overheads, a day without business would mean a day in the red. We should certainly not express our views in such ways that would affect the livelihood of others. That is not the freedom that people talk about. While each individual has undoubtedly the right to express his or her views freely, it would run counter to the spirit of freedom if the relevant actions affect the lives―and above all, the livelihood―of other people.
Deputy President, Hong Kong is a society that upholds the rule of law. Even if our young people find it necessary to take actions, I believe it could be done in a peaceful, orderly, legal and rational manner without affecting the daily lives of other people. I also believe anyone who loves Hong Kong would hate to see other people in whatever roles getting hurt, still less a society torn apart again. I also hope that Members will refrain from proclaiming a stag to be a horse, spreading falsehood in society in a bid to mislead the public or cause misunderstandings among them.
11916 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019
Deputy President, Hong Kong is indeed plagued by internal and external troubles now. Hong Kong can hardly remain unscathed in the midst of a trade war between China and the United States. Many small and medium enterprises, currently caught in dire straits, all hope that this political dispute of Hong Kong will die down soon, so that the Government can focus its time and energy on developing the economy and improving people's lot.
Hong Kong achieved great success in the past. Such achievements and fruits certainly have not come by easily. It is hoped that while learning lessons from this experience, the public, the business community and the Government can make a concerted effort to put the economic development of Hong Kong back on track.
I so submit, Deputy President.
MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): Mr Jeffrey LAM is an Executive Council Member. What he says as a member of the Government's cabinet can at least represent part of the Government's stance. I have timed his speech. In his speech which lasted nearly 12 minutes, he spent more than half of the time on how wrong the protesters are, how much inconvenience they have caused, and how violent, self-willed and barbarous they are. Then he spent a couple of minutes on how hard the Police have worked and how difficult the Government's tasks are. He said he had to extend his regards and gratitude to the Police. This is the Government's stance. I wonder if he was being too honest, disclosing that the Government actually sticks to the stance of never admitting to its mistakes and never being penitent. All the protesters are wrong. In Carrie LAM's words, "All are nonsense." Or is it that he has failed to stay close to the public sentiment?
The Chief Executive, the Chief Secretary for Administration and the Director of Bureau have apologized. Yet today he still made use of this motion to smear the young people speaking out for Hong Kong. This is precisely the Government's stance. Hence, what is the point of saying such things as using the adjournment motion today to let us calm down, and avoiding adding fuel to the fire so that society can resume normal? Just now apart from Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Tommy CHEUNG also put it this way―I thought the Liberal Party would be more moderate, but after all, they just echoed the view that the people are messing up the economy, adding such words as the city of demonstrations and stagnation. They both blamed the protesters. Have they ever thought for a LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11917 moment that the Government has done something wrong? Did they make such a remark? Not a single word. Despite the Government's apology, they still maintained that the Government has acted correctly. It is entirely the protesters' fault. Are they for real?
Mr Christopher CHEUNG proposed his motion relating to the controversy over the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance ("FOO") in the form of an adjournment motion. In my opinion, it is consummate exploitation of the procedures of the Legislative Council. Originally, in the tradition of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, an adjournment debate may be proposed for discussion when there is no need to deal with any substantive motion, thereby allowing Members to express their views and public officers to speak. It is that simple. The content of the debate is more important than whether the meeting will be ultimately adjourned. But obviously, this motion of Mr Christopher CHEUNG has a hidden agenda of adjourning the meeting. It seeks to shut out and block the remaining Agenda items so that they cannot be discussed. What are the following items on the Agenda? There are discussions on the transfer of the military dock in Central to the People's Liberation Army ("PLA") of China, summoning Teresa CHENG in respect of her "moonlighting", and the motion on no confidence in the overall Government.
As the people of Hong Kong and members of the media can see, you are practically making use of the adjournment debate to suppress and evade the debate on issues for which the pro-democracy camp and the people of Hong Kong hold the Government accountable and responsible. It is also used to evade arguments which may trigger the people's opposition and which you are afraid of. However, the President has blatantly granted permission, putting on a show of collusion. Still having a vivid memory, I hold a grievance about adjournment motions because the day before and on the very day Mr LIU Xiaobo became critically ill, I proposed holding an adjournment debate, but the President said there was no urgency. However, today we discuss FOO without rhyme or reason. You said we may have a discussion, then it suddenly becomes urgent. So, the President is certainly a member of the pro-Government camp. He is among you in the pro-Government camp sitting here. What a show of collusion you have put on together!
Today we are unable to discuss the military dock. In fact, in disallowing us to discuss it, you are stoking the fire. There are many dangerous points about the military dock, including the designation of the Central Harbourfront at a certain time as a military site which will be guarded by authorized guards of PLA. 11918 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019
That means they will exercise regulation on their own, establishing a set of rules of PLA to manage that site, and we absolutely have no knowledge of what rules they are. We absolutely do not know when it will be open, and when PLA personnel will come out to enforce such rules, effect arrests and conduct interrogations. On this public occasion in the Legislative Council, we wish to discuss and expose these problems, and request the return of the Central Harbourfront to the public for their use. Is it that even a discussion is not allowed, and they have to resort to such underhand and despicable tactics to suppress our discussion on the issue of ceding the Central military dock to PLA? For this reason, if there are really large-scale demonstrations, confrontations and protests at the PLA dock or Central military dock in the future, Mr Christopher CHEUNG of the pro-establishment camp must bear the full responsibility because he has even denied us the opportunity of having a discussion in the Council. Hence, he said he does not wish to add fuel to the fire, but he has actually done so, creating the opposite effect. Today he has suppressed our discussion. Such an act is not settling the matter. Instead, it is even disallowing us to raise the issue for the people to vent their spleen.
(THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair)
Mr Christopher CHEUNG has mentioned in his speech on the adjournment debate something like there are serious disagreements in society, and society has suffered a sustained laceration. As I see it, there is no disagreement in society at all. Society has never been as united as the present moment for a long time. Together, the people oppose the draconian law, demand Carrie LAM to step down, note the faults of the Government and see that the Government speaks for Beijing rather than Hongkongers. The real disagreement lies within the pro-establishment camp, does it not? Who support Carrie LAM, and who do not continue to back her up? The split exists among yourselves within the pro-establishment camp, does it not? Do not describe the division among yourselves as an internal one within Hong Kong society. Please bear in mind that you have supported the amendments to FOO since the very first day. Carrie LAM saw each one of you nod, saying with servility that you would render her your support. Only then did she dare "go the whole hog". Why did each one of you not rise to bow and apologize today? Why did Mr Christopher CHEUNG not bow and apologize? All of you are lackeys. Therefore, I do not agree with the comment just now that someone is a lackey, because all of you are.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11919
For this reason, many people have asked: how should the problem be resolved then? You have asked this question, too. It is very simple. As a matter of fact, be it the young people who have come forward to fight, the pro-democracy camp or the mainstream society, their heartfelt wish is simply Carrie LAM being held responsible and stepping down, is it not? Is it too unrealistic? It did happen before. The Chief Executive grossly going against the public opinion stepped down after a major procession. It is just something ordinary. In other countries, facing rallies with 1 million or 2 million participants, if the head of state still does not step down, then that is really astonishing.
How should we clean up the mess? Withdrawal is the answer. Do not resort to any more hypocritical rhetoric, saying things like "suspension", then "termination", "natural death" or "facing the reality". For the sake of that tiny bit of prestige in governance which the Government thought still remains―or perhaps it is merely for saving the face of Carrie LAM. Consequently, the turmoil in Hong Kong continues, and some young people have even sacrificed their lives. It is solely for saving the face of Carrie LAM. How should we pick up the pieces? By vindication.
In my view, just now Members of the pro-establishment camp were indeed schizophrenic. Two Members of the pro-establishment camp, namely, Mr Jeffrey LAM and Mr Tommy CHEUNG, said the demonstrations were peaceful, but they spent more than half of their speaking time on saying that the protesters had hurled bricks and iron bars, adding that they had treated the Police badly. They were indeed schizophrenic. Hence, they actually hold at the bottom of their hearts that they were rioters. So long as there is no vindication, the authorities will continue to abuse the power of prosecution and judicial procedures to charge them with the offence of riot.
Several young people currently arrested and charged with the offence of riot―I believe the number will gradually increase―will face imprisonment of seven to ten years. Given the Government's reprisal in the future, how can members of the public treat the matter as though it has never happened? How should we pick up the pieces? We should set up an independent commission of inquiry and invite retired Judges to conduct a comprehensive inquiry: Can the students' movement against the "China extradition law" on that day actually be categorized as a "riot"? Did the Police abuse their power? I believe the answer 11920 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 is quite obvious. An inquiry will do. If they are innocent, why do they dare not face an inquiry? So, if asked, I will say that I never hate the Police. Neither do I believe there will be any advantages if members of the public keep fighting with the Police. But the Police are really in a difficult position. The Government would rather continue to place the Police between a rock and a hard place, using the Police to fight the people and let the people fight among themselves. It wants such fights to go on in society and refuses to withdraw the Bill or take the responsibility and step down. This is precisely the problem we have to face. If asked how it should be handled, I would say that the Chief Executive should step down.
Hence, from the angle of members of the public, "suspension" and "withdrawal" are poles apart. In fact, the Chief Secretary knows it, too. Suspension means the First Reading still exists. As long as the First Reading still exists, so does the relevant Bill. From the angle of members of the public, peaceful assemblies, rallies and demonstrations are hugely different from riots. In the question session of the Legislative Council today, the Secretary for Security still questioned why Germany provided political asylum and refugee protection to protesters charged with the offence of riot. Such provision is certainly needed because the whole world can see how the Hong Kong Government has exploited the prosecution and judicial procedures, and abused the offence of riot to charge and suppress young people fighting for justice in Hong Kong. The whole world can see it. Yet the Government still has the face to state its strong objection and deep regret. Why did it only look at the speck of sawdust in other people's eyes but not the plank in its own? Why did it only see how foreign countries criticize the authorities but not how it abuses the offence of riot to the fullest itself?
Therefore, will Carrie LAM please step down and apologize! Will John LEE step down and apologize! Will Teresa CHENG step down and apologize! Then the problem can be resolved. Why did the pro-establishment camp still use this occasion to propose an adjournment debate and continue to smear and criticize the peaceful protesters? They are the oppressed. That is why they have come out to fight in resistance. Why did they say the oppressed are wrong? Why did they not speak with conscience? Just now Mr Jeffrey LAM also mentioned calling a stag a horse. In fact, it is the Government which has called a stag a horse. The original intent of the amendments to FOO was wrong in the first place. The original intent was to call a stag a horse. It was to remove the firewall of differences in the legal systems between China and Hong LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11921
Kong. It was to do China a favour. Up to this moment, the Government still does not admit it. How would members of the public accept it? And how can we pick up all the broken pieces?
I would like to take this opportunity to thank the young people who bravely fight for Hong Kong. I wish to share a short story with Members. Actually, the night before 12 June, I could not sleep at all. I really kept thinking. If the Bill was passed, Hong Kong would no longer be Hong Kong. Hong Kong would be "game over". How many people would emigrate? How many would withdraw their investments? How great would be the impact on the future of Hong Kong? We racked our brains. What actually could Members of the pro-democracy camp do in the Chamber? We were expelled by Mr Andrew LEUNG every time. We were carried away by the security officers with force every time. The authorities would use the public power to expel us arbitrarily. We pondered on every extreme method to see how we could fight back in the Chamber, but we were gravely worried. I am most grateful to the young people who went to the Central Government Offices to protest and fight in the hot weather in the early morning of 12 June. Consequently, the amendments to FOO still cannot be tabled and the Bill still cannot get passed today.
Here, I wish to salute to these young people and convey to them my regards, hoping that they will "act like bros in climbing a hill, each making an effort to reach the goal". "Be water, my friend."
MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): President, I believe all Honourable colleagues are aware that the intent of proposing the adjournment motion at this moment today is all too clear and obvious. President, in fact, some people―I stress some people―truly pretended to be benevolent and kind-hearted to propose such a motion so as to prevent us from proceeding to other items on the Agenda. Nevertheless, these people have repeatedly said they would care about society and return normal life to the people. But in fact, have they ever understood and considered why people cannot lead a normal life? Why do the many young people take to the streets every day and rack their brains to protect this city? Precisely because of a gang―I stress a gang―who are brutes in human mask and scums. They have shamelessly and callously betrayed Hong Kong and told blatant lies knowingly. They said they would care about the citizens of Hong Kong, and such shameless notion is truly disgusting. Now, they want to "trim the toes to fit the shoes", but exactly how many toes can they trim?
11922 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019
In fact, public grievances are not avoidable as and when they wish. Now there is a surge of grievance among Hong Kong citizens, but such a gang does not understand nor face up to it. Instead, they only know how to escape and evade, and even send the frontline personnel to hell. Members can look at John LEE. Today, a number of Members have asked him to come to the microphone stand to give an account to the public on whether the Government will withdraw, suspend or shelve the legislative amendment. He did not give any account, but trotted away like a thief. Actually another group of people are also like thieves who have stolen the future of Hong Kong. President, it is indeed agonizing.
Today, some Members said they hope to restore peace in society. Such a statement is nothing but crap. Let us look at the Agenda today. They have made a premeditated plot to propose such an adjournment motion for the purpose of not letting us discuss the other items of business on the Agenda, thereby causing the subsidiary legislation on the rezoning of a site at the Central Harbourfront for military use to automatically come into effect on 29 June, effecting the automatic "cession" of the Central Harbourfront that originally belongs to the people of Hong Kong to China …
(Dr Priscilla LEUNG indicated her wish to raise a point of order)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, please pause for a while. Dr Priscilla LEUNG, what is your point of order?
DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I wish to raise a point of order. I have been listening to their speeches. Many Members have said that the proposal of the adjournment motion is premeditated. Should a Member not impute any motive to another Member?
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Priscilla LEUNG, please sit down. Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, please continue.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11923
MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): President, this group of people are indeed "scumbags". Have they realized that the proposed resolutions to be moved by Mr AU Nok-hin and Mr CHU Hoi-dick can only bring about a debate and they will never be passed? Yet now they would not even allow a discussion. Do Members not think that such a gang is most contemptible? If they think what they are doing is correct and upright, why do they not self-confidently let us discuss it? Why do they evade but at the same time use caring the people as an excuse?
President, back then the Government clearly promised that the Central Harbourfront to be built by reclamation would become a public open space for public enjoyment so as to provide public space for the people, not to be given away to the People's Liberation Army ("PLA"). I wish to remind all Honourable colleagues that the Town Planning Board ("TPB") announced in 2013 the rezoning of a site at the Central Harbourfront as a PLA military site, which already provoked strong public opposition. Notwithstanding tens of thousands of opposition views received by TPB, the Government still insisted on approving the application for change of land use. Will Members tell us if this Government has listened to public opinions? Has it valued public sentiment? Such an outcome indicates the answer. It is common knowledge that this Government has been disregarding public opinions for years. The Chief Executive has even gone further. She is headstrong, having no remorse at all after committing wrongdoings. She actually treated the opposition of 2 million plus one people as non-existent. Whenever people scold the Government, she will only dodge. May I ask how long the Chief Executive wants to keep being an ostrich?
Now, the Government even wants to snatch the public open space which is intended for public use as it promised, for the purpose of ceding the site to the Central Authorities. I am not sure whether Members present here know what the young people outside are thinking and how much their hearts ache. Have the Members present ever thought: as they are also members of Hong Kong, why are they apathetic about such issues? Why can they not consider such issues more from the perspective of Hongkongers?
President, back then the Government forcibly introduced the amendment to the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance, disregarding public opinions. I have seen that many people rushed to kneel and show their support, saying if the amendment could not be passed, Hong Kong would then become a haven for criminals. However, now the Chief Executive has made a public apology, 11924 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 though she said it has been suspended but not withdrawn, and the Chief Secretary explained that the suspension is equivalent to the Bill not being introduced into the Legislative Council again in this legislative year and the next, does it mean they then allow Hong Kong to become a haven for criminals in this year or so? How can they actually do such things? They are illogical and made self-contradictory statements. The fact is absolutely not like that. The fact is they can utter any word for the sake of approving certain matters. When they oppose certain matters, they can likewise say anything. This is our very Government. The Government does so because of a simple reason: they consider they have enough votes in this Council and can do anything they like. Just like today, when the Government does not want to discuss the matter relating to the rezoning of the site at the Central Harbourfront for military use, then it will not be discussed. It is as simple as that. Why? Exactly because they have enough votes. This is our very Government. But oddly, I have noticed that some people, becoming aware of the public sentiment now, coupled with the Chief Executive's public apology, are afraid of getting the shorter end of the stick and hurriedly sever the tie with the Chief Executive. We now really get to see such an evil face.
Nonetheless, apart from such a gang, another thing has made us even more upset. After so many citizens have taken to the streets, the Chief Executive said she sincerely apologized, but how sincere was she? When she was hosting the press conference, countless "angry" reactions appeared on the relevant Facebook page. She thought the so-called sincere apology could "calm the fire". Yet it failed to "calm the fire" and, on the contrary, it was a blatant provocation to "pick a fight". Her actions gave people the impression that she remained impenitent and made a futile attempt in self-defence. Therefore, many netizens kept saying the Chief Executive is indeed a "five-naught Chief Executive", worse than the "cyber trollers" on the Mainland. The people have presented five very clear demands, but the SAR Government and the Chief Executive, as if they were deaf or blind, cannot hear nor see them, completely failing to make any positive response. They absolutely have no regard for the demands of the people of Hong Kong, nor do they have the intention to serve the citizens and society of Hong Kong.
However, it is laughable that the Chief Executive asked the people to give her a chance. Exactly on what basis could she ask the people to give her a chance? She could not even make a truthful and sincere apology. Why am I saying this? Because if she wanted to truthfully and sincerely apologize, she LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11925 would not just utter the word "apologize", but also undertake many tasks. Now she has uttered the word "apology" without any real meaning, without following up on any matter. People demanded withdrawal of the legislative amendment, but she did not do so. In fact, the Rules of Procedure of the Legislative Council does not expressly provide for the practice of suspension―I reiterate that there is no practice of suspension. The Government has to clearly explain how exactly the Bill has been "suspended".
President, some people considered that my remark made just now about the proposal of the adjournment motion being premeditated was just conjecture and untrue. I really do not understand why it is not true. Some Members have also just asked―perhaps the Chief Secretary can give us a reply later―when did he know such an adjournment motion would be proposed in the meeting of the Legislative Council today? Why has he already prepared the speech? Why has he already set aside time to attend the adjournment debate? If it is not premeditated, involving a conspiracy and a plot, what can it be? It is totally based on facts, and so how would it be a conjecture? The discerning people can definitely see it, and they cannot cover it up. If my statement is wrong, I will withdraw it. Never mind. But when the Chief Secretary gives his reply later on, he should give us a clear account of when exactly he learnt of such a motion and when he prepared his speech. Will he please tell us. If it is not a collusion between the two parties, then what is it?
President, we certainly understand that the Government and some Members have been working in collusion with each other, which is a practice that does not start just today. Their blatant and flagrant acts are common occurrence. But the problem is that I do not hope such acts still prevail when Hong Kong is in such grave circumstances. I really do not hope that they will continue to collaborate with each other. I also do not hope that they are really in the same cahoots but still have to make high-sounding statements here, putting the interests of Hong Kong citizens as a whole at stake. Can they face Hong Kong citizens?
President, social dissension in Hong Kong has become incurable. I very much hope that the so-called Members from the pro-establishment camp in the Legislative Council and the SAR Government will really stop conducting business in such a manner, but engage in self-reflection and "quit", and refrain from remaining unrepentant. In the Council today, undoubtedly they have the full advantage, but they should not use their advantage to trample on the interests and rights of Hongkongers. They may win today―not "may". I said it wrong. 11926 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019
They will surely win today. And we will find out at the time of voting. I can play the role of a prophet and predict that when the motion is put to the vote later, they will surely win. However, President, I wish to tell them, Hong Kong will then lose, and Hong Kong will lose to them. I hope they will understand that as Hong Kong has lost, some people have to become sinners in history. They have given some thought about it and said they would do self-reflection sincerely. But what have they got out of the self-reflection? Imagine when the entire society of Hong Kong has lost, can they feel at ease and happy? Would they not feel sad?
President, I so submit.
MR KENNETH LAU (in Cantonese): President, the amendment of the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance ("FOO") proposed by the Special Administrative Region ("SAR") Government prompted hundreds of thousands of people taking to the streets in protest on 9 and 16 June, provoking social conflicts and confrontations while fomenting endless disputes. Having admitted to responsibility, Chief Executive Carrie LAM decided to suspend the amendment exercises, with the Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019 ("the Bill") shelved indefinitely. She also apologized to the public in writing on 16 June and then in person at a media session on 18 June, accepting criticisms while pledging improvement.
The FOO amendment is essential to the pursuance of justice for the victim of the Taiwan murder case and the closure of the loopholes in law that have existed since the reunification over 20 years ago. Unfortunately, things did not pan out as wished as the opposition and foreign forces engaged in incessant fearmongering in the process and politicians sowed dissention and incited the emotions of young people. On top of that, the Government, in hastily pushing the Bill through without ample consultation and explanation during the amendment exercise, failed to fully grasp public sentiments and misjudged the developments of public opinion, thus leading to an uncontrollable outburst of public discontent that ultimately plunged society into a state of turmoil.
Though beset by criticisms from various sides, Chief Executive Carrie Lam neither cowered nor shirked responsibilities. Instead, she shelved the Bill indefinitely on the one hand, while expressing deep remorse for the social division caused by the incident and offering her sincere apology to the public of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 11927
Hong Kong on the other. The entire SAR Government also engages in deep reflection in a bid to draw lessons from the saga. Such humility and sincerity epitomize the moral courage and commitment expected of an officeholder which are worthy of our understanding and support.
Unfortunately, the Government's decision to suspend the FOO amendment has not put an end to all the actions against the Government. Large crowds of young people besieged the Central Government Offices, the Police Headquarters in Wanchai, the Revenue Tower and the Immigration Tower in a bid to paralyse government operations and stop the public from accessing the necessary services, which were selfish, unreasonable and outrageous to the extreme. Worse still, they hindered ambulance personnel from entering the Police Headquarters to provide care to pregnant women and elderly patients. Meanwhile, they have initiated a massive cyberbullying campaign against police officers by way of doxing. Such acts are utterly shameful and despicable, way out of line to what most people consider acceptable.
Rather than discouraging or preventing such acts, Members of the opposition camp add fuel to the flames in an oblique attempt to turn young people against the Government. With ulterior motives in mind, they stop short of nothing in the pursuance of their five demands, namely, the withdrawal of the Bill, the retraction of the characterization of "riot" by the Government, unconditional release of everyone arrested in respect of the clashes, an independent commission set up to investigate the alleged abuse of power by the Police and the resignation of the Chief Executive. They vow to fight to the end with a view to causing chaos in Hong Kong, even at the expense of the interest of the general public. For the more chaotic Hong Kong becomes, the more political bargaining chips they have in hand.
We all love, care deeply about and want the best for Hong Kong. Hence, I think, as a matter of priority, the Government should be given some time to defuse the crises, mend the division, identify shortcomings and draw a lesson from this experience. It is only by making sweeping improvement that the Government can initiate a forward-looking mentality in the community and heal the wounds caused by the incident. To avoid repeating the same mistake, the Government should do well to listen to the public carefully and communicate more with the young people.
With the outcome of the trade war between China and the United States remaining uncertain and precarious, the global economic and political situation is most complicated at the moment. The various sectors of Hong Kong should put 11928 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 aside their differences, stand by each other in this time of difficulties and give the SAR Government some room of respite. The Government can thus ponder over the future direction of its work, expeditiously focus its administrative efforts on people's livelihood and the economy, and avoid being engulfed by the turbulence of social struggle.
No livelihood issue is too trivial. There are numerous pressing issues in Hong Kong that need to be addressed now, from the launching of large-scale reclamation and land making projects, increasing housing supply so that people can live in peace and work with contentment, to boosting manpower resources for public hospitals to relieve their "overloading" pressure. The worsening disparity between the rich and the poor and the plight of the grass roots are also problems that need to be dealt with. It is also high time to find ways to resolve the problems of homogeneity in economic activities and extreme difficulties in economic transformation, not least by means of seizing the huge opportunities presented by the development of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area and affirming our participation in it, thereby fostering new advantages and carving out new roles for our economy.
President, we should stop the social division from festering further, calm down quickly, make a new start and develop Hong Kong. It is only by doing so can we open up an increasingly wide path of development and the public lead lives of ever improving quality. On behalf of the New Territories Heung Yee Kuk, I give my full support to the SAR Government in effecting administration in accordance with the law so that Hong Kong can make a fresh start.
With these remarks, President, I support the adjournment motion proposed by Mr Christopher CHEUNG. Thank you.
SUSPENSION OF MEETING
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now suspend the meeting until 9:00 am tomorrow.
Suspended accordingly at 7:31 pm.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 26 June 2019 A1
Appendix I
WRITTEN ANSWER
Written answer by the Secretary for Development to Mr Jeffrey LAM's supplementary question to Question 3
Interdepartmental Early Alert System for Storm Surges and Overtopping Waves
As revealed from previous severe or super typhoons, the Government has identified seven low-lying locations including Tai O, Luen On San Tsuen, Kar Wo Lei, Sham Tseng San Tsuen, Lei Yue Mun, Sai Kung Nam Wai and Yuen Long Northwest Low-lying Coastal Area (named as "Storm Surge Spots") which are vulnerable to seawater infusion and inundation and three locations including Heng Fa Chuen, Tseung Kwan O South and South Horizons (named as "Overtopping Wave Spots") which are prone to impacts of overtopping waves. To assist the public in coping with the threat of flooding arising from storm surges and overtopping waves, the Government has established an interdepartmental early alert system to strengthen the coordination of work among various departments.
When the Hong Kong Observatory predicts that the sea level will reach the corresponding alert level of the Storm Surge Spots and the Overtopping Wave Spots, it will send early alerts Short Message Service ("SMS") to relevant departments through mobile phone to inform them of the predicted time to reach the alert level as well as the predicted maximum water level so that the departments can arrange relevant contingency measures as soon as possible. When the Drainage Services Department receives the SMS, it will arrange inspection of stormwater drains in the areas concerned to ensure that they are free from blockage, and will assist the locals to set up flood-proofing measures including placing sandbags, water pumps and installing stop logs at designated locations. In addition, District Offices will liaise with the relevant residents' organizations, estate management offices, District Council Members, etc to facilitate, among others, early completion of preparation work, adoption of appropriate precautions and evacuation to safe places for temporary shelter when necessary.