LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 25 March 2020 5187

OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Wednesday, 25 March 2020

The Council met at Eleven o'clock

MEMBERS PRESENT:

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

THE HONOURABLE KUN-SUN

THE HONOURABLE LEUNG YIU-CHUNG

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

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

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

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

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

THE HONOURABLE 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 MEI-FUN, S.B.S., J.P.

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

5188 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 25 March 2020

THE HONOURABLE WAI-CHUN, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE

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

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

THE HONOURABLE CHI-MING, S.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE WU CHI-WAI, M.H.

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

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

THE HONOURABLE CHARLES PETER MOK, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHI-CHUEN

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

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

THE HONOURABLE KENNETH LEUNG

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

DR THE HONOURABLE KWOK KA-KI

THE HONOURABLE KWOK WAI-KEUNG, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE WING-HANG

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

DR THE HONOURABLE CHIU-HUNG

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 25 March 2020 5189

DR THE HONOURABLE HELENA WONG PIK-WAN

THE HONOURABLE IP KIN-YUEN

THE HONOURABLE , B.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG-KONG, G.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

THE HONOURABLE ANDREW WAN SIU-KIN

THE HONOURABLE CHU HOI-DICK

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

THE HONOURABLE HO KAI-MING

THE HONOURABLE LAM CHEUK-TING

THE HONOURABLE HO-DING

THE HONOURABLE SHIU KA-FAI, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE SHIU KA-CHUN

THE HONOURABLE CHONG-SHING, M.H.

THE HONOURABLE YUNG HOI-YAN, J.P.

5190 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 25 March 2020

DR THE HONOURABLE

THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHUN-YING, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE

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.

DR THE HONOURABLE CHENG CHUNG-TAI

THE HONOURABLE KWONG CHUN-YU

THE HONOURABLE JEREMY TAM MAN-HO

THE HONOURABLE VINCENT CHENG WING-SHUN, M.H., J.P.

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

THE HONOURABLE CHAN HOI-YAN

MEMBERS ABSENT:

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

DR THE HONOURABLE KWAN-YIU, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE IP-KEUNG, B.B.S., M.H., J.P.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 25 March 2020 5191

PUBLIC OFFICER ATTENDING:

THE HONOURABLE JAMES HENRY LAU JR., J.P. SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY

CLERKS IN ATTENDANCE:

MISS ODELIA LEUNG HING-YEE, DEPUTY SECRETARY GENERAL

MISS FLORA TAI YIN-PING, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

5192 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 25 March 2020

PRESIDENT (in ): 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)

LAYING OF SUBSIDIARY LEGISLATION ON THE TABLE OF THE COUNCIL

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

Subsidiary Legislation Legal Notice No.

Compulsory Quarantine of Persons Arriving at from Foreign Places Regulation ...... 24 of 2020

Rules of the High Court (Amendment) Rules 2020 ...... 25 of 2020

Rules of the District Court (Amendment) Rules 2020 ... 26 of 2020

Compulsory Quarantine of Certain Persons Arriving at Hong Kong (Amendment) Regulation 2020 ...... 28 of 2020

GOVERNMENT MOTION

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Government motion.

At the meeting of 18 March 2020, Council already commenced the joint debate on the proposed resolution under the Public Finance Ordinance and the four amending motions. During the meeting, Mr CHU Hoi-dick moved a motion under Rule 40(1) of the Rules of Procedure that "the debate be now adjourned". Council now continues the debate on the adjournment motion.

Mr Charles Peter MOK, please speak.

(Mr Andrew WAN indicated his wish to raise a point of order)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 25 March 2020 5193

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Andrew WAN, what is your point of order?

MR ANDREW WAN (in Cantonese): President, originally, I appreciated very much the decision you made earlier in the light of the epidemic, because you mentioned that having colleagues work in the Legislative Council Complex would put 500 to 600 families at high risk. I believe that most of the Honourable colleagues and staff members in the Complex agree with this point, but what strikes me as weird is that―President, I have a reason for it; please patiently give me one minute to explain―since you have cancelled the regular meeting for the purpose of epidemic prevention as you have just said, why do you hold this special meeting? I cannot get my head around the reasoning behind it.

President, more importantly, this move will set a bad precedent for the rules of order. If this was the right approach, in future you would …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Andrew WAN, please sit down.

MR ANDREW WAN (in Cantonese): President, please let me finish. You have to know what my point of order is.

If you can do so, you can simply open an "express channel" in future to discuss whatever issue you like without holding any questioning session, nor having to follow the normal procedure. Today, many Honourable colleagues' questions are related to the epidemic but President has cancelled the questioning session and opened an "express channel". If this move sets a precedent, will it not be dangerous in future?

President, please answer my question. Thank you.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): First, regarding the issue of meeting arrangements that you have just raised, actually as early as the 16th of this month, I already had a discussion with Members' representatives on the meeting arrangements amid the intensifying epidemic. At the time, Members' representatives all agreed that the last meeting should have been adjourned if this Vote on Account Resolution moved under the Public Finance Ordinance had been completely dealt with. 5194 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 25 March 2020

Admittedly, I did suggest in private to Members that if this proposed resolution could be completely dealt with at the meeting of 18 March, I would consider not holding any meeting in the following week, but I had not officially indicated that I would cancel today's meeting.

Secondly, on Monday this week, I also had a discussion with Members' representatives on the arrangements for this week's meeting. At the time, Members did not raise any objections to the arrangements. It is in accordance with the arrangements made in consultation with Members that I hold this meeting to continue dealing with the Vote on Account Resolution moved under the Public Finance Ordinance. Last night, I also issued a letter responding to Members' queries. I call on Members not to comment on my ruling any more.

(Ms Tanya CHAN indicated her wish to speak)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Tanya CHAN, what is your point?

MS TANYA CHAN (in Cantonese): President, I have to make a clarification because you mentioned … I believe that, as the convenor, I can speak on behalf of the democratic camp. Together with 21 Members, I made our stance very clear in the letter. As you said just now, you have already made a reply. I have sent this letter to the media and our stance has been made very clear in it. Thank you.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Charles Peter MOK, please speak.

PROPOSED RESOLUTION UNDER THE PUBLIC FINANCE ORDINANCE

Continuation of debate on motion which was moved on 18 March 2020

Continuation of debate on motion which was moved on 19 March 2020 under Rule 40(1) of the Rules of Procedure that the debate be now adjourned

MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): President, I speak in support of the adjournment motion proposed by Mr CHU Hoi-dick.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 25 March 2020 5195

We are here to continue the deliberation on the Vote on Account Resolution of the Budget today, and according to the comments made by many fellow colleagues of the pro-establishment camp in the past and at present, this is just a routine. In fact, what can still be regarded as a routine under the circumstances today? If the processing of the resolution is considered a matter of routine, this is to a certain extent a grave disrespect for our work in this Council, because the proposal must undergo our thorough deliberation. Many Members raised various queries last Wednesday and Thursday and explained why the resolution was considered to be plagued with problems, and if we still regard this as a matter of routine, I do not think we can hold ourselves accountable to the public.

Some people may have noted that under the normal procedures, the Budget will not be approved until the end of May, and as it will be necessary for the Government to continue its operation in the new financial year commencing on 1 April, provisional appropriations will have to be approved. However, this gives rise to several problems: First of all, everything which the Government is doing and every step it is taking now is getting more and more outrageous, and she herself and her policy decisions have become all the more annoying to Hong Kong people. Moreover, more than $20 billion have been earmarked in the Budget this year for meeting expenses incurred in such areas as salaries of police officers, their overtime pay, procurement of equipment, etc., and there are indeed too many items which must be opposed. This is the first point. Secondly, an exceptionally high percentage of the expenditure proposed in the Budget has been adopted as the basis for calculating the provisional appropriations, and moreover, they are based on the expenditure proposed in the Budget this year. Since the appropriations sought should be of a "provisional" nature, and given that the Budget this year has yet to be deliberated and approved, it should be a normal approach to base the relevant calculation on the expenditure proposed in the Budget last year. This is a point raised by many fellow colleagues last week.

Let us refer to Article 51 of the Basic Law, which seems to be helpful in addressing the situation where a budget is negatived. As the Article stipulates, "[i]f the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region refuses to pass the budget introduced by the government, the Chief Executive may apply to the Legislative Council for provisional appropriations." What it is referring to is of course a situation where a budget formally introduced has been negatived by Members of this Council, and "[i]f appropriation of public funds cannot be approved because the Legislative Council has already been dissolved, 5196 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 25 March 2020 the Chief Executive may, prior to the election of the new Legislative Council, approve provisional short-term appropriations according to the level of expenditure of the previous fiscal year." It can thus be seen that although we are currently not deliberating on the Budget introduced by the Government but the Vote on Account Resolution, the Basic Law has laid down very reasonable arrangements for seeking provisional short-term appropriations in essence, which requires that a commonly accepted approach should be adopted for seeking such appropriations which is based on the level of expenditure of the previous fiscal year. Therefore, we object to and vote against the Vote on Account Resolution in question as a matter of principle because the proposals under discussion have gone beyond the scope of the definition of "provisional".

Many fellow Members from the pro-establishment camp and the royalist camp claimed that without the passage of the Vote on Account Resolution, the Government would come to a standstill, but this is not true. A similar situation occurred last time in 2011, when a proposal of the same nature was negatived in the Legislative Council on 9 March, but the relevant resolution was introduced, deliberated and passed one week later on 16 March. As long as they are all present here, they can secure passage of whatever proposals submitted, because they are still holding the majority seats in this Council, despite the fact that they got a lower number of votes than the pro-democracy camp in election. This is a point that the general public must bear in mind.

Besides, amendments have already been made to the Rules of Procedure of the Legislative Council to accommodate their needs completely, so that even if the resolution is negatived, there will be no need to defer the matter until next week, and the President can convene a meeting on Friday, even if the meeting of the Finance Committee will have to be cancelled, he can even convene a meeting on Monday. If this can offer an opportunity for incorporating amendments needed to make the whole thing a more appropriate and proper exercise, what harm will it do? A new proposal can always be submitted, and the Government should never take it for granted that the Legislative Council will definitely give endorsement to whatever proposals put forward like a rubber stamp.

As pointed out just now, Article 51 of the Basic Law has already prepared for the possibility that a Vote on Account Resolution is negatived, and a mechanism has already been put in place to handle such a situation or even the voting down of the entire Budget. This is not something that should never happen, and the operation of the Government will not necessarily come to a LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 25 March 2020 5197 standstill. There is no such thing as coming to a standstill under the Basic Law, such possibility has already been foreseen and how to deal with it has been considered, a solution does exist.

We have put forward many reasons for our objection, and the most important reason for opposing this Vote on Account Resolution is that we have identified many problems with the entire Budget. Take the issue of police brutality as an example, when it comes to the performance of the Police Force in the past year, more than half of the people of Hong Kong gave it a zero score, and what is their aspiration? They want to "disband the Police Force now". What is the point of paying salaries to police officers, giving them a salary raise and procuring equipment for them if the Police Force should be disbanded? How can we endorse a budget like this when the majority of people we represent wish to disband the Police Force? If we vote in support of this Vote on Account Resolution, it will be tantamount to endorsing the Budget.

Fellow colleagues from the royalist camp warned us that once the Vote on Account Resolution was negatived, no resources would be available for implementing initiatives relating to welfare services, many livelihood issues, and in particular, health care services to which great importance was attached these days, and it was therefore undesirable to take such a course of action. However, I find it rather ridiculous for them to say so because we have all along been urging the Government to allocate additional fundings for the provision of such services, but it has chosen to inject tens of billions of dollars into the procurement of military equipment, and yet these Members have uttered nothing about it at all. Would it not be better to inject such amount of money into the provision of welfare, education or even health care services?

They have also accused us of seeking "mutual destruction" and it does occur to me lately that many people support "mutual destruction". People may define "mutual destruction" differently and have different perceptions about it, but some people do support the strategy of "mutual destruction". Certainly, there are also others who consider it not desirable to bring forth "mutual destruction", and I will then tell them that this is not "mutual destruction", but the problem actually lies in the "bundling" arrangement. What does that mean? For example, if I intended to have a bowl of wonton noodle at a price of $20-odd in a tea restaurant or a congee and noodle shop, but was told by the shopowner that I could only choose to have what were offered in the set menu, which compulsorily included some food items like Beijing roast duck at a cost of $500 and a bottle of Moutai sold at $5,000.

5198 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 25 March 2020

I of course voiced my objection to this, because I only wanted to have a bowl of wonton noodle, and would at most make an additional order for a bowl of flat rice noodle served with beef brisket, but was asked to order Beijing roast duck and a bottle of Moutai as well at a price of a few thousand dollars or even $10,000. I therefore refused to compromise, and wanted to hold on and order my food later. This is exactly what happens now, as I want to hold on and order my food later but the shopowner refuses, claiming that by doing so, I will not even be able to have a bowl of wonton noodle. This is what "mutual destruction" is all about, and everyone knows that this does not make sense.

This is what we are talking about now. They consider this "mutual destruction", and we will not even be able to have a bowl of wonton noodle in the end, meaning that funds will not be available for implementing initiatives relating to such livelihood items as welfare services, education affairs and health care services because we cannot support the passage of this Vote on Account Resolution. However, this is simply because they have forced me to order Beijing roast duck and a bottle of Moutai at the same time, which is against my original intention. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with deferring the matter, and neither is this a move of "mutual destruction", for we just want to defer deliberation on this proposal pending further amendments by the Government. If anyone considers this "mutual destruction", just let it be, but I think the problem actually lies in the bundling approach. Is it wrong for me to ask for deferment of deliberation on the resolution, and is it correct for them to forcibly adopt the bundling arrangement? They of course think so, but it is in fact wrong to bundle things up like this.

When it comes to the bundling approach, the Government also included into the Budget a few years ago an expenditure item on the procurement of water cannon vehicles by the Police Force, and from what I heard then, most of the items included in the Budget were worth supporting and should be endorsed. It was also said that the item only accounted for a small proportion of the Budget amount that year, certainly not as much as what we are talking about this year. Many people queried later why I had expressed support for the procurement of water cannon vehicles by the Police Force, and although I have repeatedly expressed my personal views of opposing the proposal, they asked me why I had endorsed the entire Budget that year. Hence, I am now going to make myself clear at this Council meeting, and put in formal record my intent to vote against the proposal should the decision be put to vote again …

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 25 March 2020 5199

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Charles Peter MOK, please return to the subject of this debate.

MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): I am explaining why I …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): You have digressed from the subject. In the current debate, Members should focus only on the reasons for supporting or opposing the adjournment motion, but you are now discussing details of the proposed resolution under the Public Finance Ordinance. Please return to the subject of this debate.

MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): The same reasons actually apply in respect of both motions, and it is exactly because I oppose the Vote on Account Resolution, I must support the adjournment motion. I am surprised to learn that you do not even understand such a simple truth. I have no intention to exhaust my speaking time, which is only 15 minutes at most, and neither do I intend to filibuster, because it is meaningless to do so. You have after all reserved enough time for the debate, and the royalist camp has also secured enough votes for passing the resolution. Yet, why is it still necessary for us to support this adjournment motion? It is because this is the only thing we can do in the Legislative Council. When the royalist camp has not yet deprived us of all our powers, and the democrats have not yet won the majority seats in this Council, this is the only step we can take to urge the Government to change its mind.

President, if you can listen carefully, you will realize that I have all along been suggesting that after the passage of this adjournment motion, the Government will be free to change its mind and introduce amendments to the resolution, thereby deleting many items not supported by the people, especially those related to the Police Force. This is the point I am trying to make, and this is of course relevant to the adjournment motion under discussion, because after the passage of this motion, the Government may introduce amendments to the resolution, and the President may then arrange for a Council meeting to be held on Friday, so that we may endorse the resolution as amended by the Government. As a result, without violating the principles applicable to the processing of provisional appropriations, the Budget of the previous year instead of that delivered this year will be adopted as the basis for calculating the provisional appropriations.

5200 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 25 March 2020

This is the main point of my speech, and it is our only remaining power in the Legislative Council. How can we live up to our conscience if we do not exhaust all possible means? We will not succeed even if we exhaust all possible means because they are in the majority, but should we give up trying our best because of this? We should therefore keep on trying, Mr CHU Hoi-dick has therefore proposed this adjournment motion, and every word I say is relevant to this debate.

Why should Hong Kong people put up with such an "incompetent" Chief Executive? This is a view that all of us share in common, and a celebrity in the entertainment industry even commented yesterday that 90% of the people in Hong Kong agreed that the Chief Executive is "incompetent". Why should we put up with such a government? Would it be possible for the Secretary to ask the Financial Secretary to withdraw the resolution? If it is possible for him to delete the expenditure related to the Police Force and more ideally, together with that related to the Chief Executive's Office when the Chief Executive has got a zero score, we can have an additional Council meeting held on Friday the soonest and pass the Vote on Account Resolution within half an hour. If such expenditure items in the Budget are deleted, extra credits will surely be given immediately to the superior of the Secretary (that is, the Financial Secretary).

This is thus our last chance, because we do not have the quality and ability required to take more forceful measures. We can only give an ultimatum like this when the democrats have yet to become a more powerful force in the Legislative Council. Therefore, we can only put forth now a final and very humble request for actions from the Government to make amendments to those expenditure items which the people do not support and consider problematic, so as to secure the passage of the Vote on Account Resolution and the Budget. Hence, with these remarks, I support the adjournment motion proposed by Mr CHU Hoi-dick.

MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): President, I rise to speak in support of the adjournment motion proposed by Mr CHU Hoi-dick under Rule 40(1) of the Rules of Procedure.

President, this Vote on Account ("VoA") Resolution involves $215.8 billion, covering the expenditure items of many departments, the provisions for financing some assistance schemes, such as the Traffic Accident LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 25 March 2020 5201

Victims Assistance Scheme and the assistance for patients and their families, and also the civil service pension.

President, I believe most Members will agree to the funding of the aforementioned expenditure items, but the problem is that two particular items in this VoA Resolution are extremely controversial, and regrettably, the Government has included them in the resolution rather than taking them out. This has given us the feeling that a lot of problems will inevitably arise if our discussion and deliberation about this resolution continues and ends with the passing of it. So, we have requested the Government to take out these two items, but to our disappointment, the Government has refused to do so and insisted that they would be bundled together with other items. Thus, the only option available for us is to propose an adjournment motion.

President, the reasons for the adjournment motion, as I mentioned just now, are the presence of these two items, namely, the expenditure provision of $25 million for the Chief Executive's Office and the enormous expenditure provision of $25.7 billion for the Police Force. Firstly, I wish to highlight the issue relating to the enormous expenditure provision for the Police Force. If this resolution is passed, the Financial Secretary will be able to give this $25.7 billion to the Police Force without having to wait for the scrutiny and passage of the Budget. Then what will happen? The greatest concern and worry of the majority of the public will come true―the Police Force can use the $600 million budget under the item of specialist supplies and equipment to procure new weapons such as tear gas and stun guns, and also six new armoured personnel carriers and one new water cannon vehicle, without the need to give an account to the Legislative Council. Moreover, the Police Force will be able to recruit 2 543 additional police officers. This enormous expenditure provision represents a surprisingly high increase of 25% in the overall estimated expenditure of the Police Force, which is the greatest increase among various departments.

President, certainly, some people will argue that given the current clashes between the Police and the public, it is simply justifiable for the Police Force to procure the aforementioned equipment and to increase its manpower, or it will be unable to keep the present social turmoil under control. President, in my view, to do what this argument suggests will only produce the very opposite result. The logic is a very simple one: the greater the oppression, the stronger the resistance. Increasing the Police's equipment and manpower is tantamount to expediting Hong Kong's degeneration into a police city and a police regime. In 5202 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 25 March 2020 this way, the situation will merely turn into violent suppression of the public and result in deeper social conflicts. Meanwhile, the confrontation between the public and the Government will simply get increasingly serious. This never-ending confrontation will only bring about perpetual unrest to our society and even lead to the deterioration of social conflicts in the long run.

Therefore, I think that if the problems are to be solved, we should find out their root cause, instead of using the funds on account as the solution. Then, what is the root cause of the problems? It is our Chief Executive who is incompetent but still unwilling to give up her power. She has left the governance of Hong Kong to the unchecked Police Force, thus leading to the repeated occurrence of arbitrary arrests and excessive use of force which has stirred up public sentiment and resentment, and caused social unrest. So, if this situation remains unchanged―that the Chief Executive is not replaced and the Police Force remains unchecked by a third power―the problems will not be solved. If the Police Force is allowed to increase its manpower and equipment, this will only be counterproductive and further worsen the problems.

In fact, since the reunification, the Hong Kong public has always hoped that there can be genuine implementation of "a high degree of autonomy" and "one country, two systems" mentioned in the Basic Law. But sadly, the Chinese Government often gives orders and instructions to the SAR Government directly and indirectly. The Chief Executive and the SAR Government simply act as if they are without a soul, following the orders of the Central Government for everything. What is worse, they have to gauge the thoughts of the Central Government and leaders. As a result, how can the public be possibly satisfied with the operation of the entire Government after the reunification? How can the public have confidence in the governance of the Government at all?

Therefore, it is necessary for the Central Government to allow Hong Kong people to have universal and fair democratic elections in accordance with the Basic Law, so that the Government will be monitored by the public, and those in power will be required to be accountable to the public. This is the way by which the problems can be solved.

President, perhaps you may think that I have digressed far from the subject, but I think this is precisely the nub of the problems. The reason why I support today's adjournment motion also hinges on this essential point. However, I do understand that getting the Central Government and the SAR Government to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 25 March 2020 5203 solve the problem which I just mentioned cannot be possibly done overnight. Still, there is something that the SAR Government can do. For example, the problems can be solved by taking out the two items which I just mentioned, i.e. the estimated expenditures for the Police Force and the Chief Executive's Office.

Here, I particularly wish to talk about why the estimated expenditure for the Chief Executive's Office should be taken out. Well, I am not going to talk about the incidents which happened earlier, including the issues concerning the "China extradition bill" and the Chief Executive's connivance of the arbitrary arrests and excessive use of force by the Police Force. All I will speak about is the severe epidemic situation these days. According to the information we have got, as some media have disclosed, the SAR Government learnt of the emergence of suspected cases of novel coronavirus infection in Wuhan, China, as early as last December. Yet, regrettably, the SAR Government held back the news about the epidemic situation and delayed the closure of the boundary control points, so as to toe the Central Government's policy line. While being well aware of the possibility of human-to-human virus transmission, it still echoed the Central Government's policy claim that the epidemic was "preventable and controllable", thus missing the opportunity to curb the spread of the epidemic. Some dedicated health care staff staged a large-scale strike at their own risk to call for the closure of the boundary control points, but sadly, this was met with the SAR Government's inaction. Even though something was eventually done to address the situation, it was simply closure of the boundary control points in a manner like "squeezing toothpaste out from a tube". In the end, as we look at the situation today, there have not been many cases of outbreaks in the local community, showing that it was right to demand the closure of the boundary control points back then. However, the Government did not adopt that approach, and particularly, the Chief Executive Carrie LAM refused to do that. This has thus given us the impression that she has failed to discharge her duty.

President, on the other hand, while many industries in Hong Kong have been severely affected by the epidemic situation, the SAR Government has been slow in offering assistance under the leadership of Carrie LAM. Even though assistance is now available, it is only restricted to a certain selected industries. Many people have also opined that the effort made by the Government is not comprehensive enough and is actually unable to address the conflicts and hardship in society. So, they have expressed a strong request that the Government should launch a second round of Anti-epidemic Fund measures 5204 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 25 March 2020 expeditiously, so as to relieve their hardship and plug gaps in the existing measures. Nevertheless, the SAR Government, Carrie LAM and her aide, the Chief Secretary Matthew CHEUNG, just repeatedly speak of the need to "size up the situation", using this four-word expression as an excuse for still refusing to offer help to the micro, small and medium enterprises ("MSMEs") which are in plight, and employees who have become unemployed or underemployed.

We have referred to what the European countries have done recently, and the United Kingdom can serve as a very good example. The government there has made an expeditious decision to provide enterprises with a subsidy which covers 80% of their wage bills, in order to help them out of their financial difficulties and to ease the public's financial burden during the epidemic outbreak. Unfortunately, the Chief Executive seems to have turned a blind eye and a deaf ear to this problem, and just let the unemployment situation continue to deteriorate. In view of the present financial difficulties facing MSMEs (e.g. lack of money for paying rents or for payment of wages to employees), the Government remains indifferent and fails to address people's pressing needs. Why then should we still give funds to the Government?

President, while speaking about these problems, I have kept mentioning the two items for which we should not allocate money to the SAR Government. The reason is that the Government has ignored these problems. During the debate on the last occasion, many Members repeated that these were the problems which the Government should face up to, but unfortunately, it still remains reluctant to do so and insists on allocating $25.7 billion to the Police Force and $25 million to the Chief Executive's Office. If we do not adjourn the debate on this VoA Resolution, what else can we do? So, I think we have no other alternatives but to support the adjournment motion proposed by Mr CHU Hoi-dick.

President, I so submit.

MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese): Put simply, this adjournment motion seeks to stop funds on account amounting to $215.8 billion for Carrie LAM's Government.

As explained earlier, the Government needs funds on account to meet its operational expenditure before the Budget is passed. Members' amendments seek to delete the $25 million for Carrie LAM's office, i.e. the Chief Executive's LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 25 March 2020 5205

Office and the $5-odd billion for the ("the Police Force"). We do not want to give them a penny. If the Government wishes to have its funds-on-account proposal passed, it simply needs to amend it and take out the controversial funding items. The devil is in the detail of this funds-on-account proposal. The $5-odd billion for the Police Force will be used for procuring armament. Is it not ridiculous?

Senior police officer made a public statement earlier, saying that the Police Force respects the work of reporters. However, days ago, frontline police officers were found pointing their pepper sprays at the eyes of reporters covering in the frontline scene. I need to speak for "Brother Sing", a reporter of Stand News. What is the point of bragging about their respect for a free press? Will they really support freedom of reporting? Will they really respect reporters? This funds-on-account proposal contains funding for the Police Force to procure equipment, so that they can buy pepper sprays and water cannon vehicles to assault Hongkongers. How dare the Government still tell us that this funds-on-account proposal is the same as the past ones? Do not make itself a laughing stock, please.

How dare Carrie LAM's Government still ask us for $25 million for her Chief Executive's Office at such a time? How much money did they spend in the past few months? Carrie LAM choked with emotion yesterday. She cried. Her acting was so poor. All Hong Kong people hate her now. Carrie LAM, let me tell you. The medical staff have not cried. Hongkongers have not cried. How dare you cry?

Back in February, we time and again urged the Government to close down the boundary control points. She never paid attention to our requests. How did the Government respond? Closing the boundary control points was unfeasible, unrealistic and unimportant; and it was discriminating. These words still ring in our ears. But now she took a complete about-turn. Starting from early morning today, non-Hong Kong residents are banned from entering the territory. But Buddy, the measure comes so late. Today is near the end of March.

Fellow citizens now watching the live broadcast, do you have sufficient face masks at home? Do you dare to go out? Why are people scared? It is because they do not know the source of infection in the community. Why? Are the boundary control points not all closed down now? No. The Government has pretentiously banned non-Hong Kong residents from entering 5206 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 25 March 2020

Hong Kong. Some boundary control points are still open to people coming from Taiwan, Macao and the Mainland. Can you call this a complete close down of the border? It is ridiculous!

Carrie LAM's Government has been so incompetent in its efforts to prevent and contain the epidemic. How come she still has the courage to come and ask the Legislative Council for some $200 billion for her funds on account and a speedy endorsement? She should not even dream of having her wish granted. All people in Hong Kong disapprove of her. Last night, a person made a powerful remark. She said, "Almost over 90% of the people do not like you. Both the blue-ribbon and the yellow-ribbon supporters say the Chief Executive is incompetent." Now, this incompetent Government led by Carrie LAM even dares to ask us for $200-odd billion for her funds on account. This sum of money, which will be used for government operation in the interim before the Budget is passed, comes from each and every taxpayer now watching this live broadcast.

We have been criticizing Carrie LAM's Government for being "tight-fisted for benevolent causes but lavish on unworthy causes". President, how incompetent have the authorities been in their regulatory work? Let us take the meeting of the Public Works Subcommittee which just ended as an example. At the meeting, we discussed a funding application of $10 billion for the construction cost overruns of the Shatin to Central Link. Of this $10 billion, $300 million will be used for improving the Police Sports and Recreation Club, such as for procuring treadmills, steppers, ovens, kitchen cabinets, refrigerators and 65-inch wide televisions. $300 million will be spent on these things. If Carrie LAM's Government uses the $300 million on the epidemic victims, such as bars and restaurants which have experienced a sharp drop in business under the liquor ban.

When this Government, as incompetent as it is, came to us to seek approval of funds on account, we kindly advised it to take out the controversial funding items. But it ignored our advice and kept pressing us for approval. It is against this background that Mr CHU Hoi-dick moved the adjournment motion, in order to let us think about the many options that the Government can choose. However, Carrie LAM's Government forever acted against people's wish.

Frankly, I said the same last time. The pro-establishment camp does not want to help her, let alone the democratic camp. You know this when you see how Members have spoken. No Member dares to press the button and speak in LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 25 March 2020 5207 support of Carrie LAM; nor dares any Member to say that she is smart and competent in her efforts to fight the epidemic, or she has done a good job in stopping violence and curbing disorder in the movement against the proposed legislative amendments. No one dares to say so. It is because her snitching report is very powerful. To date, the Chief Executive's Office has refused to confirm the existence of this snitching report. Apart from stating that the pro-establishment camp has not been supportive enough of Carrie LAM, the report also states, which is the most important point, how to create an advantageous atmosphere for the election amidst the work to prevent and contain the epidemic. Being the Chief Executive, she still has the heart to think about how to help the pro-establishment camp to create an atmosphere conducive to them, while all Hong Kong people are dealing with the epidemic. How ridiculous!

All along, Hong Kong people cannot figure out why we have to endorse funding for the Government to create an election atmosphere, to allocate resources to the Police Force to procure equipment and to give money to Carrie LAM's Government to continue with her lousy job. We want the Government to unbundle the $10,000 cash handouts from the salary increase for the Police Force. We suggest that the public should be given the $10,000 cash handouts sooner, rather than waiting for the passage of the Budget, so that they can use the money on preventing and containing the epidemic. But the Government cannot dispatch the $10,000 cash handouts any sooner than July. What is the point of doing so by then?

The measures are increasingly becoming a disservice. The Government proposed a liquor ban to prevent and contain the epidemic … What I am saying is related to the funds-on-account resolution … The Government says the sale of liquor has to be banned, in order to prevent the spread of the epidemic. Buddy, people rack their brains but cannot figure out the logic behind. What is the connection between the two? Bar and restaurant owners condemn Carrie LAM. Perhaps, she will again withdraw from the public and hand over the matter to various Directors of Bureaux to handle. The Government has been very passive in preventing and controlling the epidemic. She does not have any strategies at all. I was even angrier when I saw how she choked with emotion.

Carries LAM cried at a wrong time. Why did she cry without any reason? Was it indicated in her script that she had to cry at that moment, or else she would have no other opportunity to cry? Hong Kong people will not be moved by 5208 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 25 March 2020

Carrie LAM's tears. President, I truly find it ridiculous. The Government refuses to give any face masks to the public. We tried all sources and found three batches of N95 face masks. We gave them to the health care staff. A member of the health care staff who received the face masks had tears in his eyes. He was emotional not because he felt thankful to us, but because he could not understand why this job was not done by the Government, but by Legislative Council Members and civil organizations.

Throughout her work to prevent and contain the epidemic, Carrie LAM has not given one single face mask to Hong Kong people. She said pretentiously earlier that the Government would give 700 000 face masks to the cleaning workers. Where are the face masks now? I heard earlier that the Government had aborted the plan to give the 700 000 face masks to the cleaning workers. I was astonished when I heard the news. President, as the Chairman of the Panel on Welfare Services, I should be informed if the authorities have changed its plan to give frontline workers the face masks. I pursued this issue with the Secretary in the same panel. The Secretary then said unhurriedly, "Yes. We did make this consideration. But we have resumed the plan." It means that they did consider aborting the plan to give frontline cleaning workers the face masks. In February, the Government announced the provision of 700 000 face masks to frontline cleaning workers. In March, it told me that it would withdraw the plan and then later it told me again that the plan would resume. Carrie LAM, what do you want to do?

Let me tell Members something. The approval rating of the Chief Executive cannot get any lower. Her performance only scores nine points. This Carrie LAM, who only scores nine points, still has the courage to lead the SAR Government and say pretentiously that we have to fight a good battle against the epidemic. Do we still remember one thing? When Carrie LAM was asked at the very beginning to do something to prevent and contain the epidemic, where was she? She was in Switzerland, refusing to come back any sooner. The pro-establishment Members were embarrassed, feeling difficult to help her or find a standpoint to defend her.

At that time, we were debating whether the Express Rail Link passengers should fill out a health declaration form after arriving in Hong Kong. We debated this subject for two days. The discussion was yet to touch on whether they should be banned from entering the territory. Fellow Members, to date, the Mainland still has the highest number of confirmed cases. We must be very LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 25 March 2020 5209 careful. Many people around Carrie LAM have advised her to do this and that, but she has not listened. Today, this resolution to seek funds on account will give funds to this shameless Government to shamelessly continue with its work. Most importantly, the funding item that we are most dissatisfied with and we have repeatedly asked the Government to take out is to the one for the Police Force. The devil is in the detail. The Government should wait until public anger has subsided before handling this funding item. Why does the Government have to pick this time to include this item in the resolution? There are many opportunities for the Government to propose this funding item. Why must it include this funding item in this funds-on-account resolution and try to have the item secretly endorsed? Why must it force us to approve funds for the Police Force to procure water cannon vehicles and pepper sprays? Meanwhile, the Police Force continues to say publicly that they highly respect reporters and freedom of the press.

President, when I exercised my power authorized by the Basic Law to monitor on-site the work performed by various government departments, I saw how police officers shouted at reporters, calling them "cockroach". The reporters were covering the happenings at the scene. They did not obstruct the work of the police officers. They did not do anything out of line. Why were they being scolded at? Some people who refuted the police officers were pepper-sprayed. Police officers are clever when they use pepper sprays. They quickly disappear into the group of frontline police officers and leave the scene after using pepper sprays.

I saw some of the police officers who launched pepper-spray attack and left show a helpless face. The frontline police officers covering these officers had a tough time as well. They were criticized. People who were pepper-sprayed demanded to know the whereabouts of the police officers who used pepper sprays. They could not see which police officer pepper-sprayed them. It is because police officers have been aiming at people's eyes when they use pepper sprays lately. I had this experience myself. They do aim at people's eyes. How smart! Now, the Government came to the Legislative Council, humbly telling us that the funds on account will be used for procuring equipment for the Policy Force. This is a pipe-dream.

President, why would even a resolution to seek funds on account be subject to an adjournment motion? I think Carrie LAM should give a good thought on this. She should seriously consider why all people in the world make mistakes 5210 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 25 March 2020 except her, why she never makes mistakes and why only she herself is correct. She never makes mistakes. She never makes mistakes. When asked to apologize, she stalls on doing so. If she apologized earlier or withdrew the bill sooner, society would not be so divided now. The interesting point is that Carrie LAM is responsible for both the success and the failure. She is the cause of social division in the beginning and she is also the indicator to social union. Both the blue-ribbon and yellow-ribbon supporters severely criticize her. She should see for herself. Even those die-hard blue-ribbon supporters said publicly that 90% of the people were dissatisfied with her performance. What has she been doing? The Chief Executive of the Macao SAR who has been in office for only a few months has won the applause of his people, while Carrie LAM has made mistakes one after another and refused to take responsibilities.

President, I also do not want to use up my 15 minutes on condemning Carrie LAM every time I rise to speak. But this funds-on-account resolution is closely related to Carrie LAM's Government. Hong Kong people are not unwilling to give her a chance. We have given her many chances. However, she does not need them because she simply does not care. She does not care about the ordinary Hongkongers. We can see how Carrie LAM treats Hong Kong people in this battle against the epidemic.

I am furious whenever I talk about the 700 000 face masks. I cannot imagine that the Government has considered not procuring those face masks, though the procurement plan was later resumed. To date, no one knows who made that order. People pay tax to Carrie LAM's Government. Her monthly salary, of more than $400,000, is paid by the people. Each Secretary of Department is paid more than $300,000 a month. They are all handsomely paid. How could they understand the feeling of the grass roots who have to snap up face masks under the cold and still feel helpless today? Hong Kong is now hit by the second wave of the epidemic. The Government always says that the upcoming two weeks or the upcoming 14 days are critical. When will all these come to an end? People truly do not understand. They truly do not know.

People are angry whenever they see Carrie LAM chairing the daily press conference. The Department of Health ("DoH") also holds a daily press conference. People sympathize with the DoH public officer who has worked laboriously without any stop for a couple of weeks. What about Carrie LAM? What exactly has Carrie LAM been doing? She never tells the public what she has been doing. The Government never does what it should. Everyone LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 25 March 2020 5211 manages to find some face masks except the Government. Only the Government fails to give away face masks. My point is simple. We have been condemning her since February. All evil consequences stem from the fact that she has offended all Hongkongers first in the anti-legislative amendment movement, coupled with the fact that she has done nothing in the fight against the epidemic. Today, the Government came to the Legislative Council asking for $200-odd billion funding, so we asked the Government to delete the funds of $25 million for the Chief Executive's Office. There must be a reason for our request. Fellow Members, please ask yourselves honestly.

Pro-establishment Members are heartbroken after reading the snitching report. They do not know how to support her. They have helped her for so long, but this is how she has treated them. After the snitching report came to light, the Chief Executive's Office has never denied its existence. How interesting! In the global fight against the epidemic, all governments, and all leaders, strive to protect their people. People have to fight with one heart to win this battle. However, it is revealed in the snitching report that our Government wants to focus on how to create an election atmosphere, so as to help the Legislative Council Election in September.

Can the Government set the election aside for the time being? The Government should talk about how to help the people. It has been very slow in dispatching the cash handouts. It refuses to provide any face masks, or close down the boundary control points. It does not set a cap on the cost overruns of the Shatin to Central Link project. How could we endorse the funds on account for the Government? Would Carrie LAM just name a reason for us? Just tell us if any of our accusations against her is unjustified. None. She cannot dispute any of them, can she?

Hong Kong is in urgent need of leadership. Matthew CHEUNG has, if I might so describe him, worked so hard that his dark eye circles have almost reached his chin. He is pitiable because it is not within his authority to make the decision. He said on Thursday that the Government was considering requiring people arriving in Hong Kong by the Express Rail Link to file a health declaration form. But he could not make the decision, not until Saturday when Carrie LAM slowly came back to Hong Kong from Switzerland to make the final decision. The entire Government was not in good form. And it has remained so for two to three weeks. If the health care staff did not come out a month ago 5212 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 25 March 2020 to pressurize Carrie LAM's Government to partially close down the boundary control points, will the Government do so? The Government has yet to completely close down the boundary control points.

The health care staff have been working very hard at the frontline. They are scared. We came in touch with many health care staff members recently. We asked them if they were scared. And they said they were scared; but they also told us that if they did not hold on, Hong Kong would collapse. We truly should thank Hong Kong people. All people in the world except Hongkongers feel panic and confused when they are faced with a serious outbreak of the epidemic. We hold on to a belief. When we go out, we bring additional face masks and give them to the people who do not have any. When we see people on the street wearing a security wristband, we immediately hold onto them and say, "How dare you go out while in quarantine. Do not infect other people." When face masks are insufficient, private companies, commercial organizations and civil groups try hard to source the supply. We will not count on Carrie LAM's Government that it will manage to procure any face masks. But now, the Government wants us to approve the $200-odd billion funding. And it still has the courage to allocate $25 million for her Chief Executive's Office.

President, bad people are destined to be ill-fated and Carrie LAM will definitely be ill-fated. The subject under debate today is that the Government can clearly do better, and all it needs to do is to take out the controversial items in the resolution. By so doing, it does not need to worry that the resolution will be voted down. But it has not done so. It is because a person called Carrie LAM (The buzzer sounded) …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr KWONG, please stop.

(Mr CHU Hoi-dick stood up)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHU Hoi-dick, what is your point?

MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Cantonese): I request a headcount.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 25 March 2020 5213

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

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

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

(No Member indicated a wish to speak)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, do you wish to speak?

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): President, last Wednesday the Government moved that the Vote on Account Resolution under the Public Finance Ordinance be passed in order to enable the Government to obtain the necessary resources for the provision of public services between the commencement of the financial year on 1 April 2020 and the implementation of the Appropriation Bill 2020.

However, during last week's joint debate, Mr CHU Hoi-dick moved an adjournment motion which interrupted the joint debate on the Vote on Account Resolution and delayed its discussion. I know that many Members have spoken on the Vote on Account Resolution and its relevant amendments and they are patiently waiting for the Government's response. Originally, I intended to respond to all the views before the Vote on Account Resolution was put to vote after all Members had spoken on the resolution. But as some Members took the opportunity to accuse the Government of not responding to their views and some even used that as an excuse to move the adjournment motion, I am now taking this opportunity to respond to the adjournment motion to answer Members' questions and concerns in order to clear up any ambiguities and to avoid misunderstanding among the public.

With regards to the adjournment motion moved by a Member which attempted to make the Government delete the estimated expenditures of the Hong Kong Police and the Chief Executive's Office from the Vote on Account 5214 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 25 March 2020

Resolution, I have to reiterate that the Vote on Account is a long-established practice and a necessary procedure which covers all Policy Bureaux, departments, offices, including the Chief Executive's Office, and this specific arrangement is also identical to that of the past.

Under section 6 of the Public Finance Ordinance, "The heads contained in the estimates of expenditure for a financial year shall be included in an Appropriation Bill which shall be introduced into the Legislative Council at the same time as the estimates." It is also stipulated in section 7 that the Vote on Account Resolution shall be arranged in accordance with the heads shown in the estimates of expenditure. That being the case, heads in relation to the Chief Executive's Office and the Hong Kong Police are no exceptions.

The Vote on Account Resolution is prepared on the basis of the Appropriation Bill 2020; it certainly includes provisional appropriation in relation to heads of the Chief Executive's Office and the Hong Kong Police, with a view to dealing with the financial needs before the passage of the Appropriation Bill 2020. There is absolutely no issue of any attempt to bundle everything altogether. We are just observing the requirements of the Public Finance Ordinance and the long-standing reasonable practice.

Another Member suggested that the provisional appropriation should adopt the estimates of the previous fiscal year as the basis. He also mentioned Article 51 of the Basic Law, but Article 51 of the Basic Law is not applicable to the Vote on Account Resolution which is being scrutinized this time around. I hope Members understand that the Government will make adjustments in response to the different needs of various policies as the demand for resources under heads and subheads of each year's estimates would vary from one policy area to another. It will not be appropriate if we calculate the provisional appropriation for the new fiscal year based on the previous year's estimates, because that may not be able to respond to the financial needs of the new fiscal year accurately.

Moreover, the existing percentage of the application for provisional appropriations, that is, an amount equivalent to 20% of the operating account recurrent subhead of the expenditure, in addition to an amount equivalent to 100% of the operating account non-recurrent subhead of expenditure or a capital LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 25 March 2020 5215 account subhead of expenditure, is part of a long-standing practice adopted from 1982 till now. The practice has been able to deal with government expenditures incurred during a period between the commencement of the new fiscal year commencing on 1 April each year and the passage of the Appropriation Bill, which enables the Government to provide public services in a sustainable manner. It is unwise to change this practice abruptly.

If the Chief Executive's Office cannot obtain the necessary resources by the commencement of the new fiscal year on 1 April 2020 and hence unable to support its daily operation, the functions of the Chief Executive's Office will be severely impeded, including the support it should provide to the Chief Executive and the Executive Council. Earlier Members criticized the anti-epidemic initiatives led by the Chief Executive and comparisons were made among Hong Kong and other places. Since the actual situation varies from place to place, it is unfair and inappropriate to make these comparisons.

As a matter of fact, the Government has been concerned with the pandemic and has made a lot of efforts to prevent an outbreak in community. The World Health Organization has made positive remarks on Hong Kong's effort. For that reason, the endeavour made by the SAR Government in this regard speaks for itself. In recent days, many Hong Kong residents who are residing or studying abroad have come back to Hong Kong; their actions prove that members of the public have confidence in Hong Kong's anti-epidemic initiatives. Certainly, the anti-epidemic initiatives can only be successful if the Government and all Hong Kong people are united as one to fight the pandemic. Thanks to the professionalism of Hong Kong's health care workers who are doing their duties. In the face of the grave challenge, we should brace ourselves to fight the pandemic.

Furthermore, as to the Hong Kong Police, its duties are to serve the public, maintain and safeguard the law and order. The Hong Kong Police provides various indispensable public services, including precinct patrol, crime prevention and detection, traffic regulations enforcement and responding to assistance requests made by members of the public. The amendments proposed by Members will reduce the necessary resources for the Hong Kong Police to maintain its everyday operation and will severely affect the public services provided by the Hong Kong Police.

5216 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 25 March 2020

It is worth noting that, the estimated expenditures of the Chief Executive's Office and the Hong Kong Police only account for 2.6% of the entire provisional appropriation, which is a relatively small number. However, if the Vote on Account Resolution is negatived, not only the Chief Executive's Office and the Hong Kong Police will come to a partial standstill due to the shortage of resources, various services provided by the Government and various subvented organizations will also be affected as they are unable to obtain the allocation. These public services, which are highly relevant to the public, including education, social welfare, medical and health care as well as all sorts of emergency and integrated services. In addition, the anti-epidemic initiatives are also included. For that reason, the impact on the allocation will only do harm to society, such a request is utterly irresponsible.

In addition, some Members are concerned that the sum of the provisional appropriation accounts for 34% of the total appropriation, which is higher than that of the past. Actually, the calculation of the total of $215.9 billion for this year's Vote on Account is in line with that of the past. The proposed sum of this is an addition of $84.8 billion more than last year's total of $131.1 billion. The main reason is because of the economic downturn; therefore, the budget involves various major non-recurrent expenditures on relief measures. The proposed $10,000/person cash handout scheme alone accounts for $71 billion. For that reason, the total amount of the Vote on Account is higher than that of the past. Some Members concerned that the Financial Secretary is vested with too much power to adjust the allocations among different heads. I wish to emphasize that the Financial Secretary has all along been exercising his power in a very prudent manner and he will report situations relating to the exercise of the power to the Finance Committee.

Some Members are particularly concerned about the Hong Kong Police. Since 80% of its expenditures are staff-related expenditures which are paid on a monthly basis, therefore a one-off funding allocated to the Hong Kong Police by the Financial Secretary will not happen. As to about $500 million capital expenditures of the Hong Kong Police, that is, the provision for plant, equipment and works (including the procurement of vehicles) only accounts for 2% of the total expenditures of the Hong Kong Police and they are considered at normal level.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 25 March 2020 5217

Other Members concerned that after the passage of the Vote on Account Resolution, the Government will be given greater power to make use of the allocations. I hope that Members should not worry about this. It has all along been the Government's pledge that during the period of the Vote on Account, there will not be expenditures for new items which are included in the budget and the Appropriation Bill 2020 for the Legislative Council's scrutiny. These new items include the provision of new equipment and new schemes. The pledge is also applicable to the Hong Kong Police. The initiatives of the new items will only commence after the Appropriation Bill 2020 is passed by the Legislative Council.

Lastly, President, I reiterate that the Government is duty-bound to ensure the continuous and effective provision of all sorts of public services. The SAR Government strongly oppose to the adjournment motion moved by Mr CHU Hoi-dick, and I urge Members to veto this adjournment motion.

Thank you, President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHU Hoi-dick, do you intend to reply?

MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary kept repeating the same argument just now, saying that the same mechanism was adopted for the Vote on Account Resolution this year as before, and the computation method was likewise the same as before. Actually, this is the biggest problem. Could the Secretary see any police officer pepper-spray journalists directly in the face last year, just the same as what is captured in this picture I am showing now? No. Why would the Vote on Account Resolution this year arouse much controversy? Why do we have to reject the Government's use of the vote on account mechanism to coerce us into acknowledging the estimated expenditure of $25.7 billion for the Police next year? People should bear it in mind that there is an increase of 25% in the estimated expenditure for the Police and 2 543 additional staff in their manpower establishment this year over last year, and the latter figure accounts for 40% of the overall growth in the civil service establishment. This shows that it is an estimate for the expansion of the armed force.

5218 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 25 March 2020

Last week, Dr Priscilla LEUNG refuted me, saying that we should be glad as the Government intended to give the appropriation to the Police instead. Her underlying thought is that the Chinese People's Liberation Army ("PLA") should be deployed against us. Perhaps Dr Priscilla LEUNG has not read the news. I say so because the Hong Kong Garrison of PLA has actually increased its manpower to 12 000 people. All along, the Hong Kong Police have been a paramilitary force, so my description of its estimate as one for armament expansion actually has its basis.

The Secretary should not think that with the same muddled, daydreaming mind and attitude of giving answers that are totally irrelevant to the question as before, the prevailing dire situation in Hong Kong can be resolved. The prevailing dire situation in Hong Kong is that nobody trusts the SAR Government. As the whole world can see, people erupted in applause and cheering upon learning that a police officer had been hit by a falling stone on the head. We are precisely in such a society. The Secretary may wonder, "I just follow the approach last year. What is wrong with this?" The Secretary may wonder himself deep down his heart, "What have I done wrong?" I hope that after listening to my speech and going back to his office, he can give serious thoughts to the question of whether he is an apt person who can lead Hong Kong to move on amidst the prevailing dire political situation or environment.

President, I was glad to see that many Members rose to speak in the debate last week. I say so because this motion on adjourning the Vote on Account Resolution is not one that will be proposed every year. But after I put forth this motion this time around, many Members have risen to speak, very much to my surprise. It can be said that this is an important show of stance because this has revealed the core political conflicts in Hong Kong.

The remarks of Ms Alice MAK were most welcomed by those royalist Members who rose to speak last week. As I remember, Mr Abraham SHEK rose to his feet later on and said that he must congratulate Ms Alice MAK, and he also expressed profound appreciation to her. In my view, it is necessary to analyse Ms Alice MAK's line of thought and why Hong Kong people should not accept it.

Ms Alice MAK's line of thought is very simple―if the democratic camp detests Carrie LAM and the Police, they should find other ways to deal with them and should not cause trouble to the recipients of the Comprehensive Social LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 25 March 2020 5219

Security Assistance ("CSSA") and the Old Age Living Allowance ("OALA") and also people seeking treatment at hospitals. She questions what we are doing, saying that we have done a disservice to them. With her sweet, tender voice throughout her speech, Ms Alice MAK was even able to arouse people's emotions. People may think that she is right and believe that Members now sitting on the right side of the Chamber are without a sense of humanity as they are honestly oblivious to people's plight and have to vent their enmity towards Carrie LAM and the Police while watching with their eyes wide open the suffering of people. When she spoke, she used the term "契弟", which literally means "sworn younger brother", or "detestable" in the adjectival sense. But to my bewilderment, the President did not make a ruling on whether it was parliamentary language. In that case, I also wish to come clean with Members about my feelings and use this term over and over again today―in the adjectival sense I have just mentioned.

Is Ms Alice MAK's argument correct? Her supporters may think it is correct. But to the vast majority of Hong Kong people, this argument of hers has already gone bankrupt. It can be seen from her argument that the most important of all is that the Government should continue to give people money, so that they can live their life as usual, and that we should not say too much and hinder the Government in doing what it wants to. But I am sorry to say that Hong Kong people no longer buy this now. Why? Mr CHAN Han-pan is concerned that if the Vote on Account Resolution cannot be passed before 1 April, the SAR Government will be plunged into a fiscal cliff. But many Hong Kong people have told me that they precisely want to plunge the SAR Government into a fiscal cliff because their lives have been very painful ever since they were pushed into this political abyss by the Communist Party and the Carrie LAM Administration.

What is the current situation faced by Hong Kong people? The Government wants to use the Vote on Account Resolution as a means to bundle the annual estimated expenditure of $25.7 billion for the Police with those for CSSA, OALA, health care and education. The Government would rather stop disbursing CSSA and OALA than reduce the estimated expenditure for the Police by even just $1. This is the message that the Government wants to disseminate to the public through the mouths of Ms Alice MAK and various royalist Members. This is also the reason why the Government refuses to compromise 5220 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 25 March 2020 even just the slightest bit, why it must procure large pepper spray canisters for the Police while watching with its eyes wide open how police officers have abused their power, and also why 30 000 tear gas canisters have been fired this year, as opposed to 10 000 before.

The Government has bundled the estimated expenditure for the Police with that for social welfare in an attempt to force this Council to give its approval. It would rather stop disbursing social welfare benefits and offering health care services than withdraw the estimated expenditure for the Police. But the democratic camp is now exerting its utmost to stop the Government's persistent intimidation of people through the Police. Which side is "detestable", may I ask? I think the judgment of this should be left with Hong Kong people. They will have an opportunity to make another decision very soon. Let us wait and see!

President, this adjournment motion is actually a motion which involves a great deal of difficulties. Even to the democratic camp, this is also the case. Mr SHIU Ka-chun already pointed out the difficulties in the course of debate. But even so, I also think that at this critical moment in Hong Kong's political development, we in the democratic camp should realize that, first, we are actually unable to vote down this Vote on Account Resolution. Therefore, it is at most only a rehearsal this time. If we do not manifest our will in this rehearsal and our fearlessness to vote down this Vote on Account Resolution whereby the Government attempts to coerce us into accepting the unjust appropriation for the Police, and if we do not manifest this will, how can Hong Kong people continue to have faith in the democratic camp?

Upon hearing various Members' indication of support for the adjournment motion in the debate, I think a key message has been disseminated to Hong Kong people, the very message that Hong Kong people and the democratic camp are not living in an illusory dream like the Secretary, who still thinks that he can adopt the same approach this year (2020) as in 2019, 2018 and 2017 as though nothing had ever happened. On this very day in 2020, Hong Kong people fully support the democratic camp in showing its hand with you lackeys of the Communist Party.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 25 March 2020 5221

Just now, I noticed some news reports saying that a political party from the democratic camp had come forward and vowed that they would definitely vote down the Budget if the democratic camp obtained 35 seats or above in the Legislative Council. They went on to say that if it did not suffice to vote it down once, then they would vote it down again until Carrie LAM stepped down. I think that this motion on adjourning the Vote on Account Resolution can gradually enable Hong Kong people to see the determination of the democratic camp. Throughout the period beginning from this Vote on Account Resolution, to the deliberation of the Budget and the formation of the new-term Legislative Council, we will definitely exert our utmost in order to truly liberate Hong Kong, and we will not let you lackeys of the Communist Party continue to "abduct" us. You people always say that you are good to us. Are the expenses on CSSA paid out of your pocket? Is the cash handout of $10,000 for each of the 7 million people paid out of your pocket? They are all paid out of Hong Kong people's pocket. What we want is financial autonomy rather than any alms from you people. We are not beggars.

President, finally, I must tell Hong Kong people clearly that on this day in 2020, only those officials of the SAR Government sitting opposite me are capable of "creating a fiscal cliff" as they call it. I would also like to ask Hong Kong people to listen to me carefully. The only message that has been disclosed clearly by government officials and royalist Members in this entire debate is that the Carrie LAM Administration must harbour those "corrupt cops" who have abused their power even at the expense of dragging Hong Kong people to the verge of this fiscal cliff. If Hong Kong people want to break free from this kind of "abduction", "financial abduction", of the Communist Party and the SAR Government, they must have the courage to jump off the cliff. This day, even if it is not today, will come very soon. We as democratic Members and Hong Kong people are waiting for the advent of this day.

With these remarks, I hope Members can support the adjournment motion.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Before I put to you the question on the adjournment motion, I wish to remind Members that in accordance with Rule 40(2) and (3) of the Rules of Procedure, if the motion is agreed to, the 5222 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 25 March 2020 debate shall stand adjourned; if the motion is negatived, this Council shall continue with the joint debate on the proposed resolution and amending motions under the Public Finance Ordinance.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the debate be now adjourned. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

Mr CHU Hoi-dick rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHU Hoi-dick has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for five minutes.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr James TO, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Prof Joseph LEE, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Dennis KWOK, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr SHIU Ka-chun and Mr KWONG Chun-yu voted for the motion.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 25 March 2020 5223

Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan and Mr Tony TSE voted against the motion.

THE PRESIDENT, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Dr Helena WONG, Mr Alvin YEUNG, Mr Andrew WAN, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Ms Tanya CHAN, Mr HUI Chi-fung, Dr CHENG Chung-tai and Mr Jeremy TAM voted for the motion.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Ms Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, Mr Vincent CHENG and Ms CHAN Hoi-yan voted against the motion.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 32 were present, 9 were in favour of the motion and 22 against it; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 30 were present, 14 were in favour of the motion and 16 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the motion was negatived.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This Council now continues with the joint debate on the proposed resolution and the four amending motions under the Public Finance Ordinance.

5224 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 25 March 2020

MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): President, I rise to speak in support of the amendments to the proposed Vote on Account ("VoA") Resolution involving some $215.8 billion moved by Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Mr WU Chi-wai and Mr Andrew WAN.

President, the Government has proposed to the Legislative Council the VoA Resolution to seek the Council's approval for the provisional appropriation catering for government spending between the start of the financial year on 1 April and the time when the Appropriation Ordinance 2020 comes into operation. As regards the amendments proposed by the three Members, I have come to the conclusion that the amendments concern only two issues: one is to reduce the estimated expenditure for the Police Force, and the other is to reduce the estimated expenditure for the Chief Executive's Office ("CEO"). I support these amendments without reservation for a pretty simple reason, that is, Chief Executive Carrie LAM has completely failed in her administration in the past nine months but still wants to stay in the powerful position and refuses to step down. In the meantime, she condoned and harboured the wicked deeds of the Police Force, causing the people of Hong Kong great hardship. And now, she has the brass neck to use people's hard-earned money for making salary payments and upgrading the Police Force's equipment to facilitate its battering of Hong Kong people. This is totally unacceptable.

Ever since the "Anti-extradition to China" movement began last June, the people of Hong Kong went through nine whole months of calamity of police brutality and saw for themselves how a group of monster-like police officers had, under the connivance of Carrie LAM, acted lawlessly and abused their powers to make unreasonable arrests and even tortured the arrested. There were numerous such instances. Leaving aside the "12 June" incident, "21 July" incident, "31 August" incident of last year, wrongful detention at "San Uk Ling Holding Centre", two cases of firing live bullets at students, forceful attacks on the campus of The Chinese University of Hong Kong and The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, we have also seen that, in the last two weeks alone, police has searched various districts throughout the territory and arrested a number of people, among whom were people injured at the time of arrest. They were therefore absent from court hearing―one of them suffered a broken leg. Why on earth would anyone have become so after being arrested? Why, under violence, would the leg of an able-bodied person have been broken, leaving that LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 25 March 2020 5225 very person lamed? While the Government claimed that it would work to stop violence and curb disorder, the Police Force is still blatantly using excessive force, making excessive arrests and instituting excessive prosecutions so far.

Regarding the Police Force, as we have seen so far, no one has been held accountable, meaning that those who repeatedly engaged in evil deeds need not bear the consequences. If the arrests by police were made fair and square, why has the Police Force been refusing to make public Chapter 29 of the Police General Orders which concerns the use of force and firearms? Did they deliberately conceal the truth out of guilty conscience and the fear of letting the public know how outrageous their actions had been? In the worst case, moreover, even if the police had to arrest the protestors, by which ordinance was the police empowered to punch people in the head that resulted in head injuries and break their legs? Even if the other party is a murderer, the Police is still not supposed to make that person confess by force and torture.

According to Stand News, which has compiled news reports on police brutality in the past nine months, nearly 7 500 people have been arrested in the past six months or so, among which at least 100 were absent from first court hearing because they were hospitalized for having sustained injuries. Quite a large number of defendants were found to have visible bruises on their bodies when they appeared in court; 20 people complained of being punched, kicked and beaten with batons by the police; some people got injured after being dragged along with face down, resulting in swelling and multiple bruises; someone's front teeth flew off upon being given punches; some people suffered from brief loss of hearing and vision; and some people even had to appear in court in wheelchairs. All such instances have been clearly kept in record.

A community organization has also compiled and set up a database of real records about abuse of power by Hong Kong police officers, documenting and detailing a series of incidents involving abuse of power, excessive use of force and excessive arrests by the police from 9 June 2019 to date. Upon documentation of every single instance, it was found that there were altogether 2 750 cases covering 14 different areas, including improper words and deeds, collusion with and harbouring of triad societies, sexual violence, intimidation, threat, refusal to produce police warrant cards, planting evidence to frame protestors, and attacking reporters and health care staff. It had even happened that people passing by after work and couriers waiting for the takeaway food they ordered were arrested by the police without any reason. Such instances are quite 5226 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 25 March 2020 common in fact. The police simply ignored all other things and went straight to arrest people in the first place even though they were well aware of the fact that there was no evidence for instituting prosecution. It is so astonishing that the Hong Kong Police Force has demonstrated such absolutely barbaric and unreasonable attitude.

Earlier on, Secretary for Education Kevin YEUNG said at the Council meeting that the black sheep among local teachers had to be singled out. Well, when it comes to singling out the black sheep, this kind of actions should actually be taken against the police first. It is because the police officers, showing no fear even in front of the camera, still blatantly committed acts that had violated the Police General Orders, such as using foul language and intimidating members of the public. I believe that Members may still remember that when a large group of people were holding a memorial for Alex CHOW (the student of The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology) in Tseung Kwan O on 8 March, someone was surrounded by seven police officers who verbally abused him in a willful manner and forced him to apologize to them at the scene seven times until they were satisfied. Only after that was he allowed to leave. Were their such behaviour not similar to that of the triad gangsters? Are these people not the black sheep of our city? Why can we not single them out? Given that the Government has failed to eliminate Police brutality, how come it still has the brass neck to ask the Council for an increase in resources for the Police Force?

Today, it can be said that everyone is able to see the out-of-control behaviour of the Police Force. This is so not only because Carrie LAM's Administration has turned a blind eye and we can even say that she is the one who has made it so because she deliberately connived at the police's actions. With the encouragement of the Government, the Police Force has been constantly conducting excessive arrests and instituting excessive prosecutions. However, there have absolutely not been any measures put in place as counterchecks. Despite the public's strong call for an independent commission of inquiry to carry out investigations, the Government just ignored it and the Police Force has been allowed to turn into a privileged class, making Hong Kong a police city. As the Chief Executive, Carrie LAM is the one who should be held accountable for taking this approach which has brought about such consequences. For all that, the Government still intends to increase the manpower of and equipment for the Police Force. How are we supposed to give approval to this, may I ask?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 25 March 2020 5227

Article 48 of the Basic Law provides for the Chief Executive's powers and functions, of which item (11) stipulates expressly that the Chief Executive may decide, in the light of security and vital public interests, whether government officials or other personnel in charge of government affairs should testify or give evidence before the Legislative Council or its committees. Regrettably, however, Carrie LAM has not exercised her such powers in the past nine months. As she has never strongly demanded that the head of the Police Force come over to the Council to give an account of related matters, the latter is not subject to being monitored by the Council. On the contrary, the Police Force's violence is constantly getting more intensified. Given her gross dereliction of duties, how can we still approve funds for CEO?

As a matter of fact, Carrie LAM has long lost all her popularity and her approval rating has dropped to a record low, but she is still lingering on with her last breath. Literally, she is governing Hong Kong but she is only the Beijing government's puppet in fact. Why do we still have to give funds to her? As I have said just now, Carrie LAM is still unwilling to set up an independent commission of inquiry so far and even the independent review committee (which is not meant to function as expected) is still far from sight. No wonder why she said earlier that she had nothing left at all except the Police Force. Her such remarks give us the impression that the existing Police Force is like her personal "black guard". And so, how can we support her proposal of increasing its manpower?

Leaving aside erstwhile issues, I would like to talk about the more recent "Wuhan pneumonia" incident. After the outbreak of Wuhan pneumonia pandemic, many people thought that Carrie LAM might take this opportunity to turn over a new leaf, but the opposite is true in that she has caused more problems in our society. These problems include, first, that the coronavirus epidemic continued to spread as she refused to order the shutdown of boundary checkpoints at the request of the public and thus resulted in the generally poor socio-economic environment in Hong Kong for the time being. While members of the public wanted her to provide assistance, it turned out that she was criticized for "rescuing the market but not the people". Worse still, efforts to rescue the market were made selectively with no comprehensive measures taken. As a result, it is very likely that many micro-, small- and medium-sized enterprises will have to cease operation and close down, meanwhile, a lot of people will become unemployed and half-unemployed. What kind of assistance can she provide then?

5228 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 25 March 2020

Recently (i.e. two days ago), she has proposed the imposition of a ban, under which bars are banned from selling alcohol. Similar measures are, as implemented by many countries, not totally ineffective, but these countries have also put in place complementary policies to provide necessary support and alleviate people's hardship. Yet, what has the SAR Government done? Carrie LAM only sent Matthew CHEUNG (her assistant) to give responses instead, who kept on using the excuse that the Government must "take stock of the prevailing situation". Up to the present, she has yet to tell us more specifically what measures will be taken to alleviate people's hardship. She keeps saying that the first round of Subsidy Schemes under the Anti-epidemic Fund must be completed as soon as possible before other considerations can be made. Yet, as we all know, the Subsidy Schemes under the first round of the Anti-epidemic Fund are fraught with loopholes and a lot of problems remain unresolved. We have been repeatedly asking the authorities to remedy the situation expeditiously and plug the gaps, but regrettably, the Government simply ignored us by turning a blind eye and a deaf ear to our call. Every time we meet with the authorities, we are told that the Subsidy Schemes under the first round of the Anti-epidemic Fund must first be dealt with before our suggestion is considered. By then, President, many companies may have closed down and ceased operation. Do they still need any assistance from the authorities then?

As we all know, the Government is supposed to make every effort to address the public's most urgent needs, but what has CEO done? Therefore, I find it rather difficult to approve funds for CEO. I believe that members of the public will find it unacceptable to let the authorities muddle through as usual and allow them not to take practical actions to deal effectively with the difficulties facing Hong Kong. Hence, President, I support the amendments proposed by the three Members (The buzzer sounded) …

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

I now suspend the meeting until 2:00 pm.

12:50 pm

Meeting suspended.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 25 March 2020 5229

2:00 pm

Council then resumed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Jeremy TAM, please speak.

MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): President, I speak in support of the amendments moved by Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Mr WU Chi-wai and Mr Andrew WAN. In regard to the original motion, I will certainly oppose it for the reasons already mentioned by a number of Members during the debate on the adjournment motion. As we have noticed, there are many points of common in our reasons of opposition, including the appropriation for the Chief Executive's Office and, most importantly, the appropriation for the Hong Kong Police Force ("the Police Force").

The list of problems of the Police Force can never be exhaustive. In this recent period of time, we have seen the evil deeds committed by the Police Force. We may sometimes say that a place is in a "policeless state". But Hong Kong is now in anarchy, with nothing but a military government. And the so-called military government refers to the people in the Police Force that I mentioned earlier. In the past, their behaviour was not subject to any checks and balances, and to date, not even one police officer is arrested or subject to any genuine disciplinary action. Instead, they were merely "reprimanded" for the incidents and atrocities in the past few months.

These amendments suggest deleting the estimated expenditure of the departments concerned, and I would particularly want to highlight a few points. In the example of the specialized vehicles of the Police Force, what actually is the specialized usage? Specialized vehicles are water cannon vehicles, and their specialized usage is for suppression of people. In regard to water cannon vehicles, their usage in the past has been abused. As we have observed, water was sprayed indiscriminately towards the crowds. At first, we asked about the content of the water from water cannon vehicles, why it was blue and why pepper based solution was mixed into the water. At that time, the Government explained that the blue water solution would not cause any harm. But afterwards, it changed by saying that corrosive solution could be added. First of 5230 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 25 March 2020 all, the Government said that the blue water solution was not harmful. But when we asked about the pepper based solution, it corrected itself by saying that such solution could be added into it.

Under such circumstances, if we pass the Vote on Account Resolution, the Police Force will only continue to abuse the usage of its equipment and vehicles. Therefore, how can we support it? In fact, I was also one of the victims. On that day, there were basically only eight to 10 people standing outside the Kowloon Mosque, and none of us were raising any placard or shouting any slogan. However, when the water cannon vehicle from the Police Force passed by, it attacked us by shooting water. What is most interesting is that Mr Mohan CHUGANI, former Chairman of the Indian Association Hong Kong, who was standing next to me at that time, received an apology from the Police Force in a phone call. Mrs Carrie LAM also called him later to extend her apology. But what about other people among us? Excluding me as I am a politician, there were other members of the public standing next to me at that time, with one of them being the Executive Director of Hong Kong Unison. The Government of the Special Administrative Region ("SAR") can absolutely find these people, but why does it not have any intention to apologize to them or express any apology?

President, it is fine if someone has made a mistake. Many people make mistakes. Nevertheless, there is a problem if one does not admit that he has made a mistake, or the worst scenario is that after committing a mistake, he is completely free from restrictions. From the above, we see that the SAR Government has not been subject to any restrictions for its deeds in the past. In the Legislative Council, if only one Member airs his view, it may not be effective. But when all Members put forward a proposal, we can achieve the effect. Based on this reason, the Legislative Council is vested with the power by the Basic Law or the laws of Hong Kong to discuss collectively whether to support or veto some motions or motions on appropriations. This is certainly due to the reason just mentioned. In any election, a Legislative Member may have garnered support from some voters, but it does not mean that he represents the voices of the majority. Therefore, this Council needs to work as a whole, with its Members representing people from all corners of the political spectrum, different occupations, gender and age groups, to express its decision in a more comprehensive way. This is why we come with a mandate to take part in this debate on the Vote on Account Resolution today.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 25 March 2020 5231

As I also mentioned earlier, we are unable to support this Vote on Account Resolution. In regard to our attitude of not supporting it, the SAR Government may ask us why we do not support it, and may say that this is not a new budget but belongs to the old budget, while the funds on account are only for coping with the expenditure for these two odd months so that there will not be any financial gap or government shutdown before the start of the new financial year. As a matter of fact, we are very consistent. Last year, we opposed the Budget. Since we expressed our opposition to the Budget last year, how can we agree to allow the Government to extend the validity of the Budget that we opposed last year so that it can operate for one or two more months?

As I just mentioned, we express our strong opposition to such matters as police brutality or the usage of specialized vehicles. The other item of expenditure that we ask to delete is the estimated expenditure of the Chief Executive's Office, and we seek to reduce the estimated expenditure of the Chief Executive's Office to zero. The past performance of the Chief Executive's Office or the Chief Executive actually explains itself. As regards the performance of the Government in coping with the epidemic of COVID-19, many "blue ribbon" camp members also show their disappointment. At present, not only "yellow ribbon" camp members hate her, but 90% of those from the "blue ribbon" camp also hate her. One can well imagine how disgusting this Government is to the public and how low its popularity rating is, when people from different sectors in society are now giving out a unanimous voice.

At present, there is dissatisfaction from certain traditional industries which the Government always considers its supporters, like the catering industry. I am not very sure what happened a few days ago, but the Chief Executive openly said that drinking alcohol was not good to people, because if they took a few more drinks, there might be intimate contact. I have no idea how she would have this concept. Has she watched too many old Cantonese films or do these high-ranking officials not watch any television at all? Is the so-called intimate contact attributed to drinking alcohol or people getting drunk? This is not the case. It only happens when some people pretend that they are drunk, right?

Besides, the so-called intimate contact does not only happen by means of drinking. Nowadays, some people communicate through certain mobile applications ("apps") before they have such contact. Then do we need to put a ban on using apps? Do we need to ban the operation of all hourly hotels? This basically is not the issue. At present, the Government only imposes the alcohol ban, but drinking alcohol is merely one of the problems.

5232 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 25 March 2020

When people are having dim sum in a Chinese restaurant, for example, they usually sit more closely. Similar situation can also be seen when people are playing mahjong. Do these activities also need to be banned? When Macao has also banned the operation of casinos, why does Hong Kong not ban the operation of mahjong schools or amusement game centres? The various measures are basically related to social distancing. In order to maintain social distance among citizens, the Government advises people to avoid drinking alcohol, and then imposes a ban for this sake. What sort of rationale is this? What about dancing classes, for example? Do they need to be banned? Besides, music classes may involve music bands―certain musicians in a band playing at Lan Kwai Fong are now confirmed to have been infected with the virus―do they also need to be banned? In respect of merely a certain activity, the Government is learning and copying, but only partly, the measure of another country. The performance of this Chief Executive's Office is disappointing indeed.

The Government is learning from the United Kingdom in banning the operation of bars. However, the Government of the United Kingdom offers compensation packages at the same time. Before imposing a ban on the operation of bars, it has considered the measure in a comprehensive way. Nevertheless, this Chief Executive's Office has completely failed to consider the consequences and the problems thus arise. It simply wants to prevent bars and restaurants from selling alcohol. If there is any problem with the livelihood of their staff, this will be unrelated to the Government. If some bars and restaurants have to close down, this will also be unrelated to the Government, but the Government may study how to deal with the closure of bars and restaurants. Is this a responsible government? When the Government is formulating any policy, it must anticipate the possible consequences and impact. No matter the impact will be good or bad, it must be very clear. Through conducting scenario planning, it has to come up with some measures to alleviate the impact concerned. Or it has to prevent a policy from bringing about some people who will have vested interests, as it has to prevent them from reaping the benefits. These are what the Government and the Chief Executive's Office should do and consider.

In the past, the Chief Executive was called "a good fighter", but I do not know how she could become "a good fighter". Let us think about it. Over the past few months, has she done anything that Hong Kong people think she is LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 25 March 2020 5233 right? I am not sure really. Over the past few months, has she made any decision that Hong Kong people will give a big round of applause? I really cannot think of any single one. Her low popularity rate at present is not without reasons.

In fact, I have little idea about how this Chief Executive's Office operates, as we always see signs of infighting. For instance, there are often some Executive Council Members coming out to express views opposite to those of the Chief Executive. One of them is her "good sister", Mrs Regina IP. Mrs Regina IP is not present today, because she went to Zhuhai last week―I of course have no idea why she went to Zhuhai so urgently. Some people say that she went there to "look for a dragon". I am not sure whether she has really found the person whose name contains the Chinese character of " 龍 " (meaning dragon)―Anyway, to our surprise, she was willing to give up the opportunities of attending two Legislative Council meetings and the Executive Council meeting. Nonetheless, she is very smart. I am not sure whether she got the news in advance. Today, she expressed her view on the alcohol ban, possibly in a telephone interview because she is still subject to home confinement. She said the ban has nothing to do with her because she did not attend that meeting. She is really very clever. People always think that this is a political team under an accountability system, but they often comment on other attendants of meetings. Mr was even more remarkable. He said outside the meeting that this was not a thorough measure, and also said that there should be legislation to regulate the gatherings of four or more people.

Do you find this deplorable? The Chief Executive thinks that these people around her are allies, but in a split second, they stab her in the back one by one. Anyway, there is always a reason for stabbing her. It is because she is easily stabbed, right? When she turns around, people will stab her one after another. In fact, she is stabbed in all directions. No matter what she does, it will go wrong, and so it is not hard to criticize her. At present, writing editorials or articles is actually an easy job. Only if you mention Mrs Carrie LAM, it is almost impossible to write anything good of her. Each and every task done by her is wrong. Is it very easy to get paid for the articles? Members may think that I am reading from my script. In fact, I have not prepared a script. I only leave this document open, and I do not have any script. How difficult is it to tell Mrs Carrie LAM off with 15 minutes? This is acceptable to Hong Kong people and is fine. They are already accustomed to it.

5234 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 25 March 2020

People think that no one can be worse than LEUNG Chun-ying, but this person really exists. This woman is genuinely worse than her predecessor, and I admire her courage of bracing herself to come to this stage. She never comes into contact with the public when she goes to work every day, basically just like working inside a greenhouse. Every day, she gets into her limousine which directly sends her to the Chief Executive's Office, and she goes back home after working. During the whole process, in fact, she does not know the hardships of the people. And she also thinks that upon receipt of her instruction, the officials and people that she has contacted will accomplish the task accordingly.

In the past when she was not the leader but the policy executor, people might think that she was very capable. However, after her status as a leader was secured, these defects gradually emerged in front of Hong Kong people. Let us think about it. How long has the Chief Executive of Macao taken office? Why does he get more applause than her? In launching any measure, she is always slower than Macao. Macao is always the first to implement a measure, which is then copied by her. Why will it be like that? The two cities are also implementing "one country, two systems". If you say that the progress of democracy in Hong Kong is slow, then there is no progress in Macao at all, right? Dual universal suffrage is not even prescribed in the Basic Law of Macao. Why does Mrs Carrie LAM only copy the measures of others? This is attributed to the constitutional problem. The largest issue is the failure to implement dual universal suffrage hitherto in Hong Kong, leading to the lack of mandate of the people on the part of the Chief Executive. As I said earlier, the Chief Executive without people's mandate is basically oblivious to people's suffering. She only buries herself in books or reads the documents submitted to her by her subordinates. Since she just works according to the documents, all measures thus rolled out only appear more imposing on paper.

We can totally sense her limited capability in dealing with COVID-19, and she is not a "good fighter" as we knew her in the past. Mrs Carrie LAM finally shed her tears. She was really able to master her facial expressions, squeezing some tears from her eyes with all her energy. But this is still not acceptable to Hong Kong people. Are Hong Kong people particularly unsympathetic? The answer is actually in the negative. Hong Kong people are sympathetic, especially in the political issues over the past few months, such as the street movements and the wave of anti-extradition law. As we have observed, in fact, Hong Kong people are both highly united and sympathetic. When a woman at LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 25 March 2020 5235 her age―I am not saying that she is particularly old, but is rather senior―was shedding tears in front of us, we actually should have been a bit touched, should have felt that she was pitiful, and should not have treated her so badly as she has already tried her best. Nonetheless, this is not the fact. On the contrary, more people criticized her for shedding crocodile tears. Therefore, when the Chief Executive is so incompetent, how can we continue to support allocating funds to the Chief Executive's Office, and continue to support such an inept Chief Executive? Therefore, we will support the few amendments mentioned earlier and veto this Vote on Account Resolution.

I so submit.

MR KENNETH LEUNG: President, what we are debating today is a Vote on Account Resolution proposed by the Government under the Public Finance Ordinance (Cap. 2) of the . Our honourable friends on the opposite side have repeatedly mentioned that this is a kind of routine, and that this is a kind of normal procedure, but I beg to disagree with these views because, President, anything that is put forward in this Chamber must be deliberated seriously, and what we have done in the past …

(Mr Jeremy TAM indicated his wish to raise a point of order)

MR KENNETH LEUNG: Sorry …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Jeremy TAM, what is your point of order?

MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): President, despite my understanding of the effects of a food coma, I request a headcount.

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

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

5236 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 25 March 2020

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Kenneth LEUNG, please continue with your speech.

MR KENNETH LEUNG: President, I have to continue with my speech. This debate is on the Vote on Account based on a proposal, a motion put forward by the Government under the Public Finance Ordinance (Cap. 2). And inevitably, I think the honourable friends on the opposite side said this debate, in the past, has been a kind of routine and it is normal that this debate would not take more than a couple of hours, but I beg to disagree with this attitude, because anything that is put under the agenda of this Chamber, I think we need to deliberate it properly and carefully. Now, especially, President, in the past one year, i.e. 2019, we experienced the biggest turbulence in Hong Kong―the highest level of public mistrust of the Government and the highest level of dissatisfaction with the Government.

And unfortunately, since the beginning of this year, with the onslaught of the COVID-19, it looks like to me that many in the Government have forgotten that there are deep-seated, thorny political issues which the Government has not been able to tackle at all. And now, of course, they are telling us that we need to tackle and fight the COVID-19 virus. Yes, of course, we need to fight the virus together, we need to fight it in this city, we need to fight it on the global basis and this is our common enemy.

However, this will not distract us from saying that the political crisis which was triggered in 2019 remains unresolved. And I could dare say that the level of dissatisfaction and the level of mistrust with the Government were the highest, not only after the handover, but I think even counting back in the colonial era, I would have thought that at this point we have a very high level of dissatisfaction with the Government.

Now, the Secretary has proposed a headline figure of $215,865,713,000 as provisional spending beginning from 1 April 2020 in the resolution. Now, and of course, this headline figure will be restricted under sections 4(a)(i) and (ii) and sections 4(b)(i) and (ii) of the resolution, and the respective percentages of restriction would be further amended by the exceptions under Schedule 1 and Schedule 2.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 25 March 2020 5237

Generally, I think the Government is asking for a provisional funding of 20% or $215 billion, that is about one fifth of the total expenditure of the financial year. Of course, there are certain departments which would have asked for a different figure. They are trying to say they are not being restricted by the 20%. For example, under Head 59, the Government Logistics Department is asking for 100% of their budget for 2020-2021; and of course, under Head 170, the Social Welfare Department is also asking for some items to be funded 100%.

President, this is a debate on the provisional funding. We are not debating on the merits of the budget itself, because that will be subject to further debate next week. Now, I do have a problem with $215 billion because if the Government is going to ask for basic funding of the operation of the Government for, say, two and a half months, which is about 20% of the budget, I will not have any issue with it; however, this $215 billion is based on the projected next year's budget. What I would be more comfortable with is that if they had used a headline figure based on last year's budget, which is the budget we have already agreed, then I would have been more comfortable in giving a carte blanche to the Government. Of course, the headline figure can further be adjusted by other figures in the more detailed departmental budget. For example, if you would like an enhanced expenditure for some of the departments to fight the COVID-19 virus, and if some of the departments would like an enhanced payment to subsidize the already very battered economy, I would have quite happily granted this provisional funding.

But, unfortunately, the minister is quite happy with what he has been doing in the past few years, and with what he has been criticized of having been doing, and has inserted quite a big figure of $215 billion, which I think he needs to justify. Why? Of course, I mean this is subject to a more detailed debate, and also I do hope the minister can, in his reply, justify why some of the departments in Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 would need to deviate from the 20% limit imposed on the provisional funding.

For some of the departments, I could well guess why, because, for example, for the Government Logistics Department, I would have gathered that they would need the budget, the resources and the mandate to procure the medical equipment and personal protective gear for various colleagues in the civil service, 5238 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 25 March 2020 but I am not going to answer this question for the minister because he has to do his explanation.

President, there is also Head 106 in Schedule 2, which says "Miscellaneous Services" and this miscellaneous outlay is $1 billion. I do need some explanation to why he needs this provision funding of $1 billion, and not a kind of percentage cap on this provisional funding.

Many of my colleagues in the opposite camp would say this is for livelihood, this is for fighting the COVID-19 virus and we need to approve this funding. I, to a certain extent, would not disagree with this attitude but we are not approving the whole $215 billion. We are giving the Government just enough resources to keep it running for the next two and a half months, providing just adequate funding to fight the COVID-19 virus, and giving the Government adequate funding for anything that would help our economy in the next two and a half months, and that is what this debate is about and that is what this resolution is about.

My honourable colleagues on my side have tabled quite a few amendments and these are the controversial issues which I think the public, at least a majority sector of the citizens, are not happy with. Why does the Government need to spend such a money on these departments, including the Police and the Chief Executive's Office? They are, I must say, extremely disappointed with the performance of the Government in 2019, the past one whole year, and nothing has been done yet today to address the dire political situation we are in.

Of course, events have gone and past, and now we are tackling the virus. Now, I must say that the Government has been quite slow in proposing and implementing a lot of these policies. In recent one or two weeks, now of course, we have seen the blunder committed by some of the governments in Europe, including Italy, Spain, the United States and the United Kingdom. Of course, we have seen that the Government is trying to close down the borders to foreign visitors, restrict passengers from using the Hong Kong International Airport, and forbid people using the airport for transit.

But, one thing I do not understand is that yesterday there was a kind of ban on bars and licensed places selling alcohol. What is the point of this policy? LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 25 March 2020 5239

We are not a Muslim country, but of course I do have due respect for the religion. I do think that in Muslim countries, they need to ban gambling, and they need to ban the sale of alcohol. But what is the point of banning the sale of alcohol in this city? People would still come to the bar to chat. They can order a fruit punch. They can order an ice lemon tea and have close social contact. This is a policy blunder, I think. I think you need to readdress the situation. If you want to distance people, if you want to have less social contact, be realistic. You need to restrict the operating hours of the restaurants and bars. You need to regulate the seating density. You need to regulate the number of people sitting at each table. If our situation becomes worse and worse, you need to close down the restaurants and bars for a couple of weeks in order to contain the infection. And this is a highly contagious virus. I do not see why we are debating on how to legislate a ban on selling of alcohol. I do not see that would be an easy piece of legislation, and it would be difficult. How about people bringing alcohol to the spot and consuming it on the spot of the bar or the licensed place? Is it permissible? Are you going to punish the owner of the bar or are you going to punish those clients who brought the alcohol to the place?

President, I only use this as an illustration of a policy blunder. In the past, I think, the Hong Kong SAR Government has done a lot of quite inexplicable and quite stupid policy moves. I am just using this as an illustration. I hope the Hong Kong Government could consider the wider policy implication more deeply before announcing it in public and do not be swinged by any sectoral interest in directing your policy. Your policy is for the health and well-being of all the citizens of Hong Kong and not to protect sort of sectoral interest. As Hong Kong is an international city, we have an obligation to the international community as well. So, why should I be paying you $215 billion for committing these political blunders?

Many of my colleagues sitting on the opposite camp also say this is a kind of livelihood. You know, in the debate, we should not put in too much politics, but I am sorry, this is the Legislative Council. If we are not debating politics here, we should be resigning from our seats. This is a place for political decisions. This is a place for deliberating the different courses of policy, and I think this is a political decision if we were to vote down on this Vote on Account Resolution. Thank you, President.

5240 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 25 March 2020

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

(No Member indicated a wish to speak)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): If not, I now call upon the Secretary to speak on the amending motions. Then, this Council will proceed to vote on the amending motions moved by Members.

Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury, please speak.

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): President, according to the schedule for the Budget of this year, the final proceedings on the Appropriation Bill 2020 will be conducted at the Council meeting of 29 April 2020, so the Appropriation Ordinance 2020 will not come into effect before that date. To ensure that before the start of the new fiscal year on 1 April this year, the Government will not have to suspend all those public services that are closely related to the public due to a lack of resources, including education, social welfare, health and public security services, it is necessary for the Government to propose a Vote on Account Resolution.

The amending motions presented by Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Mr WU Chi-wai and Mr Andrew WAN propose to cut all the estimated expenditures (including personal emoluments) for the Chief Executive's Office ("CEO") and the Hong Kong Police Force ("HKPF"). All their motions are groundless and extremely unreasonable, and they are not in the public interest.

As I stressed earlier, the application for funds on account is a long-standing, necessary procedure that covers all Policy Bureaux, departments and offices (including CEO), and the specific arrangements are totally consistent with those in the past. If CEO is unable to maintain operation when the fiscal year commences on 1 April 2020 due to the lack of necessary resources for coping with its daily expenditure, its functions and duties (including supporting the Chief Executive and the Executive Council) will be severely impeded. This will produce huge impact on particularly the coordination of the current efforts to combat and prevent the spread of the epidemic in Hong Kong.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 25 March 2020 5241

Besides, speaking of HKPF, its duty is to serve the public, maintain law and order in society and also uphold the law. The amending motions proposed by Honourable Members will strip HKPF of adequate resources for maintaining its daily operation and seriously affect HKPF's services to the public.

Some Members are concerned that the overall proportion of the requested sum of funds on account in the total appropriation is as much as 34% and higher than before. As I said earlier, the computation method for the requested sum of funds on account this year―$215.9 billion―is totally consistent with the method adopted before. I also wish to stress that the Financial Secretary has always used the relevant power with prudence, and he will report to the Finance Committee on the use of the power concerned, meaning the use of the funds that have been varied. Only two years in the past decade have seen the use of the power to vary the funds on account in order to meet special needs. Speaking of HKPF, around 80% of its total expenditure is personnel-related expenses paid on a monthly basis. So, there is no question of the Financial Secretary trying to seek a lump sum for HKPF. HKPF's capital spending, namely the expenditure relating to "Plant, Equipment and Works" (including the procurement of vehicles), only amounts to some $500 million, or around 2% of the total expenditure. This is a normal level.

Some Members are concerned that the passage of the Vote on Account motion may give the Government too much power to use the funds. I urge Honourable Members not to over-worry about this. The Government's undertaking, as in the past, is that during the period when the funds on account are used, any new items that are incorporated in the estimate and presented together with the Appropriation Bill 2020 to the Legislative Council for scrutiny will not incur any spending. Such new projects include the procurement of new gear and the launch of new programmes. This undertaking is likewise applicable to HKPF. The department concerned will commence the work relating to its new programmes after the Legislative Council passes the Appropriation Bill 2020.

In gist, the four amending motions proposed by Honourable Members will seriously compromise the Government's ability to effectively provide public services and fulfil its legal responsibilities as an employer. If the amending motions are passed, major public services will be plunged into chaos, and the 5242 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 25 March 2020

Government's operation will be seriously disrupted. These motions will produce serious adverse impacts and are not in the public interest.

Just now, Honourable Members also discussed the request for a provision of over 20% for certain subheads of recurrent expenditure (as set out in Schedule 1). In fact, there are several reasons for this. Speaking of some subheads, the relevant payments are to be made on a quarterly basis, so fees covering a three-month period must have already been paid in April. One such example is "Subhead 280―Contribution to the Occupational Safety and Health Council" under "Head of Expenditure 90―Labour Department". The second reason is the need to cope with demand changes, and the relevant payments cannot be delayed. One such example is "Subhead 176―Criminal and law enforcement injuries compensation" under "Head of Expenditure 170―Social Welfare Department". The third kind of example concerns the need to cope with emergencies or disasters, such as "Subhead 177―Emergency relief" under "Head of Expenditure 170―Social Welfare Department". Therefore, President, these are the reasons why we must seek a provision of over 20% for the items in Schedule 1. Generally speaking, our arrangements for dealing with the request for funds on account this time around are the same as before.

For all these reasons, the SAR Government strongly opposes the relevant amendments and urges Members to vote down the amending motions.

Thank you, President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Before I call upon Dr Fernando CHEUNG to move his first amending motion, I wish to remind Members that as Dr Fernando CHEUNG's first amending motion and Mr WU Chi-wai's amending motion are substantially the same, in that both seek to cut all of the expenditure of Head 21 (Chief Executive's Office) under the Secretary's resolution, Mr WU Chi-wai may not move his amending motion, irrespective of whether Dr Fernando CHEUNG's first amending motion is passed or not.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Fernando CHEUNG, you may move your first amending motion.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 25 March 2020 5243

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I move that my first amending motion be passed.

Dr Fernando CHEUNG moved the following motion:

"RESOLVED that the motion to be moved by the Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury under section 7(1) of the Public Finance Ordinance (Cap. 2) at the Legislative Council meeting of 18 March 2020 be amended as set out in the Schedule.

Schedule

Amendments to Motion to be Moved by Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury under Section 7(1) of Public Finance Ordinance

1. Paragraph 1 amended Paragraph 1― Delete "$215,865,713,000" Substitute "$215,840,614,000".

2. Schedule 1 amended Schedule 1― Add "21 Chief Executive's 000 Operational expenses 0"." Office

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the first amending motion moved by Dr Fernando CHEUNG to the Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury's motion be passed.

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

(Members raised their hands)

5244 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 25 March 2020

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

(Members raised their hands)

Dr Fernando CHEUNG rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Fernando CHEUNG has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for five minutes.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Functional Constituencies:

Mr James TO, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Prof Joseph LEE, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Dennis KWOK, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr SHIU Ka-chun, Dr Pierre CHAN and Mr KWONG Chun-yu voted for the amending motion.

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amending motion.

THE PRESIDENT, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 25 March 2020 5245

Geographical Constituencies:

Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Dr Helena WONG, Mr Alvin YEUNG, Mr Andrew WAN, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Ms Tanya CHAN, Dr CHENG Chung-tai and Mr Jeremy TAM voted for the amending motion.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mr Paul TSE, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Ms Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, Mr Vincent CHENG and Ms CHAN Hoi-yan voted against the amending motion.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 34 were present, 10 were in favour of the amending motion and 23 against it; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 28 were present, 13 were in favour of the amending motion and 15 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amending motion was negatived.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Before I call upon Dr Fernando CHEUNG to move his second amending motion, I wish to remind Members that as Dr Fernando CHEUNG's second amending motion and Mr Andrew WAN's amending motion are substantially the same, in that both seek to cut all of the expenditure of Head 122 (Hong Kong Police Force) under the Secretary's resolution, Mr Andrew WAN may not move his amending motion, irrespective of whether Dr Fernando CHEUNG's second amending motion is passed or not.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Fernando CHEUNG, you may move your second amending motion.

5246 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 25 March 2020

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I move that my second amending motion be passed.

Dr Fernando CHEUNG moved the following motion:

"RESOLVED that the motion to be moved by the Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury under section 7(1) of the Public Finance Ordinance (Cap. 2) at the Legislative Council meeting of 18 March 2020 be amended as set out in the Schedule.

Schedule

Amendments to Motion to be Moved by Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury under Section 7(1) of Public Finance Ordinance

1. Paragraph 1 amended Paragraph 1― Delete "$215,865,713,000" Substitute "$210,280,401,000".

2. Schedule 1 amended Schedule 1― Add "122 Hong Kong 000 Operational expenses 0 Police Force 103 Rewards and special 0 services 207 Expenses of witnesses, 0". prisoners and deportees

3. Schedule 2 amended Schedule 2― Add "122 Hong Kong 603 Plant, vehicles and 0 Police Force equipment LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 25 March 2020 5247

614 Alterations, additions and 0 improvements to in-service Marine Police craft (block vote) 661 Minor plant, vehicles and 0 equipment (block vote) 695 Police specialised 0"." vehicles (block vote)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the second amending motion moved by Dr Fernando CHEUNG to the Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury's motion be passed.

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

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

Dr Fernando CHEUNG rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Fernando CHEUNG has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for five minutes.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

5248 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 25 March 2020

Functional Constituencies:

Mr James TO, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Prof Joseph LEE, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Dennis KWOK, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr SHIU Ka-chun, Dr Pierre CHAN and Mr KWONG Chun-yu voted for the amending motion.

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amending motion.

THE PRESIDENT, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

Geographical Constituencies:

Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Dr Helena WONG, Mr Alvin YEUNG, Mr Andrew WAN, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Ms Tanya CHAN, Mr HUI Chi-fung, Dr CHENG Chung-tai and Mr Jeremy TAM voted for the amending motion.

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Ms Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, Mr Vincent CHENG and Ms CHAN Hoi-yan voted against the amending motion.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 34 were present, 10 were in favour of the amending motion and 23 against it; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 30 were present, 14 were in favour of the amending LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 25 March 2020 5249 motion and 16 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amending motion was negatived.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now call upon the Secretary to reply. Then, the debate will come to a close.

Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury, please speak.

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): President, the Appropriation Bill 2020 is undergoing scrutiny at the Finance Committee. The various Policy Bureaux will offer explanations concerning their respective portfolios at the special meetings of the Finance Committee to be held between 3 and 9 April, and Honourable Members may also put forth their views at the second Budget meeting on 22 and 23 April.

I urge Honourable Members to support this resolution, so that during the period from the beginning of the new fiscal year on 1 April 2020 to the commencement of the Appropriation Ordinance 2020, the Government may continue to receive necessary resources for providing the public with those services of their concern.

Thank you, President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by the Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

5250 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 25 March 2020

Ms Tanya CHAN rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Tanya CHAN has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for five minutes.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Ms Elizabeth QUAT, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan, Mr Vincent CHENG, Mr Tony TSE and Ms CHAN Hoi-yan voted for the motion.

Mr James TO, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Prof Joseph LEE, Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Mr Dennis KWOK, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Dr Helena WONG, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr Alvin YEUNG, Mr Andrew WAN, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Mr SHIU Ka-chun, Dr Pierre CHAN, Ms Tanya CHAN, Mr HUI Chi-fung, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr KWONG Chun-yu and Mr Jeremy TAM voted against the motion.

THE PRESIDENT, Mr Andrew LEUNG, did not cast any vote.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 25 March 2020 5251

THE PRESIDENT announced that there were 64 Members present, 39 were in favour of the motion and 24 against it. Since the question was agreed by a majority of the Members present, he therefore declared that the motion was passed.

ADJOURNMENT OF MEETING

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now adjourn the Council.

Adjourned accordingly at 3:07 pm.