LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7423

OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Wednesday, 20 March 2019

The Council met at thirty-three minutes past Eleven o'clock

MEMBERS PRESENT:

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

THE HONOURABLE JAMES TO KUN-SUN

THE HONOURABLE LEUNG YIU-CHUNG

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7424 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

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

THE HONOURABLE CLAUDIA MO

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

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

THE HONOURABLE FRANKIE YICK 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 CHAN CHI-CHUEN

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

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

THE HONOURABLE KENNETH LEUNG

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

DR THE HONOURABLE KWOK KA-KI

THE HONOURABLE KWOK WAI-KEUNG, J.P.

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

DR THE HONOURABLE FERNANDO CHEUNG CHIU-HUNG

DR THE HONOURABLE HELENA WONG PIK-WAN

THE HONOURABLE IP KIN-YUEN

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7425

DR THE HONOURABLE ELIZABETH QUAT, B.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE MARTIN LIAO CHEUNG-KONG, S.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE POON SIU-PING, B.B.S., M.H.

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

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

THE HONOURABLE CHUNG KWOK-PAN

THE HONOURABLE ALVIN YEUNG

THE HONOURABLE ANDREW WAN SIU-KIN

THE HONOURABLE CHU HOI-DICK

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

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

THE HONOURABLE HO KAI-MING

THE HONOURABLE LAM CHEUK-TING

THE HONOURABLE HOLDEN CHOW HO-DING

THE HONOURABLE SHIU KA-FAI

THE HONOURABLE SHIU KA-CHUN

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

THE HONOURABLE YUNG HOI-YAN

DR THE HONOURABLE PIERRE CHAN

7426 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHUN-YING, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE TANYA CHAN

THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG KWOK-KWAN, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE HUI CHI-FUNG

THE HONOURABLE LUK CHUNG-HUNG, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE LAU KWOK-FAN, M.H.

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

DR THE HONOURABLE CHENG CHUNG-TAI

THE HONOURABLE KWONG CHUN-YU

THE HONOURABLE JEREMY TAM MAN-HO

THE HONOURABLE GARY FAN KWOK-WAI

THE HONOURABLE AU NOK-HIN

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

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

THE HONOURABLE CHAN HOI-YAN

MEMBERS ABSENT:

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

THE HONOURABLE CHARLES PETER MOK, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE DENNIS KWOK WING-HANG

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7427

PUBLIC OFFICERS ATTENDING:

THE HONOURABLE MATTHEW CHEUNG KIN-CHUNG, G.B.M., G.B.S., J.P. CHIEF SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION

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

DR THE HONOURABLE LAW CHI-KWONG, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE

THE HONOURABLE JOHN LEE KA-CHIU, S.B.S., P.D.S.M., J.P. SECRETARY FOR SECURITY

DR BERNARD CHAN PAK-LI, J.P. UNDER SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, AND SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

THE HONOURABLE MICHAEL WONG WAI-LUN, J.P. SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT

THE HONOURABLE PATRICK NIP TAK-KUEN, J.P. SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS

DR RAYMOND SO WAI-MAN, B.B.S., J.P. UNDER SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING

CLERKS IN ATTENDANCE:

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

MISS ODELIA LEUNG HING-YEE, DEPUTY SECRETARY GENERAL

MS DORA WAI, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

MR MATTHEW LOO, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

7428 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The regular Council meeting now commences.

PAPERS TO BE LAID ON THE TABLE OF THE COUNCIL

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

Subsidiary Legislation/Instruments Legal Notice No.

Control of Obscene and Indecent Articles (Amendment) Regulation 2019...... 26 of 2019

Allowances to Jurors (Amendment) Order 2019 ...... 27 of 2019

Rating (Exemption) Order 2019...... 28 of 2019

Revenue (Reduction of Business Registration Fees and Branch Registration Fees) Order 2019 ...... 29 of 2019

Pharmacy and Poisons (Amendment) (No. 3) Regulation 2019 ...... 30 of 2019

Non-Hong Kong Companies (Disclosure of Company Name, Place of Incorporation and Members' Limited Liability) Regulation ...... 31 of 2019

Companies (Amendment) (No. 2) Ordinance 2018 (Commencement) Notice ...... 32 of 2019

Companies Ordinance (Amendment of Schedule 7) Notice 2019 ...... 33 of 2019

Hong Kong Science and Technology Parks Corporation Ordinance (Amendment of Schedule 1) Notice 2019 ...... 34 of 2019

Patents (General) (Amendment) Rules 2019 ...... 35 of 2019

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7429

Other Papers

Estimates for the year ending 31 March 2020 General Revenue Account - Consolidated Summary of Estimates - General Revenue Account―Summary - Revenue Analysis by Head

Hong Kong Arts Development Council Annual Report 2017/18 (including Financial Report and Independent Auditor's Report)

The Hong Kong Academy for Performing Arts Annual Report 2017/18, Consolidated Financial Statements and Independent Auditor's Report for the year ended 30th June 2018

The Lord Wilson Heritage Trust Annual Report 2017-2018 (including Financial Report and Honorary Auditor's Report)

Report No. 13/18-19 of the House Committee on Consideration of Subsidiary Legislation and Other Instruments

Report of the Bills Committee on Inland Revenue and MPF Schemes Legislation (Tax Deductions for Annuity Premiums and MPF Voluntary Contributions) (Amendment) Bill 2018

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Questions. First question.

Mainland residents coming to Hong Kong for settlement

1. MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): Since 1997, a total of over a million Mainland residents have come to Hong Kong for settlement on Permits for Proceeding to Hong Kong and Macao (commonly known as "One-way Permits") 7430 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

("OWPs"). Some members of the public have pointed out that a large number of Mainland residents settling in Hong Kong has put a heavy burden on Hong Kong's public services such as social welfare, housing, education and healthcare. Recently, the representatives of some doctor groups have claimed that the public healthcare system is on the verge of collapse. They have therefore called for the cessation of OWP issuance. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) given that Mainland residents may apply for OWPs for the reason, apart from family reunion, that they must come to Hong Kong for settlement due to other special circumstances, and some of those who have come to Hong Kong on OWPs do not have any close relatives in Hong Kong, of the number of people who came to Hong Kong for settlement on OWPs each year since 1997, with a breakdown by the age group to which they belonged, their gender, and whether they were issued OWPs on grounds of family reunion; whether the Government assessed, in the past three years, the pressure on Hong Kong's public resources brought about by people coming to Hong Kong for settlement on OWPs; if so, of the outcome;

(2) whether the Government will, in order to alleviate the pressure on public services, set up an inter-departmental steering committee to be led by the Chief Secretary for Administration to study feasible options for reducing the OWP quota progressively; if so, of the details and timetable; if not, the reasons for that; and

(3) whether it will discuss with the relevant Mainland departments the SAR Government's participation by phases in, and its eventual assumption of full responsibility for, the vetting and approval of OWP applications, so as to prevent Mainland residents from coming to Hong Kong for settlement on OWPs obtained through bogus marriages; if so, of the details and timetable; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): President, the HKSAR Government's consolidated reply to Ms Claudia MO's question is as follows:

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7431

It is stipulated in Article 22(4) of the Basic Law that "For entry into the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ('HKSAR'), people from other parts of China must apply for approval. Among them, the number of persons who enter the Region for the purpose of settlement shall be determined by the competent authorities of the Central People's Government after consulting the government of the Region." The provisions of this Article, in accordance with the interpretation by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress in 1999, mean that Mainland residents "who wish to enter the HKSAR for whatever reason, must apply to the relevant authorities of their residential districts for approval in accordance with the relevant national laws and administrative regulations, and must hold valid documents issued by the relevant authorities before they can enter the HKSAR." Mainland residents who wish to settle in Hong Kong for family reunion must apply for One-way Permits ("OWPs") (i.e. Permits for Proceeding to Hong Kong and Macao) from the exit and entry administration offices of the public security authority at the places of their household registration on the Mainland.

The OWP scheme allows Mainland residents to come to Hong Kong for family reunion in an orderly manner through approval by the Mainland authorities in accordance with the laws and regulations of the Mainland. The numbers of holders of OWPs entering Hong Kong from July 1997 to 2018 and their breakdown by age group, gender and category are at Annexes 1 to 3 respectively.

For a long time, the Census and Statistics Department ("C&SD") has been updating population projections statistics every two to three years taking into account the latest developments of the population, including the new arrivals, so as to provide a common basis for reference by the Government for formulating policies in housing, health care, education, social welfare, etc., as well as in planning public services and facilities.

In addition, a data collection mechanism has been set up by the Immigration Department ("ImmD") to collect data on the demographic and social characteristics of OWP holders when they enter Hong Kong via the Lo Wu control point. Moreover, the Home Affairs Department conducts surveys on new arrivals from the Mainland who are aged 11 or above and have arrived in Hong Kong for less than one year when they apply for their Hong Kong Identity 7432 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

Cards at ImmD's Registration of Persons―Kowloon Office in order to identify their profile and service needs. The survey results of the data collected from the two surveys on age, marital status, educational attainment, economic activity, etc., are distributed to relevant government departments and non-governmental organizations in the form of quarterly reports on the Internet, so as to provide them with more useful information in planning their services for new arrivals.

Therefore, the HKSAR Government will have in hand basically the relevant information on the increased population, including the new arrivals, so as to take into account the overall demographic situation of the society to ensure that the planning, facilities and service provision aspects are in line with the sustainable and positive development in Hong Kong.

The vast majority of OWP entrants come to Hong Kong to join their next of kin. "Next of kin" refers to parents, spouses and children. For individual cases in which the entrants have no next of kin in Hong Kong, we learn that there were examples of unsupported elderly people coming to join relatives other than next of kin.

As to the question concerning whether the Government will consider it a feasible option to reduce the quota for OWPs in a gradual and orderly manner, I wish to point out that the 150 daily quota for OWPs is the upper limit. The Mainland authorities issue OWPs in accordance with the actual number of eligible applications submitted. In the past two years, the average daily numbers of Mainland residents coming to Hong Kong on OWPs were 129 and 116 respectively, indicating that in processing the applications the Mainland authorities have strictly followed the eligibility points laid down in the vetting guidelines and have had regard to the actual number of applications. The 150 quota might not necessarily be used up.

There are different views in the community on the 150 daily quota for OWPs, including views for maintaining or reducing the quota. Some of the views include advocating family reunion and demanding early settlement of Mainland family members of Hong Kong residents in Hong Kong. The overall usage of OWP quota depends on various factors. Cross-boundary marriages now make up about one third of locally registered marriages, there is no sign of decline in trend in the long run. At present, the Mainland spouses are still LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7433 required to wait for at least four years before becoming eligible to come to stay in Hong Kong at present. As such, there is a continued need for the OWP scheme to allow separated spouses and their children born in the Mainland to come to Hong Kong for family reunion.

OWPs are documents issued by relevant authorities in the Mainland. The application, approval and issuance of OWPs fall within the remit of the Mainland authorities. The Mainland authorities have since May 1997 implemented a point-based system with the eligibility points announced through the Internet, setting out open and transparent criteria for the OWP scheme to objectively assess the eligibility and priority of applicants. The public security authorities of some provinces and municipalities publish the names of OWP applicants under certain categories whose approval procedures are completed, and allow applicants to check the status of their applications online. Mainland residents who meet the eligibility criteria laid down by the Mainland authorities may apply to come to settle in Hong Kong. Those criteria are related to the age of the applicants or period of separation. They are objective and transparent, and connected with the purpose of family reunion.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, you have already used more than seven minutes in your main reply. Please finish it quickly so that more Members can have the opportunity to raise questions.

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): President, I will try to be brief. In the processing of OWP applications by the Mainland authorities, ImmD facilitates at case level, including rendering assistance in verifying the supporting documents submitted by the applicants and their claimed relationship with relatives in Hong Kong (e.g. husband and wife, parent and child) when necessary. If a case is found to be suspicious or when factual discrepancies are identified, ImmD will inform the Mainland authorities and will request the applicant to provide further documentary proofs. ImmD will also help the Mainland authorities investigate the cases involving obtaining OWPs by illegal means.

ImmD has a mechanism for handling cases of obtaining OWPs by fraudulent means. ImmD will also initiate investigation into doubtful marriages, 7434 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 collect evidence from various sources and through different channels in order to investigate thoroughly the parties to suspected "bogus marriage" cases and the intermediaries involved. The relevant persons will be prosecuted when there is sufficient evidence. Once a case is substantiated, ImmD can declare the invalidation of a person's Hong Kong Identity Card obtained through illegal means, regardless of whether that person is a holder of Hong Kong Permanent Identity Card or has settled in Hong Kong for less than seven years and has divorced his/her Hong Kong permanent resident spouse. In addition, regardless of his/her years of residence in Hong Kong, ImmD has the authority to remove him/her from Hong Kong.

In view of the stipulations under the Basic Law as well as the facts and the analyses above, we do not intend to change the existing operation of the OWP scheme.

Annex 1

Numbers of Holders of OWPs (i.e. Permits for Proceeding to Hong Kong and Macao) Entering Hong Kong by Age Group from July 1997 to 2018

1997 Age (July to 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 group December) 0-17 12 881 32 439 25 676 21 605 18 527 15 845 16 993 12 721 17 639 20 625 11 431 12 978 18-59 15 451 20 788 27 518 31 927 33 322 27 723 34 958 24 404 36 614 32 728 21 603 27 784 60+ 1 063 2 812 1 431 3 998 1 806 1 666 1 556 947 853 817 831 848 Total 29 395 56 039 54 625 57 530 53 655 45 234 53 507 38 072 55 106 54 170 33 865 41 610

Age 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 group 0-17 12 443 10 971 9 742 9 038 9 156 9 813 8 843 14 042 11 194 9 600

18-59 35 334 30 860 32 776 43 759 34 122 29 177 27 961 40 637 32 837 30 277 60+ 810 793 861 1 849 1 753 1 506 1 534 2 708 2 940 2 454 Total 48 587 42 624 43 379 54 646 45 031 40 496 38 338 57 387 46 971 42 331

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7435

Annex 2

Numbers of Holders of OWPs (i.e. Permits for Proceeding to Hong Kong and Macao) Entering Hong Kong by Gender from July 1997 to 2018

1997 Gender (July to 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 December) Male 8 508 19 380 16 992 17 423 18 512 13 363 13 413 9 981 15 823 19 871 11 407 13 218 Female 20 887 36 659 37 633 40 107 35 143 31 871 40 094 28 091 39 283 34 299 22 458 28 392 Total 29 395 56 039 54 625 57 530 53 655 45 234 53 507 38 072 55 106 54 170 33 865 41 610

Gender 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Male 13 360 12 056 13 244 19 394 15 227 13 342 13 121 22 999 19 030 17 358 Female 35 227 30 568 30 135 35 252 29 804 27 154 25 217 34 388 27 941 24 973 Total 48 587 42 624 43 379 54 646 45 031 40 496 38 338 57 387 46 971 42 331

Annex 3

Numbers of Holders of OWPs (i.e. Permits for Proceeding to Hong Kong and Macao) Entering Hong Kong by Category from July 1997 to 2018

1997 (July to 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 December) (a) Holders of 10 545 25 818 24 260 26 275 29 296 16 731 13 350 10 314 7 062 5 325 4 487 Certificate of Entitlement (b) Spouses 11 276 19 888 17 771 13 464 3 329 3 110 4 967 3 682 1 986 945 823 separated for 10 years or more and their accompanying children (c) Spouses 4 175 3 100 6 014 12 792 15 845 18 846 28 264 19 209 41 351 42 999 23 928 separated for less than 10 years and their accompanying children 7436 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

1997 (July to 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 December) (d) Joining parents 2 855 6 240 5 739 4 286 4 179 5 689 5 939 3 870 3 808 4 012 3 717 in Hong Kong(1) (e) Joining children 192 323 424 479 853 713 806 731 602 562 579 in Hong Kong(2) (f) Others(3) 352 670 417 234 153 145 181 266 297 327 331 Total 29 395 56 039 54 625 57 530 53 655 45 234 53 507 38 072 55 106 54 170 33 865

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 (a) Holders of 4 490 5 025 4 662 3 758 3 750 4 329 4 938 3 655 3 508 2 795 2 407 Certificate of Entitlement (b) Spouses 1 041 829 651 619 733 742 791 753 870 690 573 separated for 10 years or more and their accompanying children (c) Spouses 30 984 38 592 33 446 31 461 25 746 23 193 23 528 25 142 45 261 36 847 31 513 separated for less than 10 years and their accompanying children (d) Joining parents 4 184 3 336 2 942 6 702 23 401 15 832 10 282 7 909 6 800 5 535 6 681 in Hong Kong(1) (e) Joining 575 566 646 550 714 713 803 780 898 1 079 1 143 children in Hong Kong(2) (f) Others(3) 336 239 277 289 302 222 154 99 50 25 14 Total 41 610 48 587 42 624 43 379 54 646 45 031 40 496 38 338 57 387 46 971 42 331

Notes:

(1) Excluding accompanying children whose parents joined their spouses in Hong Kong in items (b) and (c) of the above table.

(2) Including unsupported elderly people coming to Hong Kong to join their children settled in Hong Kong.

(3) Exceptional cases such as unsupported elderly people coming to join their relatives, etc.

(4) The above figures are compiled from the statistics based on the information provided voluntarily by holders of OWPs upon their entry into Hong Kong.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7437

MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): What is actually wrong with the Secretary? He has spent 11 minutes 30 seconds answering this main question. President, in the main reply, the Secretary did not mention that the processing of OWPs has already become a hotbed for corruption in Mainland China. It is known to all that the value of one OWP can be more than RMB 2 million.

I have to raise a supplementary question in respect of the Secretary's reply. He answered with a sentence that for individual cases in which the entrants have no next of kin in Hong Kong, they learnt that there were examples of unsupported elderly people coming to join relatives other than next of kin. The National Immigration Administration (Beijing) has clearly stated that Mainland residents may apply for OWPs for the reason that they must come to Hong Kong for settlement due to other special circumstances, and the Secretary simply answered with a sentence that they were unsupported elderly people. Since 1997, over 6 300 people have come to Hong Kong through this channel. It is true that this figure is hardly significant when compared with 1 million entrants, but there is such a channel of application. The Secretary simply answered with a sentence that they were unsupported elderly people, but may I ask what the other special circumstances are? The Secretary always mentions family reunion. Nobody will object to genuine family reunion, but there are more and more reasons. Due to these circumstances, there were more than 600 people coming to Hong Kong in one year previously. Although it is said that the number has now dropped to 14 people, how do I know whether over 600 people will come to Hong Kong due to these circumstances? May I ask what the special circumstances are?

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): President, as I mentioned earlier, in accordance with the regulations of the Mainland, the circumstances concerned refer to joining their next of kin. However, in case an unsupported elderly person has no one to take care of him in the Mainland and also no so-called next of kin, meaning no children, to take care of him in Hong Kong, and under certain circumstances, he really needs someone to look after …

MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): I am asking what the special circumstances are.

7438 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Claudia MO, please sit down and let the Secretary answer.

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): President, my interpretation for the so-called next of kin can be an unsupported elderly person's uncle, auntie or cousin, who is the only one person to take care of him in Hong Kong. Under this situation, shall this unsupported elderly person not be taken care of? This is the first very special condition under our consideration, and another condition that we will also consider is that of single mothers. In the event that a woman's husband passed away, her application is deemed ineligible theoretically speaking. But since she has a son or daughter in Hong Kong who needs to be taken care of, she can still apply. This does not fall into the category that I just mentioned but is a special condition. In fact, there are very few cases of this kind. We hope Members can understand the other circumstances under which the people concerned need to be given special care, including those with compassionate or humanitarian considerations as I just mentioned.

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): President, in the last part of the reply, the Secretary says that ImmD has a mechanism for handling cases of obtaining OWPs by fraudulent means, and once a case is substantiated, ImmD can declare the invalidation of a person's Hong Kong Identity Card and even remove him/her from Hong Kong. As just pointed out by Ms Claudia MO, it is often reported in the media that some Mainland officials sell OWPs, claiming that many former or incumbent Mainland officials and their family members can obtain OWPs under pseudonyms in order to move to Hong Kong, and each OWP costs RMB 2 million. These permits are marketable at good prices. May I ask the Secretary whether he has taken the initiative to investigate into these sale of OWPs cases? Have the authorities declare the invalidation of anyone's Identity Card and remove him from Hong Kong? Does he have any statistics on these cases?

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): President, of course, if ImmD has any information indicating that a certain OWP was obtained through illegal means, for example, the application was submitted with false information, ImmD will certainly look into the case. We have declared the invalidation of some Identity Cards due to various reasons, of course. In accordance with ImmD's record, we cancelled at least seven Hong Kong Permanent Identity Cards in 2018, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7439 and seven people were involved while another five people had settled in Hong Kong for less than seven years. In sum, in regard to cases of obtaining Identity Cards through illegal means or fraudulent information, once they are substantiated after investigation, ImmD will cancel the persons' Identity Cards. Concerning the situation that I just mentioned, there were 12 cases in 2018.

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): The Secretary has not answered my supplementary question. My question is whether there are any sale of OWPs cases and whether anyone has been penalized.

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

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): President, if anyone has violated any Mainland laws and regulations, the law enforcement agencies in the Mainland will certainly deal with them in accordance with the laws and regulations concerned.

MR ALVIN YEUNG (in Cantonese): President, it is clearly stipulated in Article 22(4) of the Basic Law and also quoted by the Secretary that the number of persons who enter Hong Kong for the purpose of settlement shall be determined by the competent authorities of the Central People's Government after consulting the Hong Kong Government. May I ask the Secretary since Hong Kong's reunification in 1997, whether the Government has exercised the right given and fulfil the responsibility under Article 22(4) of the Basic Law by providing any advice to the competent authorities of the Central People's Government? May I ask the Secretary whether any advice has been provided or not, and if so, what the details are?

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): President, both parties have communication on the OWP scheme. Over these years, after listening to our advice, the authorities concerned in the Mainland have also made some changes. For instance, at the initial stage of the scheme, the accompanying children must reach 14 years of age. But in 2003, after listening to our advice, the authorities concerned in the Mainland changed the age requirement of the accompanying 7440 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 children from 14 to 18. Besides, as regards the separation period of spouses, it was also shortened from the original six and a half years to five years in 2005, and further shortened to four years in 2009. President, what I mean is that both of us have exchanges of views, and after listening to our views, the Mainland authorities concerned have also made some changes. Of course, the final changes have to be made in accordance with the Basic Law and within their ambit. This precisely shows that both parties maintain communication and have expressed our respective views, and after expressing the views, we also see some changes.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, can you tell us the number of people involved?

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): President, may I ask what number of people you refer to?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I ask for the number of people affected after changes have been made.

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): I do not have the number concerned, President.

MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): President …

(There was interference with the broadcasting system in the Chamber)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WU Chi-wai, will you please move your mobile phone away?

(Mr WU Chi-wai moved his mobile phone away)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7441

MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): President, according to the fourth paragraph of the content of the main reply, in getting hold of the demographic and social characteristics of new arrivals in Hong Kong, the Government actually relies on the data collection mechanism set up at the Lo Wu control point or the data collection surveys conducted by the Home Affairs Department on new arrivals from the Mainland when they apply for their Hong Kong Identity Cards at ImmD's Registration of Persons Office. If this is the case, our SAR Government actually has no way to accurately grasp the social characteristics of new arrivals in Hong Kong, as OWP applicants need to wait for approximately four years before they can come to Hong Kong. In other words, there is a time gap. My question is whether the SAR Government has asked the Central Government to provide this part of data in advance to facilitate our early preparation for the demand and planning of social services. Because if we start our preparation only after their arrival in Hong Kong, it is very obvious that we cannot cope with the immediate needs. In this respect, has the Secretary asked the Central Government to provide the related data in advance so as to grasp the social characteristics of new arrivals earlier for our planning preparation?

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): President, in the course of planning, the SAR Government will of course make reference to the population projections statistics updated every two to three years by C&SD and take into account the needs of new arrivals, for formulating policies in housing, health care, education, social welfare, etc. I would emphasize that we will conduct two data collection exercises: The first data collection exercise is conducted by ImmD when new arrivals come to Hong Kong holding OWPs, and we collect the data again when they apply for Identity Cards. Besides, as I mentioned earlier, we release quarterly reports. In other words, new arrivals with OWPs keep on coming to Hong Kong and in that ongoing process, we release a report in each quarter, and it is also uploaded onto the Internet so that all government departments and service providing non-governmental organizations can be aware of the practical situation in this aspect. In the course of planning, we actually consider the major direction after exercising our judgment on the overall situation.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WU Chi-wai, which part of your supplementary question has not been answered?

7442 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): I only ask whether he can obtain some data from the Central Government.

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

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): I think our current practice does enable us to do the planning that we need.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Second question.

Issuance of Permits for Proceeding to Hong Kong and Macao

2. MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): According to Article 22 of the Basic Law and the relevant Interpretation by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress in 1999 ("NPCSC's Interpretation"), Mainland residents who wish to enter the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("HKSAR") must apply for approval in accordance with the relevant laws, and must hold valid documents issued by the Mainland authorities (e.g. Permits for Proceeding to Hong Kong and Macao which are commonly known as "One-way Permits" ("OWPs")) before they may enter HKSAR. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) given that the HKSAR Government currently may, of its own accord, vet and approve Mainland residents' applications for entry into Hong Kong under the Admission Scheme for Mainland Talents and Professionals and the Quality Migrant Admission Scheme (including the setting of point-based tests and selection of applicants), if it has studied, from a legal perspective, whether the HKSAR Government's participation in the vetting and approval of OWP applications would not violate Article 22 of the Basic Law and NPCSC's Interpretation;

(2) given that Mainland residents may apply for OWPs for the reason, apart from family reunion, that they must come to Hong Kong for settlement due to other special circumstances, of the circumstances that are included under "other special circumstances"; and

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7443

(3) in each of the past 10 years,

(i) of the number of Mainland residents who came to Hong Kong for settlement on OWPs, broken down by the following categories of OWP holders:

- holders of Certificate of Entitlement;

- spouses separated for 10 years or more and their accompanying children;

- persons of other categories (set out one by one); and

- persons who must come to Hong Kong for settlement due to other special circumstances; and

(ii) whether there were unused quotas in respect of the OWPs applicable to different types of persons; if so, whether the Government will request the Central Authorities to reduce the quotas concerned in accordance with the actual demand?

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): President, the HKSAR Government's consolidated reply to Mr WU Chi-wai's question is as follows:

It is stipulated in Article 22(4) of the Basic Law that "For entry into the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ('HKSAR'), people from other parts of China must apply for approval. Among them, the number of persons who enter the Region for the purpose of settlement shall be determined by the competent authorities of the Central People's Government after consulting the government of the Region." The provisions of this Article, in accordance with the interpretation by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress in 1999, mean that Mainland residents "who wish to enter the HKSAR for whatever reason, must apply to the relevant authorities of their residential districts for approval in accordance with the relevant national laws and administrative regulations, and must hold valid documents issued by the relevant authorities before they can enter the HKSAR." Mainland residents who wish to settle in Hong Kong for family reunion must apply for One-way Permits ("OWPs") (i.e. Permits for Proceeding to Hong Kong and Macao) from the exit and entry administration offices of the public security authority at the places of their household registration in the Mainland.

7444 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

The OWP scheme allows Mainland residents to come to Hong Kong for family reunion in an orderly manner through approval by the Mainland authorities in accordance with the laws and regulations of the Mainland. As requested in the question, a breakdown of the numbers of Mainland residents entering Hong Kong on OWPs by category from 2009 to 2018 is attached at the Annex.

OWPs are documents issued by relevant authorities in the Mainland. The application, approval and issuance of OWPs fall within the remit of the Mainland authorities. The Mainland authorities have since May 1997 implemented a point-based system with the eligibility points announced through the Internet, setting out open and transparent criteria for the OWP scheme to objectively assess the eligibility and priority of applicants. The public security authorities of some provinces and cities publish the names of OWP applicants under certain categories whose approval procedures are completed, and allow applicants to check the status of their applications online. Mainland residents who meet the eligibility criteria laid down by the Mainland authorities may apply to come to settle in Hong Kong. Those criteria are related to the age of the applicants or period of separation. They are objective and transparent, and connected with the purpose of family reunion.

In the processing of OWP applications by the Mainland authorities, the Immigration Department ("ImmD") facilitates at case level, including rendering assistance in verifying the supporting documents submitted by the applicants and their claimed relationship with relatives in Hong Kong (e.g. husband and wife, parent and child) when necessary. If a case is found to be suspicious or when factual discrepancies are identified, ImmD will inform the Mainland authorities and will request the applicant to provide further documentary proofs. ImmD will also help the Mainland authorities investigate the cases involving obtaining OWPs by illegal means. Taking OWP applications under the category of "reunion with spouses" as an example, in case the husband-and-wife relationship is doubtful, the Mainland authorities will pass the particulars of the applicants and their spouses in Hong Kong to ImmD for verification of the personal particulars of the Hong Kong residents, the certificates of registration of marriage in Hong Kong or other relevant records. ImmD will notify the Mainland authorities of the verification results for their follow-up actions.

ImmD has a mechanism for handling cases of obtaining OWPs by fraudulent means. ImmD will also initiate investigation into doubtful marriages, collect evidence from various sources and through different channels in order to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7445 investigate thoroughly the parties to suspected "bogus marriage" cases and the intermediaries involved. The relevant persons will be prosecuted when there is sufficient evidence. Once a case is substantiated, ImmD can declare the invalidation of a person's Hong Kong Identity Card, regardless of whether that person is a holder of Hong Kong Permanent Identity Card or has settled in Hong Kong for less than seven years and has divorced his/her Hong Kong permanent resident spouse. In addition, regardless of his/her years of residence in Hong Kong, ImmD has the authority to remove him/her from Hong Kong.

The various existing talent admission schemes serve different policy objectives. For instance, the Admission Scheme for Mainland Talents and Professionals ("ASMTP") aims at attracting Mainland talents with special skills, knowledge or experience of value to and not readily available in Hong Kong to work here in meeting local manpower needs. As for the Quality Migrant Admission Scheme ("QMAS"), it seeks to attract highly skilled or talented persons to settle in Hong Kong in order to enhance Hong Kong's economic competitiveness. Therefore, these talent admission schemes and the OWP scheme have different considerations about the required qualifications of their respective applicants. The prerequisites which ASMTP applicants are required to fulfil include having secured a job relevant to his/her academic qualifications or work experience that cannot be readily taken up by the local workforce, receiving a remuneration package which commensurate with the prevailing market rate, etc. The prerequisites which QMAS applicants are required to fulfil include age, financial requirement, language proficiency, basic educational qualifications, etc. They can then accumulate points under "points test" and compete for quota allocation.

The admission of talents is for the purpose of enhancing Hong Kong's economic competitiveness, while the OWP scheme is for the purpose of allowing Mainland residents to come to Hong Kong for family reunion in an orderly manner. Given the policy objective of family reunion, we should not design a scheme under which the Mainland family members of affluent families have priority to come to Hong Kong, while those of other families have to wait for a longer time to come to Hong Kong. They should be treated fairly and equally. Therefore, we consider that the existing operation of the OWP scheme should be maintained.

Regarding the OWP quota, there are different views in the community on the 150 daily quota for OWPs, including views for maintaining or reducing the quota. Some of the views include advocating family reunion and demanding 7446 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 early settlement of Mainland family members of Hong Kong residents in Hong Kong. The overall usage of OWP quota depends on various factors. Cross-boundary marriages now make up about one third of locally registered marriages. There is no sign of decline and we will keep an eye on the trend in the long run. At present, the Mainland spouses are still required to wait for at least four years before becoming eligible to come to stay in Hong Kong. As such, there is a continued need for the OWP scheme to allow separated spouses and their children born in the Mainland to come to Hong Kong for family reunion.

Annex

Numbers of Holders of OWPs (i.e. Permits for Proceeding to Hong Kong and Macao) Entering Hong Kong by Category from 2009 to 2018

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 (a) Holders of 5 025 4 662 3 758 3 750 4 329 4 938 3 655 3 508 2 795 2 407 Certificate of Entitlement (b) Spouses 829 651 619 733 742 791 753 870 690 573 separated for 10 years or more and their accompany- ing children (c) Spouses 38 592 33 446 31 461 25 746 23 193 23 528 25 142 45 261 36 847 31 513 separated for less than 10 years and their accompany- ing children (d) Reuniting 3 336 2 942 6 702 23 401 15 832 10 282 7 909 6 800 5 535 6 681 with parents in Hong Kong(1) LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7447

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 (e) Reuniting 566 646 550 714 713 803 780 898 1 079 1 143 with children in Hong Kong(2) (f) Others(3) 239 277 289 302 222 154 99 50 25 14 Total 48 587 42 624 43 379 54 646 45 031 40 496 38 338 57 387 46 971 42 331

Notes:

(1) Excluding accompanying children whose parents joined their spouses in Hong Kong in items (b) and (c) of the above table.

(2) Including unsupported elderly people coming to Hong Kong to join their children settled in Hong Kong.

(3) Exceptional cases such as unsupported elderly people coming to join their relatives, etc.

(4) The above figures are compiled from the statistics based on the information provided voluntarily by holders of OWPs upon their entry into Hong Kong.

MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary has not answered part (1) of my main question at all. I asked him whether, from a legal perspective, the HKSAR Government's participation in the vetting and approval would violate Article 22 of the Basic Law and NPCSC's Interpretation, but he has gone around the houses.

In fact, if the Secretary's understanding of NPCSC's Interpretation had been anything to go by, our QMAS and ASMTP could not have been open for application in Hong Kong. Hence, I wish to ask the Secretary why we cannot create a jointly managed category for those seeking family reunion in Hong Kong, so that the SAR Government can have an early grasp of the background information and social needs of future new arrivals in its management process, and accordingly make appropriate arrangements in the policy-making process to ensure no mismatches or inadequacies in various social services in Hong Kong. I would like to ask the Secretary: Why can we not seek from the Central Government an application arrangement similar to that of QMAS and running simultaneously in Hong Kong, so that we can have an early grasp of the background information of the new arrivals concerned?

7448 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): The supplementary question raised by Mr WU actually comprises two elements, the first being the authority to approve OWPs. As far as the authority to approve OWPs is concerned, Article 22 of the Basic Law and NPCSC's Interpretation have clearly explained the responsibilities and practices. Another element of Mr WU's supplementary question is what we should do with the schemes and plans for admission of talents. Therefore, I think they are two different elements.

For talent admission schemes, we do not use the OWP scheme, because the two policy objectives are totally distinct from each other. The OWP scheme is geared towards family reunion. As I have made it very clear just now, it is beyond my ability to let affluent Mainland families come first, leaving the poor ones to bring up the rear, or give priority to the families with higher educational attainment over those with less. This is the first principle. I need to elaborate on my views in order to answer Mr WU's question. In short, the Basic Law and NPCSC's Interpretation, among others, have clearly set out the responsibilities and objectives associated with the OWP scheme. I agree that the SAR Government has to set some specific requirements for the admission of talents, but they are about admitting talents to make up the general talent shortfall in Hong Kong. Therefore, the objectives of the two policies are not the same, and the practices are hence different.

Moreover, as I have made it clear just now in the main reply or in response to Ms MO's question, planning will take place no matter where the people come from. We will collect information on new arrivals, not necessarily limited to those from the Mainland, as we have general admission schemes for talents from foreign countries, whose information will also be collected for planning purposes.

Therefore, I also hope for Members' understanding that our planning is not aimed at the people from a particular region of origin, but since they come to stay in Hong Kong, we should take a holistic look at how to cater for the needs in different aspects, including education, housing, health care and welfare.

MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): The Secretary has not answered my question.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7449

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

MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): As NPCSC's Interpretation indicated "who wish to enter the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region for whatever reason", there should be no categorization.

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

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): I have already answered Mr WU's question.

MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): President, despite your reminder, the Secretary actually managed to give a roundabout reply with a nine-minute lengthy speech which could have been concluded literally in nine words, i.e. "adherence to the established mechanism without intention of change" as indicated in his main reply, and that was that.

President, also despite your reminder, the Secretary tried to sidestep the supplementary question raised by Mr Alvin YEUNG earlier on. Article 22 of the Basic Law clearly stipulates, and the Secretary has also repeated in main reply: "The SAR Government may propose to the competent authorities of the Central Government the number of persons who enter HKSAR for the purpose of settlement." The Secretary's failure to answer the question means that he has accomplished nothing. How is it conceivable that, over the past years since 1997, the SAR Government has not put forward any views on the quota for OWPs? The SAR Government's authority to deal with the migrant population is not comparable to that of any province in the Mainland to deal with the issue of household registration for the migrant population …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Gary FAN, please raise your supplementary question directly.

7450 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): My supplementary question is: Could the Secretary for Security answer why the SAR Government has not once, since 1997, exercised the power conferred by Article 22(4) of the Basic Law to submit its views to the Central Government in relation to the OWP quota? And bear in mind that I mean the allowed number of persons. Why has it not submitted any views?

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): President, in my earlier reply to the question, I have also pointed out that the daily quota of 150 OWPs is only a cap. We believe that a fair and open scheme has been adopted for this quota to be used, and the factors to be considered are also those that should be taken into account for family reunion. In other words, the SAR Government holds the view that inclusion of such factors for consideration is reasonable and compliant with the requirements of the Basic Law.

We do have exchanges of views, even through different channels. In my earlier reply to Mr YEUNG, I also explained that different changes had been made to the actual operation of OWPs following the exchanges of views, including changing the required period of separation between spouses from the initial maximum of six and a half years to the present four years, as well as making use of OWPs to deal with such issues as overage children in response to the aspirations of many members of the social welfare sector.

We exchange these views with relevant authorities. By and large, I believe that during the exchanges they would also listen to our views and then take some appropriate actions.

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

MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): I wish to emphasize again that I have raised my question very clearly. Why does the Secretary want to sideline it? My supplementary question is: Regarding the exchanges of views, as the Secretary has also mentioned in main reply, there are voices in the community calling for the OWP quota to be maintained or reduced …

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7451

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Gary FAN, please directly point out the part of your supplementary question which has not been answered.

MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): Why has he not submitted any views on reducing the OWP quota in order to reduce the number of persons?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr FAN, please sit down. Secretary, do you have anything to add?

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): I stress once again that the OWP quota of 150 places is only a cap, and the information provided by us also clearly points out that the actual daily number of arrivals has not reached the cap. As Members can see from the figures, it hovers around 120 or so.

MR TONY TSE (in Cantonese): President, in response to this question and the preceding one, the Secretary has just pointed out that the main objective of the OWP scheme is family reunion. Family reunion is a human right, so I am surprised that some opposition Members have asked for a reduction of the OWP quota for such reasons as economy and social welfare, because they have always been talking human rights. They do not just talk about human rights, but actually attach much importance to even the rights and interests of animals and pets, thus suggesting also that the residents affected by the Government's demolition exercises should be allowed to take their cats and dogs to the allocated public housing units …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr TSE, please raise your supplementary question directly.

MR TONY TSE (in Cantonese): … They portray such situations as break-ups of families. While looking into the situation of OWPs, the Secretary also said that priority will not be given to any people just because they have more money and resources. I would like to enquire and seek clarification as to whether there will be means tests during the assessment of OWP applications. Is financial capacity one of the considerations?

7452 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): President, the very supplementary question raised just now gives me the opportunity to explain how the point-based system works in the Mainland. The point-based system in the Mainland is actually open and transparent, with information also published on websites or in a number of other different public occasions. For example, the calculation for reunion with spouses is done by multiplying the number of days of separation by 0.1. At present, only those separated for more than four years are eligible to come to stay in Hong Kong, so they must have accumulated more than 146 (i.e. 365x4x0.1) points. This is very open and transparent. That is to say, the longer the separation is, the higher the score will be, but those not reaching 146 points with their period of separation are simply ineligible.

As for those seeking to take care of unsupported parents, the calculation is based on the average age of their parents. Namely, if the average age of their parents is 60, then there are 60 points. If the age is older, the score will be higher. For example, there will be 65 points for the age of 65. This calculation is thus based on the age. As for unsupported children coming to join their parents, the calculation is done by subtracting the child's age from the age of 18. In other words, a 17-year-old will have 1 point, and a one-year-old baby will have 17 points. This calculation is thus also based on the age. As for unsupported elderly people joining their children, the calculation is done by subtracting 59 from their age, so it is based on the same principle that I have just mentioned. If the age is 60, then subtracting 59 from 60 will give 1 point. If the age is 65, then subtracting 59 from 65 will give 6 points.

Therefore, there is no financial consideration because, as Mr TSE has rightly said, family reunion should not be measured by a price tag. It is unfair to let only name-brand stuff come to Hong Kong, but not otherwise. In summary, the point-based system has made it so very clear to the public that the calculation for spouses is based on their length of separation; for those seeking to take care of their unsupported parents, the calculation is based on the age of the parents; and the younger a child is, the higher the score will be.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Third question.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7453

The Environmentally Friendly Linkage System for Kowloon East

3. MR WILSON OR (in Cantonese): President, the Environmentally Friendly Linkage System for Kowloon East ("EFLS") proposed by the Government is an elevated monorail which will start and end respectively at the Kowloon Bay Station and the Kwun Tong Station of the MTR Kwun Tong Line, run through the Kai Tak Development Area and connect the Kai Tak Station of the Shatin to Central Link. The Government is currently conducting the second-stage detailed feasibility study for EFLS. As the passenger throughput of the Kwun Tong Line during peak hours has reached the maximum capacity at present, some members of the public are worried that the Kwun Tong Line can hardly cope with the additional patronage to be brought about by EFLS upon its commissioning. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) whether it knows the estimated passenger throughput and passenger loading of the Kwun Tong Line during the peak hours between 2019 and 2021; whether it has requested the MTR Corporation Limited to conduct a study on increasing the carrying capacity of the Kwun Tong Line; if so, of the details of the study;

(2) whether the study for the next stage to be conducted for EFLS will comprise simulation tests for estimating the capabilities of Kowloon Bay Station, Kai Tak Station and Kwun Tong Station in coping with additional passenger flows; and

(3) of the respective expected dates for the completion of the study for the next stage, confirmation of the final proposal, works commencement and commissioning for EFLS; when it will submit the relevant funding applications to the Finance Committee of this Council?

SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, the Kai Tak Development ("KTD") is a mega-scale project in the urban area. The Government has been actively taking forward the implementation of various infrastructure projects in phases to cope with the new population intake and various development needs in the district. We have also incorporated an indicative alignment of the Environmentally Friendly Linkage System ("EFLS") within KTD in the approved Kai Tak Outline Zoning Plan.

7454 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

In 2009, the Civil Engineering and Development Department conducted a preliminary feasibility study on EFLS. Public consultation on the proposed initial scheme of elevated monorail system was conducted between 2012 and 2014. While general support to implementation of EFLS was received, there were concerns about its impacts on the existing facilities and environment during the construction and operation periods, as well as the relevant financial burden.

To address public concerns, we commenced in 2015 a two-staged Detailed Feasibility Study ("DFS") for the proposed EFLS with a view to formulating a scheme that could meet the relevant statutory and technical requirements, as well as coming up with a cost-effective scheme generally acceptable to the stakeholders.

In mid-2017, we conducted the interim public consultation on the findings of the first stage of DFS to solicit public views on the proposal of adopting elevated modes for developing EFLS. We also consulted the relevant District Councils and obtained their general support. Some members expressed concern over the development and operation costs involved in the said system. Some members also suggested the Government to evaluate whether other modes of environmentally friendly transport, such as electric buses, travellators, etc., could be adopted.

In the course of conducting DFS, we encountered more-than-expected complicated challenges, thus requiring more time to review and explore feasible solutions. For example, how the proposed system could be efficiently constructed and operated under the constraints of limited road space and urban environment overcrowded with people and vehicles in the areas; and how the tracks and associated structures of EFLS could be planned and constructed. Besides, we also need to consider how a balance could be struck, within the limits of practicality, on the multi-faceted opinions and aspirations of the public and stakeholders over the recommended alignment and site selection for various stations of the proposed EFLS. Currently, we are conducting the second stage of DFS for the proposed system, including its coverage, alignment and station locations, etc. We will also make reference to the latest development and experiences in the environmentally friendly transportation technology at home and abroad, with the associated technical and financial assessments being carried out concurrently, so as to ascertain the feasibility of the proposed EFLS. Upon completion of the study, the Government will formulate the way forward for the proposed EFLS project.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7455

Regarding the passenger carrying capacity and passenger carrying rate of the MTR Kwun Tong Line ("KTL"), the Government and the MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL") have been monitoring closely the situation. In this regard, MTRCL is carrying out signal upgrading works of MTR KTL, and will carry out improvement works to specific stations, in order to allow a smooth passenger flow within stations. On the question of the possible implication of the proposed EFLS in Kowloon East ("KE") on the concerned MTR stations, we will conduct assessment as situation demands in the next phase of the study.

Our response to the questions raised by Mr Wilson OR, having taken into account the inputs of the relevant Policy Bureau and departments, is as follows:

(1) According to MTRCL, the average loading during morning peak hours for the critical link (i.e. Shek Kip Mei to Prince Edward) of KTL in 2018 was 51 200 people. Making reference to the design carrying capacity of train compartment, i.e. an average accommodation of up to six persons (standing) per square metre ("ppsm"), the loading of KTL was 72%. If the actual loading of each train is calculated on the basis of four ppsm, KTL was considered fully loaded during morning peak hours.

MTRCL is currently upgrading the signalling system of KTL with a view to enhancing the overall passenger capacity. The upgrading works for KTL is expected to be completed by 2020. Furthermore, to smoothen the passenger flow at stations of KTL which are particularly busy, MTRCL will improve station facilities, enhance management on platforms, and improve train door devices.

The patronage and loading of KTL during 2019-2021, as asked, would be affected by various factors, including increased frequency of trains after the signalling system upgrade, and change in patronage by community developments along KTL, which would affect its passenger loading. The Government and MTRCL will continue to closely monitor the situation.

(2) As mentioned above, we are conducting the second stage of DFS for the proposed EFLS in KE, including its network coverage, alignment and station locations, etc. We will also make reference to the latest development and experiences in the field of environmentally friendly 7456 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

transportation technology at home and abroad, with the associated technical and financial assessments being carried out concurrently, so as to ascertain the feasibility of EFLS.

On the question of the possible implication of the proposed EFLS on the concerned MTR stations, we will conduct assessment as situation demands in the next phase of the study.

(3) The DFS of the proposed EFLS is under way. Upon completion of the study, we will formulate the way forward for the proposed EFLS project. The precise implementation programme is not available at this stage.

MR WILSON OR (in Cantonese): President, I strongly feel that the Secretary's reply has no substance at all. This is why the general public have been criticizing the Government for stalling on every matter. In fact, the Government has stalled the proposed EFLS for KE from 2007 to 2019. It has been 12 years now. There has been hardly any progress. The authorities conducted two consultations and three studies, but to date, they fail to lay down any concrete timetable or implementation details.

The authorities intend to turn KE into a core business district connected by an elevated monorail. But apparently, they are yet to have any directions. Secretary, I wish to further ask a question. Twelve years have passed. How much more time will the authorities need to complete the study? Will the study, which is based on the present technology, be able to tie in with the practical situation and be abreast of the times when it is completed? Will the authorities' environmentally friendly designs and technologies applied be able to tie in with the specific construction circumstances by then?

SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, I thank Mr OR for his question. We understand Mr OR's concern, and we also wish to speed up the progress. I outlined the challenges we had encountered in the main reply. Perhaps, allow me to provide more details here. Actually, after completing the first-staged DFS, we arrived at the proposed elevated railway system. But the proposal represents a number of technical challenges that are not easy to be dealt with.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7457

First, if Members remember the EFLS alignment, the alignment turns at the end of the runway to connect with Hoi Yuen Road and then reconnect with Kwun Tong Station. Since Kwun Tong is an old district, its roads are relatively narrow. If we adopt an elevated mode for the railway system, it may not be able to meet the requirements set out under the Fire Safety (Buildings) Ordinance. In other words, it cannot meet the distance requirements for firemen in the event of fire.

Another challenge is Kowloon Bay. The original alignment routes via the Kowloon Bay Action Area and then turn to connect with Kowloon Bay Station. But we find that this alignment involves a bend spanning a large area and it also needs to pass through Kwun Tong Road and the existing MTR KTL. So, this represents a very big challenge.

The third challenge is that the alignment is supposed to turn inland at the end of the runway to connect with Hoi Yuen Road where there will be a station, or there will be one at Wai Yip Street. This alignment has to straddle over the water body of the Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter ("KTTS"). This requires appropriate adjustments to be made to meet the requirements under the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance. Besides, when the alignment enters Kwun Tong district, it also needs to be constructed at an elevation higher than the existing Kwun Tong Bypass. These are technical difficulties that actually exist.

President, there is another new development … I will be brief … and that is the changes in the planning of KTD. According to the latest outline zoning plan published last May, the population of KTD will be increased by almost 30% and the commercial floor area will also be increased by 20%. So, we need to deal with these data in the latest assessment as well.

Moreover, as you know, we have been conducting a number of smart projects (i.e. smart city initiatives) in KE. In fact, Members probably know that one of the advantages of an elevated railway system is that it does not occupy a lot of road space. However, in recent years, many smart city initiatives have enabled us to more efficiently use existing roads. We thus need to explore these issues in greater detail in the present second-staged DFS.

MR FRANKIE YICK (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary's main reply has not mentioned the concern of the marine work industry that I represent. But just now, he did briefly talk about it in the oral reply. The Secretary points out that 7458 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 the public have expressed concerns in the consultation exercise over the impacts of EFLS on the facilities and environment during the construction and operation periods, as well as the relevant financial burden. The problem lies in the Kwun Tong Transportation Link ("KTTL") under the Bureau's proposal, which is to be constructed at the runway end. This is a convenient option. However, given the weaker grade ability of monorails, an option the Bureau has chosen, dumb lighters of the marine work industry will not be able to enter KTTS after the construction of KTTL. This will pose a hazard to the life and property of marine work operators. Hence, in a proposal we submitted to the Bureau earlier, we suggest the option of retreating the location of KTTL to the middle section of the runway if the Bureau confirms adopting the KTTL proposal, so as to preserve the entrance of KTTS. And we then arrange the mooring of vessels to solve this problem. But I notice the Secretary has not mentioned our proposal at all in his main reply. I thus wish to ask the Secretary a question. Will he actively consider our proposal submitted earlier and relocate KTTL from the runway end to the middle of the runway?

SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): Mr YICK is very familiar with the operation of the marine and transport industries. KTTS is still in busy operation. If we scrap this typhoon shelter, the total typhoon shelter area will be insufficient to meet the demand unless we manage to find other places to serve as typhoon shelters. Hence, we will carefully consider the impacts of the future development of EFLS on the operation of KTTS. However, I cannot answer at the moment whether it is better to relocate KTTL to the middle section of the runway, and this issue will have to be further explored in the ongoing DFS.

MR KENNETH LAU (in Cantonese): President, it is in the Kai Tak Outline Zoning Plan published in 2007 that the Government proposed EFLS just mentioned for KTD. It has been 12 years since then. The Government has time and again stalled on the proposal. With the commissioning of the Kai Tak Cruise Terminal building and several housing estates in KTD, transport demands in the area have increased. Will the Government consider providing more public transport services to connect KTD with the urban area? Before the commissioning of EFLS, will it consider using environmentally friendly transport modes, such as environmentally friendly buses and minibuses, as provisional transport measures, so as to tie in with the development tempo of the area and increasing transport demands of the residents? If it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7459

SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): Perhaps, I will let the Under Secretary for Transport and Housing answer this question.

UNDER SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): First of all, I thank Mr Kenneth LAU for his supplementary question. In response to the population growth in KTD, the Transport Department is closely monitoring the transport situation in KTD and it is willing to make corresponding transport arrangements. In this regard, we have listened to Mr LAU's view, especially the use of environmentally friendly transport modes to connect the development inside or outside KTD. We will actively consider this view.

MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): According to the main reply, the Secretary regards the elevated monorail as an important element in KTD. But there are now two projects in the area, namely the Energizing Kowloon East ("EKE") initiative and the KTD initiative. I do not think EFLS can handle the two initiatives because it is originally designed to cope with the relatively small population in the Kai Tak area. If it is now going to cover the service demands generated from EKE, it will become two different concepts.

Thus, I wish to ask the Government a question. Will the Government change the role and positioning of EFLS, so as to reflect the change from its original purpose of an environmentally friendly transport system to the purpose of effectively relieving the existing pressure on the mass transport systems in the area by using Kai Tak Station and Yau Tong Station to divert the passenger flow of KTL?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Which Secretaries will reply? Secretary for Development.

SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, I thank Mr WU for the supplementary question. As I just pointed out, we encountered quite a few technical challenges on the elevated system. We have not given up yet. However, in the ongoing DFS, we will also explore whether there is any non-elevated modes or on-the-ground options for the transport system, and whether using the latest smart city technologies can more effectively use the road surface. We will explore these subjects. 7460 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

Mr WU raised an additional perspective. I believe Mr OR's question also implicitly contains this perspective, and that is whether EFLS will actually increase the pressure on KTL or divert the passenger flow from KTL. We hope that EFLS will divert the traffic, but this still awaits confirmation in DFS. As to whether linking up Yau Tong Station and Kai Tak Station, as Mr WU suggests, can divert the traffic, we will further consider this option.

MR WILSON OR (in Cantonese): President, it is said in part (3) of the main reply that "The precise implementation programme is not available at this stage". I wish to further ask the Secretary a question. Given EFLS has been stalled for 12 years, how will the Government monitor the arrangements of the whole project to ensure that the project can be completed within a reasonable time? The Secretary mentioned many problems just now. But there must be a solution to every problem. Can the Secretary tell us how much longer does he need to stall on this project? Is there any specific timetable?

SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): I thank Mr OR for the supplementary question. The present situation is, like I said in the main reply, that we will strive to expedite the conduct of DFS. But given the proposal has encountered major technical challenges, I believe it cannot be completed within this year. As to whether we can arrive at a proposal in the coming year, we will conduct a public consultation in the second-staged DFS. We will work hard along this direction. I am being honest in the main reply. It is not easy to overcome the challenges ahead. At this moment, we do not have a detailed timetable.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Fourth question.

Mainland tourists visiting Hong Kong

4. MR LAU KWOK-FAN (in Cantonese): President, under the Individual Visit Scheme ("IVS"), Mainland residents living in cities covered by IVS may visit Hong Kong after obtaining an endorsement for individual visit (i.e. "the G endorsement") issued by the Mainland's Public Security Bureau Office, while residents in other Mainland places visiting Hong Kong are required to obtain an endorsement for group visit (i.e. "the L endorsement") and enter Hong Kong in LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7461 tour groups. However, the Mainland authorities have not imposed a requirement on the minimum number of persons constituting an inbound Mainland tour group ("IMTG"), such that one person may also constitute a tour group. Besides, it has been reported that same as IVS visitors, Mainland residents with the L endorsement may now visit Hong Kong on their own and are no longer required to enter Hong Kong in tour groups (such as tour groups organized in Shenzhen on an ad hoc basis). The aforesaid arrangements have rendered the L endorsement tantamount to the G endorsement. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) whether it has assessed the pressure on the tourist facilities in Hong Kong brought about by the arrangements of not imposing a requirement on the minimum number of persons constituting an IMTG and allowing Mainland residents with the L endorsement to visit Hong Kong on their own; if so, of the outcome; if not, the reasons for that;

(2) as the Government indicated in July last year that it would relay to the Mainland authorities concerns of Hong Kong people about such arrangements, of the replies received and follow-up actions taken by the Government; and

(3) as the Government indicated in January this year that it had all along maintained close liaison with the Travel Industry Council of Hong Kong to understand the situation of IMTG, of the details of the liaison work (including the frequency and scope); whether it will discuss with the Mainland authorities the setting up of a reciprocal notification mechanism between government departments so as to grasp right away the information relating to Mainland tourists visiting Hong Kong?

SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, the Government attaches great importance to the sustainable and healthy development of the tourism industry. Whilst ensuring that the industry brings about benefits to society, we also continuously seek to minimize as far as possible the impact of tourist activities on the local community.

7462 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

In response to the question raised by Mr LAU Kwok-fan, my reply is as follows:

(1) and (2)

The Government has been maintaining close liaison with the Mainland authorities on the arrangements for Mainland visitors to visit Hong Kong. The Mainland authorities have not indicated any change in policies concerning Mainland visitors' entry to Hong Kong.

In fact, the Government has been keeping a close watch on the situation of Mainland visitors coming to Hong Kong. In 2018, the total visitor arrivals to Hong Kong rose 11.4% year-on-year, of which overnight visitor arrivals rose 4.9% year-on-year. Nevertheless, we notice that, in the past three years from 2016 onwards, the percentage of Mainland visitors arriving with a group visit endorsement (commonly known as L-permit) out of the total Mainland visitors remained at around 15% every year.

That said, in view of the increase in overall Mainland visitor arrivals to Hong Kong, the Government has been joining hands with different stakeholders to implement various targeted measures to minimize the impact of tourist activities on the local community.

Before peak periods of Mainland visitor arrivals, including the Chinese New Year and National Day Golden Weeks, the Government will convene inter-departmental meetings to coordinate amongst departments the enhancement of visitor crowd control measures. Meanwhile, the Government has been pragmatic in tackling problems brought about by inbound tour groups to the local community. It has been maintaining close liaison with the travel trade, the Travel Industry Council of Hong Kong ("TIC"), district personalities and Legislative Council Members to implement various targeted mitigation measures, including encouraging tour coaches to use proper parking spaces, appealing to the trade to observe order when receiving tour groups and use information technology in strengthening control on visitor and vehicular flows, etc. The LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7463

Tourism Commission, together with relevant government departments and TIC, also meets with trade representatives from time to time to follow up on their arrangements in receiving inbound tour groups.

Furthermore, the Government, in collaboration with the Hong Kong Tourism Board ("HKTB") and the travel trade, will continue to take forward the Development Blueprint for Hong Kong's Tourism Industry published in 2017, including nurturing and developing tourism products and initiatives with local and international characteristics, so as to cater for the needs and preferences of different visitor segments and divert tourists to different districts for sightseeing and shopping.

The Government will continue to take forward tourism projects with local characteristics in different districts, such as the "Revitalisation of Dr Sun Yat-sen Historical Trail", "Old Town Central" and "Design District Hong Kong" projects, as well as the "Hong Kong Neighbourhoods―Sham Shui Po" district promotion campaign successively launched over the past two years.

On cultural tourism, a number of facilities in the West Kowloon Cultural District ("WKCD") are being completed in phases, including the Xiqu Centre opened in early 2019 and the museum facilities in the pipeline. This will help make WKCD a new integral cluster of tourist attractions. The 2019-2020 Budget also suggests allocating additional funding to HKTB so as to further promote Hong Kong as a premier tourism destination, enhance publicity on Hong Kong's major festivals and events, and entice visitors to experience Hong Kong's local culture in different districts, etc.

On green tourism, we will continue to promote its development in Hong Kong in accordance with the principles of nature conservation and sustainable development, including launching a new pilot art cum cultural, heritage and green event at Yim Tin Tsai of Sai Kung in end 2019. The 2019-2020 Budget also suggests allocating additional funding to the Tourism Commission such that it, together 7464 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

with other relevant government departments, will roll out various new initiatives, including improving the facilities of country trails in the vicinity, commissioning a consultancy study for enhancing the facilities of the Hong Kong Wetland Park, etc.

As regards theme parks, the Hong Kong Disneyland Resort is taking forward its expansion and development plan for launching new attractions during 2018 and the next few years. Ocean Park is also taking forward its all-weather water park project, which is expected to be completed by 2021.

The above mentioned measures will help divert visitors to different districts and enhance Hong Kong's tourist receiving capability.

(3) At present, TIC, as the industry's regulatory body, enforces clear guidelines requiring that travel agents in Hong Kong must, whenever receiving any Mainland inbound tour group, register with TIC and provide information about the tour group in advance. In this regard, TIC reports to the Government on the situation of Mainland inbound tour groups visiting Hong Kong from time to time. It also participates in the inter-departmental meetings convened by the Government before peak periods of Mainland visitor arrivals, such that relevant government departments and attraction operators can grasp the estimated number of tour groups visiting Hong Kong during the holidays and make corresponding arrangements.

In addition, the Government has been maintaining close liaison with the Ministry of Culture and Tourism and other local tourism authorities in the Mainland, and exchanging information on the situation of Mainland visitors to Hong Kong through the communication mechanism between both sides, as well as stepping up promotion and education targeting the trade as necessary. Before peak periods of Mainland visitor arrivals, including the Chinese New Year and National Day Golden Weeks, the Government appeals to the Mainland authorities to strengthen the management of visitor flows in collaboration with Hong Kong, as well as to disseminate in the Mainland public notices to remind visitors of various points to note when visiting Hong Kong. The LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7465

Government also learns from the Mainland visitors' travel patterns from time to time so as to notify relevant bureaux or departments for their corresponding actions as necessary.

MR LAU KWOK-FAN (in Cantonese): The reply given by the Secretary has completely failed to address the core issue of my question. We also understand that there is no change in the Mainland policies concerning L permit, but the problem is that a loophole exists in the system. Does the Secretary admit that there is a loophole in the existing policies concerning L permit, such that Mainland residents may abuse the system by visiting Hong Kong on their own, which in turn imposes pressure on the local community? Has the Government examined the problem or taken follow-up measures to plug the loophole and relayed to the relevant authorities the concerns of Hong Kong people?

SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, I thank the Member for this supplementary question. As I pointed out in the main reply, we will continue to relay to the relevant Mainland ministries the situation in Hong Kong. However, we have made reference to some actual figures, which reveal that over the past few years, the percentage of Mainland visitors arriving with L permit out of the total Mainland visitors has remained at around 15% every year. We will therefore continue to closely monitor the arrangements in the light of the actual figures and the situation in local community, and maintain liaison with the relevant ministries.

MR LAM CHEUK-TING (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary alleged that according to actual figures, the percentage of Mainland visitors arriving with L permit out of the total Mainland visitors has remained at around 15%, and that they would monitor the actual situation in local community. I would like to tell the Secretary that the situation in local community is really bad, because to my knowledge, many Mainland visitors have repeatedly entered Hong Kong with L permit or G permit to engage in parallel trading activities, causing serious nuisance to local community. The Secretary said that they would liaise with the relevant Mainland ministries, and that the actual figures revealed no changes, but even though the percentage has remained at around 15%, it is still possible that many of these Mainland visitors have abused the mechanism and entered 7466 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

Hong Kong to engage in parallel trading activities. Why does the Government not take actions to plug the loophole as early as possible? Mainland visitors who visit Hong Kong with an endorsement for group visit should enter Hong Kong in tour groups, because visiting on their own is contrary to the policy intent of the arrangements. Why has the Secretary not taken any action?

SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, I thank the Member for this supplementary question. In order to tackle the problems concerning parallel trading activities or heavy visitor flows in the North District, we will take a series of actions jointly with different government departments, including the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department, Immigration Department, Hong Kong Police Force, etc. In this connection, we have explained to Members on many occasions. As for the suggestion put forward by the Member just now, as I have said in my reply to Mr LAU Kwok-fan's question, we will maintain close liaison with the relevant departments and Mainland ministries.

MR YIU SI-WING (in Cantonese): President, according to the Secretary, as far as the regulation of Mainland inbound tour groups is concerned, registration must be made with TIC so that the Government can grasp the required information. However, some trade members have relayed to me that suspected unauthorized Mainland tour groups could often be found in various tourist attractions. These are tour groups visiting the territory without receiving travel agents and tourist guides in Hong Kong, but as a sign was not displayed on the front window of the tourist coaches used by these suspected unauthorized Mainland tour groups, and their tourist guides were not wearing a tourist guide pass, it was difficult to prove whether they were unauthorized tour groups. The situation of unauthorized tour groups went out of control at the early stage of the commissioning of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge, causing serious traffic problems in the areas concerned. Secretary, is there anything that the Government can do to regulate the rampant activities of unauthorized Mainland tour groups before the establishment of a Travel Industry Authority ("TIA")?

SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, I thank Mr YIU for his supplementary question. First of all, with regard to the Bills Committee formed to scrutinize the legislative LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7467 proposal to establish a TIA, I would like to express gratitude to Mr YIU for his assistance in handling concerns expressed by trade members and local people from different areas.

As we all know, we will be able to step up investigation and evidence collection in respect of unauthorized Mainland tour groups after the establishment of TIA. As for what can we do to address the problem before the establishement of TIA? Continuous efforts will be made to tackle the problem of unauthorized tour groups through liaison with TIC, trade members or other stakeholders. In fact, we have already made it very clear that trade members should not cooperate with Mainland unauthorized tour groups, and they are neither recommended nor encouraged to do so. We will relay to the relevant Mainland ministries the information concerning unauthorized tour groups if there is evidence of their operations in the territory, thereby combating such activities at source.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr YIU Si-wing, which part of your supplementary question has not been answered?

MR YIU SI-WING (in Cantonese): The reply given by the Secretary is not detailed enough. When it comes to the liaison with the Mainland authorities, what specific measures are in place to enable the relevant Mainland authorities to regulate unauthorized tour groups?

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

SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): We will closely liaise with members of the trade, and once it is noted that certain unauthorized tour groups have visited the territory, or some tourist guides or tour escorts have engaged in travel business without a valid pass, the relevant information will immediately be relayed to the relevant Mainland ministries and the Department of Culture and Tourism through the established communication mechanism, so that inquiries may be conducted by the relevant Mainland authorities against these offending members of the trade.

7468 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Gary FAN, please put down your placard first, because your placard is too big.

MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): Secretary, you have mentioned in parts (1) and (2) of the main reply that a number of measures would be adopted to help divert visitors to different districts and enhance Hong Kong's tourist receiving capability, but such an approach can only address the symptoms rather than solve the problem at the root. It only serves to spread the overcrowding problem in certain areas to different areas in the 18 districts across the territory, and is of no help to solving the problem.

President, Hong Kong is a ridiculous city with a ridiculous tourism policy, and public officers here also acted in a ridiculous manner. Hong Kong is a city with a population of 7.4 million, but the number of visitor arrivals to the city amounts to 60 million every year; while the population in Japan is 130 million, but the number of visitor arrivals to the country is only 50% of that of Hong Kong …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr FAN, please raise your supplementary question directly.

MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): … amounts to 27 million only. Hence, apart from diverting visitors to different districts, which is actually of no help to solving the problem, should the Government also consider making adjustments to its tourism policy, such as revamping the "one trip per week" policy, reducing the number of cities covered by IVS, with a view to curbing the growth of the number of visitors at source? Will the Government consider them; if not, what are the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): I thank the Member for this supplementary question. Since the implementation of the "one trip per week" policy, the number of visitors making multiple visits to Hong Kong within one day or one week has already been effectively and significantly reduced, or those who are considered to be engaged LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7469 in parallel trading activities, their number of visits to Hong Kong has also been reduced. With regard to tourism policy, we hope to have a stable and healthy development of the tourism industry, and have therefore focused on attracting high value-added overnight visitors to Hong Kong in our promotion. Hence, we have spent nearly 70% to 80% of the resources allocated for promoting tourism on markets which are relatively far away.

As for the diversion of visitors, we will strive to divert them to different tourist attractions, including theme parks or tourist spots which are far away from urban areas and residential areas.

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

MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary has not answered my supplementary question. I did not ask question about diversion, but whether it will consider adopting measures other than diversion …

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

MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): … and this is absolutely not a healthy approach to dealing with the matter. Has the Secretary noticed the questions raised by a number of Members during the Chief Executive's Question Time today, and is the current situation in To Kwa Wan healthy?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Gary FAN, you have already pointed out the part of your supplementary question that has not been answered. Please sit down.

SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): We understand that the problems in certain districts are indeed very serious, especially in some very popular tourist spots, including To Kwa Wan 7470 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 which a number of Members have mentioned today. As mentioned by the Chief Executive, we will handle the matter very seriously. With regard to diversion measures or other policy considerations, we consider it necessary to first carry out a good planning on our tourism infrastructure, and we can then strengthen diversion measures.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Fifth question.

The Belt and Road Office

5. MR CHUNG KWOK-PAN (in Cantonese): In order to help Hong Kong grasp the opportunities brought by the Belt and Road Initiative, the Government set up a Belt and Road Office ("the Office") in 2016 to take forward the relevant work effectively and on a sustained basis. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) in respect of the Office, of its current staffing establishment, whether there will be any increase in its future manpower, its annual expenditure since establishment, and its future estimated expenditure;

(2) whether it has assessed the effectiveness of the work of the Office since its establishment and if the anticipated results have been achieved; if it has assessed, of the outcome, including the achievements of the work of the Office on aspects such as liaising with mainland institutions and ministries, promoting Hong Kong to the countries along the Belt and Road, and seeking business opportunities that Hong Kong businessmen need; and

(3) whether it has set the future work targets and plans for the Office; if so, of the details and timetable; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, the Belt and Road Initiative has gradually developed economic and trade cooperation corridors spanning Europe, Asia and Africa, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7471 which has created greater room for Hong Kong's economic and social development. The current-term Government has been playing the role of "facilitator" and "promoter" proactively to implement policies and measures to seize the opportunities brought by the Belt and Road Initiative. Riding on our various unique advantages, and in view of the opportunities and challenges, we have formulated a five-pronged Belt and Road key strategy on continuous engagement with the Mainland and Belt and Road related countries and regions. These themes include (i) enhancing policy coordination; (ii) fully leveraging Hong Kong's unique advantages; (iii) making the best use of Hong Kong's position as the professional services hub; (iv) promoting project participation; and (v) establishing partnership and collaboration.

Replies to the three parts of Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan's question are as follows:

(1) At present, the Belt and Road Office has a total establishment of 19, and this will increase to 21 in 2019-2020. Since the setting up of the Belt and Road Office in August 2016, its expenditure in 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 was $5.306 million and $13.968 million respectively, while the anticipated expenditure for 2018-2019 is $21.185 million. The estimated expenditure of the Belt and Road Office for 2019-2020 is $39.958 million.

(2) Progress has been made in respect of the work by the Belt and Road Office in various aspects. On enhancing policy coordination, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("HKSAR") Government has stepped up cooperation with Mainland authorities in participating in the Belt and Road Initiative, and the "Arrangement between the National Development and Reform Commission and the Government of the HKSAR for Advancing Hong Kong's Full Participation in and Contribution to the Belt and Road Initiative" ("the Arrangement") was signed on 14 December 2017 to provide a blueprint for mutual cooperation. The Arrangement puts forward specific collaboration measures, covering various areas including finance and investment; infrastructure and maritime services; economic and trade facilitation and cooperation; people-to-people bond; enhancing collaboration in project interfacing and dispute resolution services; as well as taking forward the Greater Bay Area 7472 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

Development. In accordance with the Arrangement, a Joint Conference mechanism has been set up between the HKSAR Government and relevant Mainland authorities as a platform for regular and direct communication, and the first Joint Conference meeting was convened in mid-June 2018.

In addition, the Government has been actively promoting strategic partnership between enterprises in Hong Kong and on the Mainland as well as Hong Kong professional services sector to capitalize on Hong Kong's advantages and make the best use of our position as the professional services hub, and seeking collaboration with relevant professional associations and chambers of commerce to explore the Belt and Road Initiative business opportunities for enterprises and professional services sector of Hong Kong. These include organizing exchange seminars and project interfacing activities and visits to Belt and Road related countries and regions. For example, the Government organized a large-scale seminar targeting state-owned enterprises in February 2018 under the theme of "Leveraging Hong Kong's Advantages, Meeting the Country's Needs" in conjunction with the Belt and Road General Chamber of Commerce in Beijing, which sought to facilitate establishment of direct contact between enterprises and professionals in the Mainland and Hong Kong. The Government also co-organized with the Hong Kong Trade Development Council ("HKTDC") the second and third Belt and Road Summits respectively on 11 September 2017 and 28 June 2018, and supported HKTDC's work in investment and business matching related to the Belt and Road Initiative.

Furthermore, sharing sessions respectively on overseas Economic and Trade Cooperation Zones; Belt and Road trade and investment policies; and risk management of Belt and Road projects were held in conjunction with the State-owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission of the State Council and the Ministry of Commerce in Hong Kong on 14 August 2018, 12 November 2018 and 25 February 2019.

The Government is committed to enhancing the capacity of the Hong Kong professional services sector under the Belt and Road Initiative, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7473

with a view to better equipping the professional services to capitalize on the opportunities and meet the challenges brought by the Initiative. The Commerce and Economic Development Bureau supported the development of the Belt and Road Cross-Professional Advancement Programme, which has received funding from the Professional Services Advancement Support Scheme (which is being managed by the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau). The Programme was launched on 12 December 2018, and is being undertaken by The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, with support from a number of professional associations and chambers of commerce.

(3) The HKSAR Government will continue to strengthen policy exchanges and coordination with the Mainland authorities and follow up on the implementation of the Arrangement by means of the various direct communication platforms, including the Belt and Road Joint Conference mechanism established with the ministries of the Central Authorities, and the Mainland and Hong Kong Belt and Road Task Group established with the Ministry of Commerce. The second Belt and Road Joint Conference is tentatively scheduled to be held in mid-2019.

The Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development is currently (from 18 to 23 March) leading a delegation comprising representatives from industrial, business and professional sectors to visit Georgia and Hungary to meet with local government officials responsible for commerce and industry, investment and infrastructure development. The delegation will gain a better understanding of the latest local market situation, as well as foster connection and cooperation between Hong Kong enterprises and professional associations and the local enterprises thereof. The Belt and Road Office will plan for visiting other Belt and Road countries within this year, with a view to assisting enterprises/professionals to explore market opportunities.

To help Hong Kong businessmen and investors expand their overseas markets, we will continue to strengthen our economic partnerships with other economies, and actively seek to forge Free 7474 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

Trade Agreements and Investment Promotion and Protection Agreements with more trading partners (including Belt and Road related countries and regions), with a view to facilitating the long-term economic development of Hong Kong.

The Government and HKTDC will co-organize the fourth Belt and Road Summit on 11 and 12 September 2019 to continue to promote and foster Hong Kong as an international commerce and trading platform for the Belt and Road Initiative. "Hong Kong IN: Creating and Realising Opportunities" will be the theme of this year's Summit, and the Summit will continue to feature investment and business matching sessions and one-to-one project matching meetings to encourage business partnerships.

The Government will continue to adopt a whole-government approach and the five-pronged key strategy in the pursuit of the Belt and Road Initiative, with a view to establishing Hong Kong as both a key link and the prime Belt and Road services platform.

MR CHUNG KWOK-PAN (in Cantonese): President, I do not know if the question I raised today is really frivolous or completely useless. Look, other Members are not here in the Chamber. I do not know if you, President, have ever seen a question session in which no Member is present in the Chamber or no follow-up question is raised.

The Belt and Road Initiative is an important policy of the State, and yet no one in the Hong Kong legislature raises any follow-up question about it. This being the case, I have no supplementary question.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary.

SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, may I know what the supplementary question is?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7475

MR CHUNG KWOK-PAN (in Cantonese): President, I have no supplementary question.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Last oral question.

Emergency respite and emergency home care services for the elderly and persons with disabilities

6. DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, some carers of the elderly and persons with disabilities ("PWDs") have relayed to me that currently, there is a lack of emergency respite and emergency home care services for the elderly and PWDs, resulting in some carers who were taken ill during late hours having to give up receiving treatment in hospitals. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) whether it will examine the provision of subsidized emergency respite and emergency home care services for the elderly and PWDs (including persons with severe disabilities) to be operated round-the-clock in all districts in Hong Kong; if so, of the details (including the timetable); if not, the reasons for that; and

(2) given that subsidized residential care homes ("RCHs") often refuse, on grounds of their inability to provide medical care services, to provide respite care service for those who need intensive medical care or those who suffer from impaired consciousness (such as persons with severe dementia and vegetative persons), whether the Government will request the Hospital Authority to provide such service or help subsidized RCHs obtain the relevant resources to provide such service; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Since Dr Fernando CHEUNG has to remain wheelchair-bound due to his lower back injuries, his seating arrangement has been changed temporarily, and appropriate adjustment has been made to his speaking and voting systems. I wish Dr Fernando CHEUNG a speedy recovery.

7476 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Thank you, President.

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

The Government is committed to providing various community care services for elderly persons and persons with disabilities and support services for carers, assisting elderly persons and persons with disabilities to live in the community, strengthening carers' caring capacity and relieving their stress, so as to improve the quality of life of elderly persons, persons with disabilities and carers. Support services provided by the Government include respite services for elderly persons and for persons with disabilities, which provide temporary and short-term day and residential care services for persons living in the community who require assistance from family members or relatives in their personal care. This allows carers to be temporarily relieved from their caring responsibilities when necessary, thereby reducing their pressure and allowing them to manage their personal commitments.

At present, the Government provides a total of 170 designated day respite places in 39 subvented day care centres or units for the elderly. All day care centres or units for the elderly can also make use of any of their casual day care vacancies to offer respite service. In addition, the 60 Integrated Home Care Services Teams and 34 Enhanced Home and Community Care Services Teams currently provide home respite service for service users, and would arrange respite service for elderly persons in need. The home care services teams also offer, through hotlines, 24-hour emergency support to provide elderly persons and their carers with necessary information and assistance during emergencies.

As regards residential respite service for elderly persons, in addition to the 55 designated residential respite places provided by subvented and contract residential care homes for the elderly, the Government also utilizes casual vacancies of the subsidized places in all subvented nursing homes, care-and-attention homes, contract residential care homes for the elderly, as well as private residential care homes for the elderly participating in the Enhanced Bought Place Scheme to provide residential respite service. Besides, the Chief Executive announced in the 2018 Policy Address that the Government would, in 2019-2020, purchase additional residential places from private residential care homes for the elderly participating in the Enhanced Bought Place Scheme to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7477 increase the number of residential respite places for elderly persons, and would regularize such an initiative. It is expected that around 270 additional designated residential respite places will be provided.

In addition, the Government currently provides a total of 65 emergency residential places for the elderly in 17 subvented residential care homes for the elderly and six subvented nursing homes. The service aims at providing emergency residential care for elderly persons when their carers encounter sudden incidents, such as having to be admitted into hospitals.

As regards respite service for persons with disabilities, the District Support Centres for Persons with Disabilities and the two types of home care services, including the Home Care Service for Persons with Severe Disabilities and the Integrated Support Service for Persons with Severe Physical Disabilities, provide home respite service for their service users.

In addition, day respite services are provided in the Day Activity Centres, the District Support Centres for Persons with Disabilities, and the Care and Attention Homes for Persons with Disabilities, whereas residential respite services are provided in residential care homes for persons with disabilities subvented by the Government. Currently, there are a total of 158 day respite service places and 297 residential respite service places.

All residential care homes for the elderly providing residential respite and emergency residential service and all residential care homes for persons with disabilities providing residential respite service operate seven days a week on a 24-hour basis. These residential care homes for the elderly and persons with disabilities would not refuse to provide respite service for elderly persons or persons with disabilities because of their poor health, physical disabilities or poor cognitive abilities, including severe dementia. Nevertheless, to protect the safety of other residents, elderly persons and persons with disabilities admitted into these types of residential places must be free from contagious disease and mentally fit for communal living, like the other residents of residential care homes for the elderly and persons with disabilities.

If persons with disabilities have unforeseen residential needs in case of emergency, subvented residential care homes for persons with disabilities providing residential respite service could cater to such cases in the light of individual circumstances. As regards emergency residential service for elderly 7478 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 persons, in accordance with existing practice, these types of residential places require referrals from social workers to make placement arrangements in advance. If the elderly persons are in need of medical care, medical consultation and treatment can be arranged at suitable medical units, including the Accident and Emergency Department ("A&ED") under the Hospital Authority.

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary's reply is simply irrelevant to my question. My question asks how elderly people or persons with disabilities in general can obtain emergency respite care services or residential respite care services in emergency situations. But the Secretary's reply nonetheless asserts that a needy person must make prior registration, so that he can use the relevant services. Besides, integrated home care services and also enhanced home and community care services do not cover night hours, and the 24-hour hotline is a mere information hotline.

Third, residential care homes for persons with disabilities have time and again rejected those cases referred personally by us because the people involved in those cases need to use breathing machines or gastric feeding tubes, or because they are unable to articulate their needs. In the case of residential respite care services, users must search the Internet for the phone numbers of residential care homes providing the relevant services and then call them one by one to see if any residential care places are still available.

The Secretary thinks that the relevant services are already provided at present. So, I wish to talk about my case as an example. President, I accidentally hurt my lower back a few days ago. Completely unable to move, I must summons the ambulance to send me to A&ED. Suppose I do not know what support services are provided, and I have a daughter with severe disabilities. May I ask the Secretary what services I can seek, so that I can get immediate care for my daughter to ensure that her personal safety will not be compromised, and I can go to A&ED without any worries? May I ask the Secretary what services I can seek?

SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): President, Dr Fernando CHEUNG's main question is actually very wide in scope. Let me give a reply on the last part of his supplementary question.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7479

In dire emergencies, or in circumstances where no arrangements can be made, a residential care home for persons with disabilities will exercise discretion and arrange services for that person with disabilities before all else. It will ask the people concerned to submit documents such as examination records afterwards. Therefore, in the case of persons with disabilities, they can receive arrangements for respite care services in emergencies if need be.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Fernando CHEUNG, which part of your supplementary question has not been answered?

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Will the Secretary tell me specifically what services I can seek? He has only said that services are provided. Will he tell me directly the phone numbers I can call and the organizations I can contact in order to get such immediate services?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHEUNG, you have already pointed out the part of your supplementary question which has not been answered. Secretary, do you have anything to add?

SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): President, I do not have at hand the phone numbers of the organizations concerned. But I believe people in need may approach the relevant support service units in the community for assistance.

MR SHIU KA-CHUN (in Cantonese): President, the main question and also the supplementary question asked by Dr Fernando CHEUNG are actually very clear. His questions ask whether the Government has provided any emergency residential respite care services or home care services, meaning one-stop support services that can be obtained with a simple phone call. For instance, a person in need may receive emergency services simply by dialling 999.

But the existing home care services team only provide 24-hour support services in frail cases. Ordinary cases or carers of the elderly and persons with 7480 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 disabilities who have never used home care services before are utterly unable to receive any support services. And, people in need must call residential care homes one by one in order to receive residential care services.

May I ask the Secretary whether the authorities will introduce 24-hour emergency support services for carers, and also 24-hour care support services?

SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): President, elderly people or carers who call the 24-hour hotline of the Social Welfare Department ("SWD") due to late-night emergencies can receive assistance with the arrangements for residential respite care services.

MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): President, the earlier questions from the two Members were all very clear. I wonder why the Secretary would give such replies.

Just now, Dr Fernando CHEUNG cited many concrete examples and, in view of the Secretary's assertion that the relevant organizations had been set up in the community, he asked the Secretary whether they could be found in each and every district. He also asked the Secretary whether there was a central hotline, while urging the Secretary to name the departments concerned. He further questioned whether the authorities had merely relied on non-governmental organizations to provide the relevant services, and whether it was true to say that the Government did not see any need for assuming the relevant responsibilities.

My supplementary question is very simple as I will only repeat the contents of the two Members' questions. I would like to ask the Secretary to give a categorical answer. In circumstances where, for example, a person is caught in exactly the same situation as shown in Dr Fernando CHEUNG's personal experience, what phone numbers can he call, and also which government departments or organizations can he approach, so as to obtain direct assistance or residential respite care services for a needy person without any self-care abilities?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7481

SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): President, I do not have at hand the relevant phone numbers, really. I can provide Members with a reply in writing after the meeting if necessary.1

MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): May I speak?

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

MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): Just now, I said that the Government should not give an affirmative answer when it did not have any idea about the situation. Even though the Secretary is unable to provide any phone numbers―well, I have not expected that the Secretary can do so―the Secretary should at least be able to name the organizations concerned, so on and so forth. Why does the Secretary think that the answer is in the affirmative when he is even unable to tell us clearly about all these matters?

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

SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): President, my main reply already mentions that various service units have provided respite care services in emergencies on a need basis. I do not see any need to provide Members with information on all the service units concerned as it can be found online.

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary is the Bureau Director in charge of the Labour and Welfare Bureau. As Members have already told him beforehand that Hong Kong is lacking in such emergency services, he should have fully prepared the information before coming to the Chamber.

1 After the meeting, the Secretary for Labour and Welfare provided information in writing. It states that the number of SWD's 24-hour hotline is 2343 2255. 7482 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

Now, let me cite my personal experience as an example. Suppose I hurt my lower back on the streets. On the one hand, I do not know how I can obtain assistance; on the other, I must find someone to take care of my daughter, so that I can go to A&ED to receive treatment for my injuries. It so happens that the Secretary for Labour and Welfare sees me on the streets, and he tells me to search the Internet myself for the phone numbers as they can be found online. How can I possibly do the search?

Just now, the Secretary argued that emergency respite care services were already provided by some units on a 24-hour basis. But he was unable to name those units which provided such services. What are the names of those units? The Secretary was even unable to tell us their names. He should stop talking nonsense! Will the Secretary name those units which can take care of my situation?

SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): President, residential care homes for persons with severe disabilities or those for other persons with disabilities have provided respite care services. In this circumstance, if the person in need does not know where to seek assistance, the easiest way is of course to call SWD's hotline and then contact the relevant units, so that assistance can be provided to the person concerned.

MR SHIU KA-CHUN (in Cantonese): President, what is actually involved in the process of providing 24-hour residential respite care services? Even if residential care homes have vacant places, needy elderly people may still be unable to receive any such services if those residential care homes are not close to their places of residence. May I ask the Secretary whether any special transport services are provided to give such needy people a ride to the residential care homes concerned?

SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): President, a residential care home that is able to arrange the specified residential respite care services is generally equipped with transport facilities for providing transport support to people in need where possible.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Oral questions end here.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7483

WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

Supply of housing

7. MS CHAN HOI-YAN (in Chinese): President, regarding the supply of housing, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the respective numbers and vacancy rates of the various types of public and private residential units at present;

(2) whether it knows, regarding the residential developments the acquisition of which respectively by (i) the Urban Renewal Authority ("URA") and (ii) the Hong Kong Housing Society ("HKHS") has been completed and are awaiting redevelopment at present, the number of years for which they have been left vacant, as well as the timetable for the relevant redevelopment projects and the number of units to be supplied;

(3) whether it knows, regarding the vacated rental estates under HKHS which are awaiting redevelopment at present, the number of years for which they have been left vacant, as well as the timetable for the relevant redevelopment projects and the number of units to be supplied;

(4) of the number of transitional housing projects successfully facilitated by the Task Force on Transitional Housing since its establishment and the number of such kind of projects currently receiving support from the Task Force, and set out their locations, site areas, number of units to be supplied, average floor area of such units, as well as the number of years for which the relevant lands may be used for transitional housing; and

(5) whether it will form a working group with URA and HKHS to explore the provision of transitional housing by making use of vacant lands and vacant properties; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

7484 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Chinese): President, having consulted the Development Bureau, I set out below my consolidated reply to the question raised by Ms CHAN Hoi-yan.

(1) The latest information on various types of public and private housing is as follows:

According to the records of the Hong Kong Housing Authority ("HA") and the Hong Kong Housing Society ("HKHS"), as at the fourth quarter of 2018, there were about 825 200 public rental housing ("PRH") units(1) and 410 500 subsidized sale flats ("SSFs").(2)

As at end-December 2018, the number of HA's lettable PRH units was around 784 000. The number of lettable vacant flats was about 6 700 and the vacancy rate was about 0.8%.(3) For HKHS, as at end-December 2018, the number of lettable rental units was about 32 000. The number of lettable vacant rental units was about 250 and the vacancy rate was about 0.8%.(4) We do not have information on the vacancy rate of SSFs.

(1) Including (i) PRH units and interim housing units under HA; and (ii) rental flats and Senior Citizen Residences Scheme flats under HKHS.

(2) Including (i) HA's Home Ownership Scheme ("HOS"), Private Sector Participation Scheme, Middle Income Housing Scheme, Buy or Rent Option Scheme, Mortgage Subsidy Scheme, Green Form Subsidised Home Ownership Pilot Scheme, Tenants Purchase Scheme flats sold with premium not yet paid and 14 unsold HOS flats arising from rescinded cases, as well as (ii) HKHS' Flats-for-Sale Scheme, Sandwich Class Housing and Subsidised Sale Flats Projects flats sold with premium not yet paid; but excluding those flats sold by HA and HKHS but not yet completed and the 322 flats provided by the Urban Renewal Authority on a one-off basis in 2015-2016.

(3) Vacancy rate refers to the percentage of lettable vacant units (excluding those units which have been offered for PRH applicants' consideration and are expected to be let out in the short term) out of the total lettable PRH stock.

(4) Not including units affected by demolition and units awaiting alteration. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7485

As for private housing, according to the preliminary figures(5) of the Rating and Valuation Department ("RVD"), the stock of private residential units was 1 194 000 as at end-2018. The vacancy rate was 4.3%, which was lower than the longstanding average vacancy rate of 5% during the period from 1998 to 2017.

(2) HKHS does not have any residential development the acquisition of which has been completed and is awaiting redevelopment at present.

The projects of the Urban Renewal Authority ("URA") where acquisition has commenced and the date of delivery of vacant possession has expired but demolition works have yet to commence are set out in Annex 1.

(3) Under its two-pronged approach, HKHS has on the one hand carried out rehabilitation works for its aged rental estates, including installing lifts, upgrading security and fire safety systems, improving the appearance of exterior walls and lobbies, etc. On the other hand, HKHS has taken forward its redevelopment programmes in an orderly and gradual manner having regard to the building conditions and availability of appropriate rehousing resources in the vicinity of the estates. Undergoing or planned redevelopment projects of HKHS include Ming Wah Dai Ha, Yue Kwong Chuen, Kwung Tong Garden Estate Site II and Chun Seen Mei Chuen. Details are at Annex 2.

In an effort to increase the supply of transitional housing by optimizing the use of existing rental housing resources, HKHS launched in July 2018 its first "T-Home" Transitional Housing Scheme. Under the Scheme, 217 small-sized flats which had been vacated under Phase I of redevelopment programme of Yue Kwong Chuen and are estimated to be demolished after five years were refurbished by HKHS and made available for eligible persons who had been waiting for PRH for a certain period of time for temporary stay.

(5) The confirmed figures will be published in RVD's "Hong Kong Property Review 2019" in April 2019. 7486 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

Phase I of redevelopment programme of Ming Wah Dai Ha is estimated to be completed in 2019-2020. The newly completed rental units will be used for rehousing existing households affected by Phase II of the redevelopment programme, so as to facilitate the commencement of HKHS's demolition works of Phase II. Currently, there are around 200 units which have been vacated under Phase II of redevelopment programme and are estimated to be demolished one year later.

Vacant rental units in the other two rental estates of HKHS which are awaiting redevelopment (i.e. Kwun Tong Garden Estate Site II and Chun Seen Mei Chuen) are allocated to eligible PRH applicants under the established mechanism. There is no vacant rental unit which can be converted to transitional housing. HKHS will continue to streamline redevelopment processes as far as possible, so as to optimize the use of existing rental housing resources by minimizing the number of vacant rental units awaiting redevelopment and shortening the vacancy period.

(4) and (5)

The Government has been addressing the problem of inadequately housed households ("IHHs") amongst the low-income families by increasing the supply of PRH. As pointed out in the Chief Executive's 2017 and 2018 Policy Addresses, since it takes time to identify land for housing construction, the Government will, on top of the long-term housing policy and measures, support and facilitate the implementation of various short term initiatives put forward and carried out by the community to provide transitional housing for alleviating the hardship faced by families awaiting PRH and other IHHs. To this end, the Transport and Housing Bureau has set up a task force to provide one-stop coordinated support to facilitate the implementation of transitional housing projects by the community.

The Task Force on Transitional Housing ("the Task Force") has, over a period of time in the past, facilitated the implementation of a number of transitional housing projects initiated by the community, including several projects in existing vacant residential buildings through the "Community Housing Movement" operated by the Hong Kong Council of Social Service ("HKCSS"). The organizations responsible for these projects have made use of community resources LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7487

flexibly to provide transitional housing, and, at the same time, appropriate support to meet the needs of the tenants. As at February 2019, a total of nine transitional housing projects provided about 610 units, of which about 220 were launched under the "Community Housing Movement" of HKCSS. Details of these projects are set out in Annex 3.

The Task Force has also been deliberating on other proposals, but given that these projects are currently still at their advocacy stages, we consider it more appropriate to defer to the proponents to announce these projects when they have reached a more mature stage.

The Task Force meets with different organizations (including HKHS and URA) from time to time to discuss ways to increase the supply of transitional housing. The Task Force also welcomes organizations in the community to suggest potential sites for transitional housing.

Annex 1

Redevelopment Projects of URA (demolition works yet to commence) Timetable of the Redevelopment Projects, Number of Residential Units to be Supplied, and Vacancy Period(1)

Number of Project Code and Vacancy Progress/Status Residential Units Name Period to be supplied KC-008(A) - Acquisition Around 310 Around Chun Tin commenced on 2 months to Street/Sung Chi 5 July 2016 2.5 years Street Development - Target demolition Scheme works to be awarded by 2021-2022

- Redevelopment expected to be completed in 2025-2026 7488 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

Number of Project Code and Vacancy Progress/Status Residential Units Name Period to be supplied KC-009 - Acquisition Around 1 150 Around Bailey commenced on 1 month to Street/Wing 7 July 2017 1.5 years Kwong Street Development - Target demolition Project works to be awarded by 2021-2022

- Redevelopment expected to be completed in 2025-2026 KC-010 - Acquisition Around 750 Around Hung Fook commenced on 1 month to Street/Ngan Hon 6 December 2017 1 year Street Development - Target demolition Scheme works to be awarded by 2021-2022

- Redevelopment expected to be completed in 2025-2026 KC-011 - Acquisition Project Around Hung Fook commenced on KC-011 will be 1 month to Street/Kai Ming 7 July 2017 combined with 1.5 years Street the Kai Ming Development - Target demolition Street Project works to be Development awarded by Project 2020-2021 (DL-8:KC),(2) supplying a total - Redevelopment of around expected to be 470 residential completed in units 2024-2025 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7489

Number of Project Code and Vacancy Progress/Status Residential Units Name Period to be supplied KC-012 - Acquisition Project Around Wing Kwong commenced on KC-013 will be 3 months to Street 7 July 2017 combined with 1.5 years Development Project KC-012, Project - Target demolition supplying a total works to be of around awarded by 410 residential 2020-2021 units

- Redevelopment expected to be completed in 2024-2025 KC-013 - Acquisition Around Kai Ming commenced on 1 month to Street/Wing 6 December 2017 1 year Kwong Street Development - Target demolition Project works to be awarded by 2020-2021

- Redevelopment expected to be completed in 2024-2025 K7 - Acquisition The entire Project Around 4 to Kwun Tong commenced in K7 will supply a 10 years Town December total of Centre―Main 2008 for the Kwun 2 298 residential Site, the Second Tong Town units Phase Centre―Main Site Development Phase 2 Developm Scheme ent Scheme (Development (Development Area 5) Area 5)

7490 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

Number of Project Code and Vacancy Progress/Status Residential Units Name Period to be supplied - Redevelopment expected to be completed in 2027-2028 C&W-005 - Acquisition Around 170 Around 1 to Sung Hing commenced on 7 months Lane/Kwai 14 May 2018 Heung Street Development - Target demolition Project works to be awarded by 2022-2023

- Redevelopment expected to be completed in 2025-2026 SSP-015 - Acquisition Around 180 Around Tonkin commenced on 3 months Street/Fuk Wing 10 September to 4.5 years Street 2014 Development Project - Land reverted to the Government on 19 January 2019; site clearance is expected to be completed in early 2020

- Target demolition works to be awarded by 2020-2021

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7491

Number of Project Code and Vacancy Progress/Status Residential Units Name Period to be supplied - Redevelopment expected to be completed in 2024-2025

Notes:

(1) "Vacancy Period" is defined as the period calculated from the date which vacant possession of a property was delivered by owner or tenant to URA up to 10 March 2019.

(2) Demolition works completed.

Annex 2

Undergoing or planned redevelopment projects of HKHS

Rental estates Number of units after Estimated (Number of Decanting site redevelopment completion existing units) Ming Wah Dai No 966 rental units 2019-2020 Ha (Phase I) (3 169 units) 1 595 rental units 2025-2026 (Phase II) 750 SSFs and 608 Senior 2032-2033 Citizen Residences Scheme ("SEN") units (Phase III) Yue Kwong A site at Shek Pai About 2 000 units in total In two Chuen Wan Road (600 rental (including rental units and phases from (1 144 units) units, estimated SSFs) 2029-2030 to completion in 2034-2035 2023-2024) Kwun Tong A site at Ting On About 5 000 units in total In two Garden Street (378 rental (including rental units, phases from Estate Site II units, estimated SSFs and SEN units) 2029-2030 to (2 353 units) completion in 2041-2042 2023-2024) 7492 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

Rental estates Number of units after Estimated (Number of Decanting site redevelopment completion existing units) Chun Seen Mei Kai Tak Site 1E1 Details are subject to HKHS's further Chuen (2 050 units, study (1 027 units) estimated completion in 2025-2026. One thousand and one hundred units of the site will be used to rehouse households affected by Chun Seen Mei Chuen redevelopment; the remaining new units will be used to rehouse other eligible households affected by Government development and projects by URA)

Note:

The number of units to be provided on the decanting sites and redeveloped estates are preliminary estimates only, and may be subject to amendments by HKHS in future.

Annex 3

Information on Transitional Housing Projects

Number of Service Operators Projects Units Light Be Light Home 70 Light Housing 40 Society for Community Prior Community Social Housing 14 Organization Community Joy's To Gather 39* Rooms for Rent 4* LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7493

Number of Service Operators Projects Units Lok Sin Tong Lok Sin Tong Social Housing 20* Scheme 55 St. James' Settlement James' House 14* Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui Good Homes 60* Welfare Council The Aberdeen Kai-fong Welfare Best Neighbour Walk Together 16* Association Social Service The Salvation Army Home Plus 53* Hong Kong Housing Society Transitional Rental Housing 217 Scheme―Yue Kwong Chuen Yan Oi Tong Green Garden 11* Total Number of Units 613

Note:

* Launched under the "Community Housing Movement" operated by HKCSS.

Noise emitted by motor vehicles

8. MR MICHAEL TIEN (in Chinese): President, at present, the Noise Control (Motor Vehicles) Regulation (Cap. 400 sub. leg. I) requires that every vehicle first registered must conform to the noise emission standards prescribed under the Regulation. Also, the Road Traffic (Construction and Maintenance of Vehicles) Regulations (Cap. 374 sub. leg. A) require that every vehicle propelled by an internal combustion engine must be fitted with a silencer maintained in good and efficient working order, and must not be altered or replaced in such a way that makes the noise greater. However, quite a number of members of the public have relayed that they often find vehicles, suspected of having been modified illegally, running on the expressways near their residences and emitting annoying noise. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council whether it will amend the legislation to empower the Police, where they suspect that the noise emitted by a moving vehicle has exceeded the prescribed standards, to stop the vehicle and have the vehicle towed to a vehicle examination centre for a noise test and, upon confirmation that the noise has exceeded the prescribed standards, to institute prosecution against, and issue a vehicle repair order to, the vehicle owner concerned; if so, of the work schedule; if not, the reasons for that?

7494 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Chinese): President, in accordance with the Road Traffic Ordinance, motor vehicles for first registration must conform to the noise emission standards prescribed under the Noise Control (Motor Vehicles) Regulations. In addition, vehicles are required to be fitted with silencers under the Road Traffic (Construction and Maintenance of Vehicles) Regulations. To prevent a small number of vehicles from emitting excessive noise due to illegal alteration after first registration, the Road Traffic (Construction and Maintenance of Vehicles) Regulations also require the silencers to be maintained in good and efficient working order, and not to be altered or replaced leading to emanation of greater noise from the escape of the exhaust gases.

If excessive noise was found emanating from silencer and the police officer reasonably suspected that the silencer has been altered or replaced, the Police is empowered under section 80 of the current Road Traffic Ordinance to direct the vehicle to be driven to vehicle examination centres and to arrange a vehicle examiner to examine the vehicle. If contravention of the relevant legislation is confirmed, the Police will initiate prosecution.

To combat illegal activities including alteration and replacement of vehicle silencers, the Police would conduct territory-wide and district-based enforcement operations from time to time. Members of the public may also report vehicles suspected of emanating excessive noise due to silencer alteration through the government hotline 1823 or the Transport Department's Defective Vehicle Report Form. Under section 79 of the Road Traffic Ordinance, the Transport Department may serve the registered vehicle owner an examination order requiring production of the vehicle for examination at a vehicle examination centre.

Civil servants' training on national studies and the Basic Law

9. DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Chinese): President, according to the existing policy, bureaux and government departments ("B&Ds") should make arrangements for the middle-level civil servants (i.e. officers at Master Pay Scale ("MPS") Point 34 to 44 or equivalent) under the B/Ds to attend national studies programmes within six years from the time when they reach the relevant MPS Point/pay point threshold. Nevertheless, Report No. 71 of the Director of Audit ("the Report"), published in October last year, has pointed out that due to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7495 insufficient places for such programmes, it is unlikely that such training time schedule can be adhered to. Besides, the Report has recommended that the Government should enhance the tracking of the progress of civil servants' training on the Basic Law. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of (i) the number of training places and (ii) the number of participants for the national studies programmes, in each of the past three years; the projected number of places for such programmes in each of the coming three years;

(2) whether it has, in accordance with the recommendations made in the Report, (i) reviewed the aforesaid training time schedule, (ii) discussed with those Mainland universities currently organizing such programmes to increase the number of places for the programmes, (iii) commissioned more Mainland universities to organize such programmes, and (iv) promoted B&Ds to nominate more middle-level civil servants to attend such programmes so as to fully utilize the training places; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(3) given that the Government has, since the latter half of last year, extended the national studies programmes to civil servants at MPS Point 28 to 33, of (i) the existing number of civil servants whose salaries are within this salary range, and (ii) the number of places to be made available for them to attend the national studies programmes in each of the coming three years; whether it has conducted a review on such training arrangement having regard to the comments made in the Report; if so, of the outcome; and

(4) as the Government has indicated that it will strengthen the content of Basic Law training for civil servants so as to incorporate the relationship between the Constitution of the People's Republic of China and the Basic Law, of the progress of the relevant work, including (i) the measures put in place for training civil servants to understand the Constitution and (ii) the number of training activities held so far; the new measures in the coming three years to strengthen the training in this respect?

7496 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE (in Chinese): President, there are practical needs for civil servants to understand the social development and economic situation in the Mainland in performing their duties. To keep abreast with the latest development in the Mainland, they should equip themselves with updated knowledge of the national strategies and plans that could affect Hong Kong.

The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region has all along been attaching great importance to national studies and Basic Law training for civil servants. The Civil Service Bureau and other bureaux/departments ("B/Ds") have been providing diversified training for civil servants, including various seminars, talks and training courses held locally and in the Mainland, as well as visits to and exchange activities in Mainland cities. Currently, about 22 000 civil servants receive different types of national studies and Basic Law training every year.

Regarding participation of civil servants at Master Pay Scale ("MPS") Point 34 to 44 in national studies programmes held in the Mainland as mentioned in the Director of Audit's Report, the Civil Service Training and Development Institute ("CSTDI") of the Civil Service Bureau has kept increasing the number of training places for this group of civil servants to attend Mainland programmes in the past few years. It is projected that the number of trainees will rise from about 280 in 2017 to about 420 in 2019. Officers nominated by B/Ds to attend national studies programmes held in the Mainland in the past were all accepted by CSTDI, and CSTDI will continue to adjust the number of training places having regard to the number of nominations received from B/Ds so as to meet their training demands. To enhance national studies training for middle-level civil servants, CSTDI has also extended the national studies programmes held in the Mainland to include civil servants at MPS Point 28 to 33 since the second half of 2018. About 140 of these civil servants attended the Mainland programmes in 2018. It is expected that the number of such trainees will further increase to 240 in 2019.

To tie in with the increase in the number of training places for national studies programmes held in the Mainland, CSTDI commissioned two additional Mainland universities in 2018 to organize such programmes for Hong Kong civil servants. Currently, there are altogether nine Mainland institutions commissioned by CSTDI to conduct different types of national studies programmes to about 1 000 civil servants every year. In addition, other LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7497 government departments also organize their own national studies programmes in the Mainland for about 1 000 officers every year having regard to their individual operational needs. Taking into account the above programmes together with others national studies training held in the Mainland and Hong Kong, currently about 10 000 civil servants receive national studies training every year.

As regards Basic Law training for civil servants, CSTDI has kept enhancing the Basic Law foundation course for civil servants and Basic Law training for middle-level officers in the past few years. These courses and training cover topics such as the relationship between the Constitution of the People's Republic of China and the Basic Law and the principle of "one country, two systems", etc. CSTDI also regularly organizes thematic seminars on the Basic Law for civil servants at different levels. The number of civil servants who received Basic Law training were on the rise in the past three years, and it is projected that the number of trainees will increase from about 8 900 in 2017 to about 12 000 in 2019.

Civil servants may also enhance their understanding of national affairs and development through our e-learning platform. For instance, CSTDI will launch new thematic web pages on the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area and the 70th anniversary of the founding of the People's Republic of China on the Cyber Learning Centre Plus ("CLC Plus") in 2019 so that civil servants could access to the latest information about national development at their convenient time. The Basic Law Portal on the CLC Plus also provides various types of multi-media learning resources, including web courses, video clips, Basic Law Bulletin, audio clips, past seminars and online quizzes, to update civil servants' knowledge of the Basic Law.

CSTDI will continue to encourage B/Ds to nominate more civil servants at different levels to attend national studies programmes and Basic Law courses, and will correspondingly increase the number of training places to meet their training demands.

Construction of roadside bus stops with shelters

10. MR CHAN HAN-PAN (in Chinese): President, quite a number of members of the public have pointed out to me that as currently a large number of quite heavily used roadside bus stops do not have any shelters, passengers 7498 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 waiting for buses there have to put up with the scorching heat of the sun or lashing rains. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the respective numbers and percentages of roadside bus stops with and without shelters at present, with a breakdown by District Council district;

(2) whether it has issued guidelines to the franchised bus companies on the construction of bus stops with shelters; if so, of the details, and how the Government handles the situation where a bus company has breached such guidelines;

(3) of the procedure for vetting and approval of applications for the construction of bus stops with shelters, including which government departments are involved, what items require approval, and the time taken in general;

(4) as the construction of shelters for some bus stops is infeasible due to the presence of underground public utilities there, whether the Government has coordinated the public utilities companies concerned to make complementary arrangements, so that works for the construction of shelters can be carried out; and

(5) of the current number of bus stops with shelters that are fitted with advertising lightboxes, and the percentage of such number in the total number of bus stops; the procedure for the franchised bus companies to apply for the construction of bus stops with shelters fitted with advertising lightboxes?

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Chinese): President, the Government has been encouraging franchised bus companies to enhance the bus stop facilities, including the erection of bus shelters at locations where the geographical environment permitted, for the convenience of passengers and better waiting environment. Our reply to the various parts of Mr CHAN Han-pan's question is as follows:

(1) The existing number of sheltered bus waiting areas, by District Council district, is tabulated below: LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7499

Total number of District sheltered waiting areas Total number of Area Council erected by franchised bus stops district bus companies Hong Central and 101 517 Kong Western Island Wan Chai 105 435 Eastern 109 540 Southern 138 566 Kowloon Yau Tsim 119 602 Mong Sham Shui 139 430 Po Kowloon 186 477 City Wong Tai 168 358 Sin Kwun Tong 293 609 New Kwai Tsing 203 453 Territories Tsuen Wan 98 366 Tuen Mun 164 490 Yuen Long 224 601 North 172 312 Tai Po 193 354 Sha Tin 362 761 Sai Kung 213 450 Islands 174 432 Total 3 161 8 753 (about 37% of the total number of bus stops(1))

Note:

(1) Some bus stops would share one shelter.

7500 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

(2) The Transport Department ("TD") has issued guidelines for erection of bus shelters by franchised bus companies. The guidelines stipulate the procedures for application for erection of shelter, relevant technical requirements (such as the required clearance between the shelter and the road carriageway; and sufficient access to be reserved for pedestrians), the design standard of the shelter (such as the standard shelter type to be used under different geographical environments), the requirements for the provision of advertisement panel at sheltered waiting areas (such as sufficient space to be reserved for passenger passage), the requirements of relevant government departments (including the Highways Department, the Drainage Services Department and the Water Supplies Department, etc.). According to the guidelines, the franchised bus companies may start the works for erection of bus shelters at the location under application upon obtaining the agreement from TD. If contravention of the guidelines is found or complaint is received upon completion of the erection of the relevant shelter, TD will conduct follow-up investigation and request the franchised bus companies concerned to take improvement measures as appropriate, including replacing the shelters with other appropriate designs or removing the advertisement panels.

(3) Upon receipt of an application for erection of a bus shelter from a franchised bus company, TD will, in accordance with the guidelines mentioned above, examine the application and study the possible impacts of the proposed bus shelter on pedestrian flow, the sight of other road users and the merchants nearby. TD will also consult relevant government departments (including the Highways Department, the Drainage Services Department and the Water Supplies Department, etc.) on the details of application. In addition, TD will consult the local communities through the District Offices. In general, TD will complete the assessment within three months after the submission of the application from the franchised bus company. After obtaining the approval of TD, the franchised bus company concerned may then immediately apply to the Highways Department for the excavation permit for the commencement of the works for erecting the bus shelter.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7501

(4) In the event that the erection of a shelter is not possible because of the underground utilities at the bus stop, TD will arrange site meeting with the franchised bus company concerned and relevant government departments as appropriate to discuss the solution, such as slightly shifting the location of the bus shelter and/or the bus stop to avoid the underground utilities, so as to continue the erection works for the shelter as far as practicable.

(5) As the advertisement panel is a connected part of a sheltered waiting area, franchised bus companies in general will apply for the provision of advertisement panels, if feasible, at the same time when they apply for erection of bus shelters. The franchised bus companies may also apply to TD for the provision of advertisement panels at existing sheltered waiting areas. Among the existing sheltered waiting areas erected by franchised bus companies, 802 of them were provided with advertisement panels, which account for about 25% of the total number of sheltered waiting areas. The requirements for the provision of advertisement panels have been covered by the guidelines mentioned in part (2) above while the application procedures are basically the same as those mentioned in part (3) above.

Seasonal influenza vaccination

11. DR PIERRE CHAN (in Chinese): President, the Government provides eligible groups with free and subsidized seasonal influenza vaccination through the "Government Vaccination Programme" and the "Vaccination Subsidy Scheme" ("VSS") respectively. In addition, the Department of Health ("DH") introduced in October last year the "School Outreach Vaccination Pilot Programme" ("Pilot Programme") as well as the "Enhanced Vaccination Subsidy Scheme Outreach Vaccination" ("Enhanced VSS") under VSS, to enhance the seasonal influenza vaccination uptake rate among schoolchildren. Regarding the provision of seasonal influenza vaccination to members of the public, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the respective up-to-date numbers of primary schools which have (i) participated in and (ii) conducted vaccination activities under the Pilot Programme in the current school year; the average number of 7502 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

days between the submission of applications for joining the Programme and the conduct of vaccination activities at schools by healthcare workers;

(2) of the respective up-to-date numbers of (a) primary schools and (b) kindergartens/child care centres which have (i) participated in and (ii) conducted vaccination activities under Enhanced VSS in the current school year; the average number of days between healthcare workers' receiving invitations and their conducting vaccination activities at schools;

(3) of (i) the amount of expenditure incurred by the Government for procuring seasonal influenza vaccines ("SIV") and (ii) the total amount of subsidy claimed by private doctors participating in VSS, in the past five years;

(4) of the respective numbers of persons from the various groups set out in the table below who received injectable SIV and their uptake rates, in each of the past five years (set out separately in tables of the same format as the table below);

Year:______Number of people Uptake Group receiving rate vaccinations Children between 6 months and 5 years old Children aged between 6 and 11 Persons aged between 12 and 49 Persons aged between 50 and 64 Persons aged 65 or above Pregnant women Persons with chronic health problems Overall population

(5) of (i) the quantity of nasal SIV procured by DH and the amount of expenditure so incurred and (ii) the respective numbers of persons from the various groups set out in the aforesaid table who received LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7503

such SIV, since April last year; whether it has compared the efficacy of injectable SIV with nasal SIV, and whether it will switch to using nasal SIV in providing influenza vaccination services for children;

(6) of (i) the quantities, general expiry dates and the stock to date of the SIV procured and (ii) the quantities of expired or damaged SIV discarded, by DH and the Hospital Authority respectively in each of the past five years; and

(7) whether it has stipulated in the procurement contracts for SIV that the Government has the rights to (i) return to the suppliers a certain quantity/percentage of unused vaccines and (ii) adjust the quantity of the vaccines procured on the basis of actual needs; if so, of the quantities concerned?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Chinese): President, vaccination is one of the effective means to prevent seasonal influenza and its complications. It also reduces the risks of flu-associated inpatient admission and mortality. Therefore, the Government has all along been encouraging the public to receive vaccination as early as possible. Under the Government Vaccination Programme ("GVP") and the Vaccination Subsidy Scheme ("VSS"), the Government provides free and subsidized seasonal influenza vaccination ("SIV") respectively for eligible high-risk groups. To increase the SIV coverage rate among school children, the Department of Health ("DH") launched the School Outreach Vaccination Pilot Programme ("Pilot Programme") and the Enhanced Vaccination Subsidy Scheme Outreach Vaccination ("Enhanced VSS") under VSS in 2018-2019 to actively assist schools and private medical practitioners in organizing outreach influenza vaccination activities at schools. In consultation with DH, the reply to the seven parts of the question is as follows:

(1) and (2)

Under the Pilot Programme, DH arranges a Government Outreach Team or a Public-Private Partnership Team to provide free SIV for the school children of participating schools. As at 3 March 2019, 184 participating primary schools received the vaccination service under the Pilot Programme.

7504 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

Under the Enhanced VSS, primary schools not participating in the Pilot Programme, primary sections of special schools, kindergartens and child care centres may invite participating doctors to provide free SIV for their school children at schools. As at 3 March 2019, 221 primary schools and 184 kindergartens/child care centres received the vaccination service under the Enhanced VSS and VSS.

To encourage interested primary schools/kindergartens and child care centres to participate in the Pilot Programme and the Enhanced VSS, DH held a briefing in March 2018 and subsequently assigned participating primary schools to doctors in May 2018. In addition, DH held briefings for primary schools/kindergartens and child care centres, as well as participating VSS doctors, in June and July 2018 respectively to explain the details of the Enhanced VSS. Various programmes had commenced in the new school year since October 2018.

(3) The expenditure incurred by DH for procuring SIV under GVP and the Pilot Programme, and for subsidizing the vaccination provided by private doctors under VSS in the past five years are detailed in Annex 1.

(4) The numbers of persons from the eligible groups receiving SIV under GVP, VSS and the Pilot Programme and their coverage rates in the past five years are detailed in Annex 2. Since some members from the eligible groups might have received SIV by arrangement other than Government's vaccination programmes, the figures related to these persons are not reflected in Annex 2.

(5) Currently, DH uses inactivated influenza vaccine ("IIV") under various vaccination programmes which it administers. The department has kept in view the scientific evidence and development of various types of SIV, and the recommendations and experience of overseas health authorities. While overseas studies and clinical experience have generally indicated that nasal live-attenuated influenza vaccine ("nasal LAIV") is safe and effective, there is currently no evidence to support that priority should be given to nasal LAIV. In fact, the Scientific Committee on Vaccine LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7505

Preventable Diseases ("SCVPD") under the Centre for Health Protection of DH reviewed the scientific evidence on nasal LAIV in 2018, and noted that data from the United States had revealed that the effectiveness of nasal LAIV against influenza A H1N1 in individual seasons was far lower than that of IIV among persons aged below 18. Moreover, nasal LAIV has not been used widely in Hong Kong. Compared with IIV, nasal LAIV is not recommended for a relatively larger group of persons.(1) Therefore, the recommendations made by SCVPD in April 2018 stressed that health care professionals providing SIV should pay attention to those factors if they choose to use nasal LAIV. In this regard, DH has not procured or used any nasal LAIV under GVP and the Pilot Programme. Private doctors participating in VSS may decide whether they would use nasal LAIV, the amount of subsidy of which is the same as IIV.

DH noted that more scientific data regarding the use of nasal LAIV in preventing Influenza A H1N1 will be available later this year. SCVPD will then review the relevant scientific evidence and make recommendations in relation to SIV for the 2019-2020 influenza seasons. The Government will decide with reference to the recommendations whether it is suitable to use nasal LAIV under its vaccination programmes in the future.

(6) and (7)

Before ordering the vaccines for annual vaccination programmes, the Government will make estimates based on the number of persons eligible for the programmes during the year and the coverage rates in the past. However, due to the time required for production and

(1) Including persons with history of severe allergic reaction to any vaccine component or history of severe allergic reaction after receiving any influenza vaccination; children and adolescents receiving concomitant aspirin or salicylate-containing therapy; children aged between two and four years receiving a diagnosis of asthma, or having wheezing or asthma as pointed out by health care personnel during the preceding 12 months, or having a medical record indicating a wheezing episode during the preceding 12 months; persons who are immunocompromised due to any cause; persons who have close contacts with severely immunosuppressed persons who require a protected environment; pregnant women; and persons receiving influenza antiviral medication within previous 48 hours. 7506 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

delivery, and in view of sudden surge in the demand for SIV by the public during the past influenza peaks, the Government had to order more vaccines for better preparation. Nevertheless, when tendering for the procurement of vaccines in accordance with the established requirements and procedures, the Government normally includes in the tender conditions a flexible clause to ensure that the quantities to be ordered can be appropriately adjusted after the signing of the contract. Vaccine suppliers have to supply sufficient quantities of influenza vaccines for the programmes according to the contract terms. DH has been monitoring the vaccination statistics under Government's programmes and the stocks of vaccines procured for the programmes so as to assess the situation and maintain close liaison with vaccine suppliers.

DH is responsible for procuring the vaccines under GVP and the Pilot Programme, including those used by the Hospital Authority ("HA"). In general, the vaccines can last for one year. The quantities of vaccines that DH procured in the past five years and the information on the stocks of expired, unused, and/or damaged doses are set out in Annex 3.

Annex 1

Expenditure incurred by the Government for procuring seasonal influenza vaccines and subsidizing private doctors under GVP, VSS and the School Outreach Vaccination Pilot Programme

Procuring seasonal influenza vaccines Subsidizing private doctors Year ($ million) ($ million) 2014-2015 14.1 40.2 2015-2016 21.0 31.2 2016-2017 23.3 54.8 2017-2018 28.0 64.1 131.0 2018-2019 33.5 (as at 3 March 2019)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7507

Annex 2

Numbers of persons from eligible groups who received seasonal influenza vaccines under GVP, VSS and the School Outreach Vaccination Pilot Programme and their uptake rates

2018-2019 Year 2014-2015 2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018 (as at 3 March 2019)

in group the in group the in group the in group the in group the receiving SIV receiving SIV receiving SIV receiving SIV receiving SIV Eligible group Number of Number persons of Number persons of Number persons of Number persons of Number persons Percentage of the persons Percentage of the persons Percentage of the persons Percentage of the persons Percentage of the persons

Children 57 600 18% 47 600 15.1% 60 200 19.2% 80 700 25.8% 105 700 34.1% aged 6 months to under 6 Children 52 000 15.7% 70 700 20.5% 200 900(2) 55.3% aged 6 to Not eligible under 12 Persons 1 900 ^ 6 700 ^ 6 700 ^ 7 400 ^ 153 400 8.2% aged between 50 and 64(3)(4) Persons 372 700 35% 457 800 40.8% 478 000 40.8% 531 400 43.5% 541 500 42.5% aged 65 or above Pregnant 27 # 22 # 1 100 # 1 800 # 2 700 # women(3)(5) Persons 10 900 # 11 500 # 14 800 # 17 900 # 16 100 # with chronic medical problems(6) Others(7) 49 700 # 52 800 # 64 000 # 72 000 # 79 500 # Total 492 800 6.8% 576 400 7.9% 676 800 9.2% 781 900 10.6% 1 099 800 14.8% population(8)

7508 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

Notes:

(2) Children aged 6 to under 12 of specified schools may participate in the School Outreach Vaccination Pilot Programme.

(3) Only Comprehensive Social Security Assistance ("CSSA") recipients or holders of a valid Certificate for Waiver of Medical Charges ("Certificate") issued by the Social Welfare Department in this group are eligible for GVP.

(4) Since 2018-2019, all persons aged between 50 and 64 have been included in the eligible groups under VSS.

(5) Since 2016-2017, all pregnant women have been included in the eligible groups under VSS.

(6) These include persons aged under 50 attending public clinics: CSSA recipients or valid Certificate holders with high-risk conditions; inpatients (including paediatric patients) of HA with high-risk conditions (e.g. those in infirmary, psycho-geriatric, mentally ill or mentally handicapped units/wards); paediatric outpatients with high-risk conditions or on long-term aspirin; and persons with intellectual disability (since 2015-2016) or Disability Allowance ("DA") recipients (since 2016-2017) who are existing clients of HA, clinics of DH, designated day centres, sheltered workshops or special schools are eligible for GVP. Persons with intellectual disabilities (since 2015-2016) and persons receiving DA (since 2016-2017), regardless of types of disabilities (i.e. disabled physically, mentally, intellectually or with other conditions) are eligible for VSS.

(7) Other eligible groups include health care workers, poultry workers, pig farmers or pig-slaughtering industry personnel.

(8) The projection was made with reference to the mid-year population estimate for the territory released by the Census and Statistics Department.

^ The number of eligible persons in this group at the time was too limited for meaningful projection to be made for the uptake rate of the population concerned.

# No accurate population statistics for this group for meaningful projection to be made for the uptake rate of the population concerned.

Annex 3

Number of doses of seasonal influenza vaccine procured by DH and number of expired, unused and/or damaged doses

Number of expired, unused Year Number of doses procured and/or damaged doses 2014-2015 278 000 15 000 2015-2016 400 000 7 000 2016-2017 430 000 10 000 2017-2018 527 000 45 000 2018-2019 727 000 No available information yet

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7509

Provision of transitional housing

12. MS ALICE MAK (in Chinese): President, the Government has earlier set up a task force to provide one-stop support for various community-led transitional housing projects. In addition, the Financial Secretary has set aside $2 billion in the Budget for the next financial year to support non-governmental organizations ("NGOs") in taking forward transitional housing projects. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) whether it will set a specific target on the number of transitional housing projects commencing within the coming three years;

(2) whether it will consider providing NGOs with loan guarantees to facilitate their raising funds for transitional housing projects;

(3) whether it knows the current unit cost of and the time needed for converting the existing housing units into transitional housing; of the measures in place to assist NGOs in persuading more property owners to let their idle units be used as transitional housing and expediting the relevant conversion works;

(4) whether it knows the current unit cost of modular transitional housing built by modular integrated construction methods; how the Government currently assists NGOs financially and technically in saving construction costs and expediting the works, and whether it will consider helping those NGOs jointly procure prefabricated parts in order to reduce costs;

(5) how the Government financially supports the Hong Kong Housing Authority, the Hong Kong Housing Society and the Urban Renewal Authority to take forward transitional housing projects; whether the aforesaid task force will provide any assistance to such projects; and

(6) whether it will formulate a long-term policy that regards transitional housing as a supplementary source of housing for the short and medium terms, and make relevant legislative amendments to provide for the technical standards for the construction, specifications and safety standards in respect of transitional housing?

7510 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Chinese): President, the Government has been striving to address the housing problem faced by the low-income families with poor living conditions by increasing the supply of housing. It takes time to identify land for housing construction. Therefore, on top of the long-term housing policy and measures, the Government will support and facilitate the implementation of various short-term initiatives put forward and carried out by the community to provide transitional housing for alleviating the hardship faced by families awaiting Public Rental Housing and other inadequately housed households. To this end, the Transport and Housing Bureau has set up a task force to provide one-stop coordinated support to facilitate the implementation of transitional housing projects by the community, including offering advice on relevant administrative or statutory procedures, and assisting them in applying for appropriate funding, etc. Regarding the enquiries as raised by Ms Alice MAK, the consolidated replies are as below:

In view of the short-term nature, different details and objective situation of each transitional housing project, setting a fixed target for transitional housing (such as the number of units or the estimated completion year, etc.) is not realistic and does not contribute to the work of non-government organizations. Nevertheless, we will continue to adopt an open attitude to facilitate the provision of more transitional housing, and offer necessary support on each of the transitional housing projects, including the technical requirements and procurement of modular housing units etc. With a view to lowering the capital cost, the projects should be in line with the principles of efficiency, and effectiveness in facilitating the provision of more transitional housing. Transitional housing may come in different arrangements and with different ideas. We hope to bring together community efforts, especially allowing different non-government organizations to extend their creativity to provide various kinds of transitional housing projects. The task force has also conducted three meetings among relevant bureaux and departments to explore ways to overcome obstacles related to the prevailing policies, technical guideline, requirements and safety guideline so as to expedite the provision of transitional housing.

Regarding the funding issue, it is noted that there are a variety of arrangements for different transitional housing projects in the community. For instance, the Community Housing Movement operated by the Hong Kong Council of Social Service ("HKCSS") has launched a number of projects with operating expenses funded by both the Community Chest of Hong Kong and the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7511

Social Innovation and Entrepreneurship Development Fund. For the Modular Social Housing Scheme on a private site at Nam Cheong Street in Sham Shui Po, HKCSS has secured funding support from the Community Care Fund.

The Finance Committee of the Legislative Council approved the Government's proposal in January 2019 to set up a $1 billion fund to support non-government organizations in facilitating the gainful use of vacant government sites. The fund can also provide funding support to applicable transitional housing projects and the Development Bureau has commenced to receive funding applications. To further increase the funding support, the Financial Secretary announced in the 2019-2020 Budget that $2 billion would be set aside to support non-government organizations in constructing transitional housing. The Transport and Housing Bureau will consider the experience in transitional housing and views from the community to map out the detailed arrangements. If all the preparatory work proceeds smoothly, the Government hopes that funding proposals can be submitted to the Legislative Council in 2019. Before the implementation of the scheme, the non-government organizations may apply the aforementioned funding for gainful use of the vacant government sites so as to expedite the provision of transitional housing. Until now, there is no request from community organizations regarding the loan guarantee arrangement by the Government.

Based on the information about the Community Housing Movement as provided by HKCSS, the estimated capital cost and time required to renovate/convert an existing residential unit into a transitional housing unit at about $120,000 and six months respectively including the construction and invitation of service operators. For old domestic buildings with genuine planning and design constraints, in particular those old tenement houses with deep footprint and narrow frontage, Buildings Department ("BD") will consider granting modification/exemption regarding the application of the regulation under the Buildings Ordinance to eligible transitional housing projects in the said buildings. This will facilitate their implementation subject to the project proponent's agreement to operate effectively and implement the compensatory measures continuously. For example, the Building (Planning) Regulations ("the Regulations") requires the provision of windows in living areas to provide natural ventilation and lighting. If there are difficulties for eligible transitional housing projects to fully comply the requirements under the Regulations because of the building design, BD will consider granting exemptions. At the same time, BD will require the project proponents to provide artificial lighting and mechanical 7512 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 ventilation systems, as well as communal living areas that meet the relevant natural ventilation and lighting requirements and to ensure that the compensatory measures can be sustained.

Regarding the Modular Social Housing at Nam Cheong Street, the construction of modular housing through assembly of synthetic building technology which must meet the safety requirements for housing under the existing law and regulations. The project will last for about two years. The pilot scheme's total funding provision is $35.74 million and is expected to benefit about 88 households. With a view to facilitating a wider use of Modular Integrated Construction ("MiC") technology for constructing transitional housing by community organizations, BD has set up a pre-acceptance mechanism for granting in-principle acceptance to MiC systems/components or prototype.

Repair of traffic signs

13. MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Chinese): President, some members of the public have relayed that quite a number of large traffic signs for giving route directions to motorists have not been repaired since they were damaged during the onslaught of super typhoon Mangkhut in Hong Kong in September last year, which causes inconvenience to motorists. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the number of traffic signs damaged during the onslaught of Mangkhut in Hong Kong and, among them, the number of those for which the repair works were not yet completed as at 16 February this year and the reasons for that; and

(2) whether it has measures in place to shorten the time needed for repairing traffic signs?

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Chinese): President, my consolidated reply to the two parts of Mr CHAN Chi-chuen's question is as follows:

The Highways Department ("HyD") is responsible for the maintenance of public roads and associated facilities (including traffic signs) under its jurisdiction. Regular inspections are conducted and in case of defects in road surfaces or LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7513 associated facilities, HyD will arrange repair works as soon as possible to maintain the smooth operation of road systems and ensure the safety of road users.

The super typhoon Mangkhut struck Hong Kong and its adjacent areas with extremely ferocious winds. With the Hurricane Signal No. 10 in force for ten hours, Mangkhut brought Hong Kong record-breaking storm surge, causing widespread damage and a far-reaching impact. After the typhoon, HyD staff have immediately inspected the conditions of public roads and associated facilities under the department's purview with a view to commencing repair works promptly. According to information provided by HyD, a total of 370 traffic signs maintained by the department were damaged.

As a considerable number of traffic signs were damaged at the same time, those signs that are more commonly used ran out of stock, and fresh orders had to be placed for new replacements. For certain damaged traffic signs, their repair works would require temporary closure of some roads to ensure the safety of road users and maintenance workers. For example, if a traffic sign was located at the central median of a road, HyD had to formulate arrangements for temporary traffic diversion to ensure minimal impact on traffic flow before carrying out the repair works. As at 16 December 2018, within three months after the passage of Mangkhut, HyD had already repaired over 70% of the damaged traffic signs. In the remaining cases where the damaged traffic signs are being handled, HyD has arranged to place temporary traffic signs at appropriate locations to alert motorists to the direction of traffic. As at 16 March 2019, HyD has already completed the repair works for a total of 363 (about 98%) damaged traffic signs. As for the remaining seven damaged traffic signs, their repair works are still being pursued because of the lead time required for ordering new replacement signs, formulating arrangements for traffic diversion, holding discussions on the works arrangement with the public utility companies affected, and diverting underground utilities for the conduct of works. HyD will complete the repair works for all the seven traffic signs mentioned above within the first half of 2019.

HyD has been sparing no effort to promptly carry out recovery work after the typhoon. However, the damage caused by Mangkhut was so extensive that the recovery efforts required more time and resources than those for previous typhoons. HyD will continue to strive for more effective preparation for and response to natural disasters so as to enhance the department's capability in post-disaster recovery and repair works.

7514 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

Conditions of and repair works for the surfaces of footpaths

14. MS YUNG HOI-YAN (in Chinese): President, I have received a number of complaints alleging that in Hong Kong, quite a number of footpaths have uneven surfaces and footpaths paved with paving blocks have paving blocks loosened and damaged, which make pedestrians (especially the elderly, children and persons with disabilities) prone to trip and fall. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of (i) the number of complaints or reports received by the Government about the surfaces of footpaths being uneven or damaged, (ii) the number of incidents with casualties arising from such situations, and (iii) the number of claims lodged by members of the public for compensation of such casualties and the amount of compensations involved, in each of the past three years, with a breakdown by District Council district;

(2) of the Government's follow-up procedure and work upon receipt of the complaints or reports mentioned in (1), and the performance pledge it has set in this regard; the respective numbers of cases in the past three years in which the performance pledge was met and was not met, the reasons why the performance pledge was not met in some cases, and the improvement measures put in place;

(3) of the (i) arrangements (including the numbers of scheduled and unscheduled inspections), (ii) staffing establishment and (iii) annual expenditure in respect of the inspections on the conditions of footpaths and the relevant repair works currently undertaken by the Highways Department; the respective dates on which the last and the next reviews of the relevant work arrangements was/will be conducted;

(4) whether it will allocate additional resources and manpower in the coming three years to step up the inspections on the conditions of footpaths and the relevant repair works; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and

(5) whether it has examined the main causes for the uneven and damaged surfaces of footpaths, as well as the correlation between LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7515

such situations and the workmanship of and materials used in the construction of footpaths; if so, of the outcome, and the specific improvement measures put in place; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Chinese): President, the Highways Department ("HyD") attaches great importance to the repairs and maintenance of the public roads (including footpaths) and ancillary facilities within its ambit. Regular inspections of public roads territory-wide are conducted and repairs and maintenance are carried out timely to keep the roads in good condition and to ensure the safety of road users.

My reply to the various parts of Ms YUNG Hoi-yan's question is as follows:

(1) The number of complaints received by the Government about damaged footpaths and, among them, the number of cases in which members of the public sustained injuries and lodged claims for compensation are tabulated below (with breakdown by District Council district):

Complaints about damaged footpaths

2016 2017 2018 Central and Western District 476 546 545 Eastern District 444 442 367 Southern District 114 150 165 Wan Chai 420 506 512 Kowloon City 272 324 379 Kwun Tong 140 86 137 Sham Shui Po 407 443 482 Yau Tsim Mong 1 200 1 080 1 040 Wong Tai Sin 100 116 118 Tsuen Wan 233 227 258 Kwai Tsing 206 206 197 Sai Kung 151 146 131 Sha Tin 256 281 245 Tai Po 105 147 144 North District 246 203 216 7516 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

2016 2017 2018 Tuen Mun 173 210 171 Yuen Long 450 448 407 Islands District 53 74 70 Total 5 446 5 635 5 584

The number of cases in which members of public sustained injuries due to damaged footpath and lodged claims for compensation

2016 2017 2018 Central and Western District 3 3 2 Eastern District 1 1 2 Southern District 0 1 0 Wan Chai 1 3 1 Kowloon City 1 0 1 Kwun Tong 1 1 2 Sham Shui Po 1 1 2 Yau Tsim Mong 2 3 2 Wong Tai Sin 2 2 1 Tsuen Wan 1 1 1 Kwai Tsing 1 2 1 Sai Kung 0 1 1 Sha Tin 0 3 0 Tai Po 2 1 1 North District 0 1 1 Tuen Mun 1 1 2 Yuen Long 2 3 1 Islands District 1 0 0 Total 20 28 21

In general, upon receipt of a claim for compensation, HyD will firstly refer the case to the contractor concerned for investigation. HyD will monitor the investigation progress and examine its findings. If after investigation it is concluded the incident was attributable to the fault of the contractor, the contractor or their insurance company will liaise with the claimant direct to make arrangement for compensation in accordance with the established procedure. HyD does not have information in regard to the amount of compensation involved. If after investigation the contractor considers and HyD LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7517

agrees that the contractor has adequately fulfilled their contract obligations, the contractor will promptly notify the claimant of the investigation outcome. These cases generally do not involve compensation.

(2) Upon receipt of a complaint or report on uneven surface of footpath, HyD will carry out assessment and take prompt and appropriate follow-up action in relation to the footpath surface in need of repair (such as fencing off the relevant road section and conduct inspection in the surrounding areas) and complete the repairs as soon as possible. Owing to the varying extent of footpath damage in each case and hence the different scale of repairs, HyD has not drawn up a performance pledge for maintenance of surfaces of footpaths.

(3) Subject to the location and pedestrian flow of the footpaths concerned, HyD will arrange for regular inspection (at an interval ranging from seven days to three months) of footpaths within its ambit. Appropriate maintenance will be conducted where necessary to ensure that the footpaths remain in good condition. Moreover, HyD will perform a detailed inspection for public roads (including footpaths) territory-wide at a six-month interval, in which road surfaces and structures will be inspected and the data collected will be used for planning of maintenance works for footpaths in the medium and long term. Road inspection is part of the district administration and road maintenance work of HyD. As this is among its regular duties, there is no detailed division in its staff establishment.

(4) HyD has arranged for, via eight maintenance contracts at present, contractors to conduct regular inspection of the conditions of all public roads (including footpaths) in Hong Kong and to perform the rehabilitation/reinstatement works required. HyD will review the existing resources and manpower from time to time to ensure that the roads are kept in good condition for safeguarding the safety of road users.

(5) With the prolonged use of footpaths, stepping could gradually develop between adjacent paving blocks. The common causes are excessive loading on the footpaths by frequent loading/unloading of 7518 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

heavy articles or illegal parking of vehicles, poor reinstatement by the contractors of public utilities or government departments after excavation works, etc. To enhance the stability of sand bedding, HyD has adopted as a standard practice the addition of a small amount of cement to the sand bedding since 2008. Being able to effectively address quite a lot of stepping problems, this practice would be adopted as appropriate in re-laying works to be conducted progressively having regard to the degree of wear and tear of footpaths in various districts. Moreover, geogrids(1) will be used to reinforce the bedding of block paving subject to the actual conditions of the road sections concerned so as to effectively control stepping between the paying blocks.

(1) A geogrid is a net made of durable textile that can interlock with surrounding soil to reinforce the bedding. This technique can restrict stepping between the paving blocks to within a few millimetres.

Grade structure review for disciplined services grades

15. MRS REGINA IP (in Chinese): President, some trade unions of the disciplined services have relayed to me that as compared with civilian staff, disciplined services staff are required to have better physical fitness, have a higher sense of discipline and work shifts more frequently, while the work of disciplined services is more dangerous than that of civilian staff. However, the current remuneration packages for disciplined services staff have not sufficiently reflected such factors. For instance, the maximum pay point for Customs Officers is lower than that for Assistant Clerical Officers, whose entry requirement on academic qualifications is similar. Moreover, the pay difference between successive pay points in the pay scale for the former is smaller than that for the latter. Given that the Government is conducting a grade structure review for the disciplined services grades, will the Government inform this Council whether the review includes examining the raising of the pay levels for disciplined services staff (particularly for the rank and file), and widening the pay difference between successive pay points in their pay scales; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7519

SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE (in Chinese): President, the civil service pay policy is to offer sufficient remuneration to attract, retain and motivate staff of a suitable calibre to provide the public with an effective and efficient service; and to maintain broad comparability between civil service pay and private sector pay. To implement this policy, the Government devised the "Improved Civil Service Pay Adjustment Mechanism" in 2007, under which civil service pay is compared with private sector pay through regularly conducted pay surveys. Nevertheless, as it is not possible to find comparable posts and jobs in the private sector for the disciplined services, and individual disciplined services grades are also facing recruitment or retention difficulties, the Chief Executive-in-Council therefore decided in October last year to conduct a grade structure review ("GSR") for the disciplined services, and once every 10 years in future, to ensure that the grade structure and remuneration of the disciplined services are effective in attracting and retaining talents.

The Standing Committee on Disciplined Services Salaries and Conditions of Service ("SCDS") has accepted the Government's invitation to conduct a GSR for the disciplined services grades. At the same time, the Standing Committee on Directorate Salaries and Conditions of Service ("SDCS") has also agreed to advise on the salaries and conditions of service of the heads of the disciplined services. The two advisory bodies will conduct the review independently to consider the appropriate pay scales for each of the grades and ranks and the grade structure of each disciplined services, etc. The two advisory bodies will also consider the work nature, job duties and workload of the disciplined services; changes in public expectation towards the disciplined services; the recruitment and retention situation of the disciplined services; and other factors involving wider community interests (e.g. financial consideration). SCDS and SDCS have commenced work, including meeting the management and the staff side representatives of the disciplined services and inviting them to submit proposals. If the staff side have any suggestions or views on, among other things, the pay of individual grades or the differences between pay points of the pay scales, they may raise them with SCDS and SDCS. In the course of the review, the two advisory bodies will maintain communication with the management and the staff side of the disciplined services. They will thoroughly consider proposals submitted by the management and the staff side and listen to stakeholders' views. It is expected that the review will take around 18 months for completion by around mid-2020.

7520 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

Vetting and approval of applications for construction or redevelopment of small houses

16. MR KENNETH LAU (in Chinese): President, quite a number of villagers have relayed to me that the time taken for vetting and approval of their applications for construction or redevelopment of small houses, which they submitted to the Government in accordance with the New Territories Small House Policy, is rather long, taking seven to 10 years in general and in some cases even 20-odd years. As the construction costs have risen incessantly during the period when the applications are awaiting vetting and approval, the financial burden on those villagers has become increasingly heavy. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the respective numbers of applications for (i) construction and (ii) redevelopment of small houses which were (a) received, (b) approved, (c) being processed and (d) rejected by various District Lands Offices of the Lands Department in each of the past five years (set out in tables of the same format as the table below);

District Lands Office:______(a) (b) (c) (d) Year (i) (ii) (i) (ii) (i) (ii) (i) (ii) 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

(2) of the respective average, shortest and longest time taken to vet and approve those applications which were approved in each of the past five years; if such figures are not available, of the reasons for that, and whether it will consider compiling such statistics; and

(3) whether the Government conducted in the past five years any study on streamlining the relevant vetting and approval procedure with a view to shortening the vetting and approval time needed; if so, of the outcome; if not, the reasons for that?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7521

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

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

(1) A breakdown in the number of applications for building and for rebuilding small houses received, approved, rejected and being processed respectively by the New Territories District Lands Offices and the Rebuilding Team of the Lands Department ("LandsD") in the past five years is set out at the Annex.

(2) LandsD does not keep statistics of the time taken to process each application for building and rebuilding small houses.

As the complexity of each application varies, the processing time will depend on the nature and complexity of issues involved. For example, some cases may be met with local objections, land title or boundary problems, or there may be requirements imposed under other regulatory frameworks which will need to be satisfied first.

(3) There are established communication channels between LandsD and Heung Yee Kuk to discuss matters concerning land administration in rural areas regularly, which includes examination of streamlining the procedures for vetting and approval of small house applications. For example, LandsD has earlier agreed to the arrangement that, starting from January 2019, applicants may be exempted from submission of survey reports if their rebuilding applications have no land boundary problems. This arrangement can speed up processing.

LandsD will continue to engage in dialogue with Heung Yee Kuk through the existing communication channels.

7522 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

Annex

Number of Applications for Building and Rebuilding Small Houses

District Lands Office, Islands Number of Number of Number of Number of applications applications applications applications received approved rejected being processed

Year Building Building Building Building Rebuilding Rebuilding Rebuilding Rebuilding

2014 81 30 53 19 26 9 503 35 2015 127 88 37 23 39 22 485 64 2016 75 48 50 16 12 6 484 89 2017 48 60 38 18 35 17 438 115 2018 64 38 29 6 36 3 428 144

District Lands Office, North Number of Number of Number of Number of applications applications applications applications received approved rejected being processed

Year Building Building Building Building Rebuilding Rebuilding Rebuilding Rebuilding

2014 590 30 136 21 84 5 2 008 84 2015 532 123 98 14 71 20 2 413 201 2016 361 110 146 43 135 20 2 827 257 2017 293 89 97 13 173 17 2 939 307 2018 282 95 138 23 250 11 2 953 368

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7523

District Lands Office, Sai Kung Number of Number of Number of Number of applications applications applications applications received approved rejected being processed

Year Building Building Building Building Rebuilding Rebuilding Rebuilding Rebuilding 2014 119 21 86 22 111 42 616 56 2015 140 46 63 22 95 11 602 74 2016 99 38 48 12 48 13 720 87 2017 73 20 52 13 19 19 767 75 2018 85 38 48 10 20 7 882 96

District Lands Office, Sha Tin Number of Number of Number of Number of applications applications applications applications received approved rejected being processed

Year Building Building Building Building Rebuilding Rebuilding Rebuilding Rebuilding 2014 35 10 53 23 62 14 274 31 2015 81 25 19 29 109 33 219 32 2016 55 38 32 15 84 11 221 47 2017 40 55 22 16 62 23 177 60 2018 51 23 33 20 113 14 117 49

District Lands Office, Tai Po Number of Number of Number of Number of applications applications applications applications received approved rejected being processed

Year Building Building Building Building Rebuilding Rebuilding Rebuilding Rebuilding 2014 335 9 231 59 207 48 1 077 232 2015 270 90 194 47 172 34 918 237 2016 161 64 143 37 260 13 612 249 2017 151 84 170 21 107 31 518 283 2018 166 110 195 56 348 16 184 321

7524 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

District Lands Office, Tsuen Wan and Kwai Tsing Number of Number of Number of Number of applications applications applications applications received approved rejected being processed

Year Building Building Building Building Rebuilding Rebuilding Rebuilding Rebuilding 2014 25 17 6 19 52 6 78 33 2015 23 37 34 20 11 24 57 26 2016 20 31 1 9 22 23 54 23 2017 9 19 6 2 12 13 50 29 2018 44 30 1 0 25 12 80 47

District Lands Office, Tuen Mun Number of Number of Number of Number of applications applications applications applications received approved rejected being processed

Year Building Building Building Building Rebuilding Rebuilding Rebuilding Rebuilding 2014 179 20 45 5 97 5 379 41 2015 218 28 71 5 53 13 375 54 2016 71 25 54 5 62 9 432 67 2017 68 24 53 8 61 11 370 70 2018 85 17 49 11 27 2 420 74

District Lands Office, Yuen Long Number of Number of Number of Number of applications applications applications applications received approved rejected being processed

Year Building Building Building Building Rebuilding Rebuilding Rebuilding Rebuilding 2014 1 158 0 504 131 554 22 3 634 372 2015 1 156 241 473 151 713 49 3 731 387 2016 455 271 384 120 457 60 3 795 450 2017 447 221 380 93 592 92 3 289 514 2018 573 218 337 116 496 47 3 159 569

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7525

Rebuilding Team of LandsD (previously known as New Territories Action Team) (Note: Rebuilding Team does not process applications for building small houses) Applications for rebuilding small houses Number of Number of Number of Number of Year applications applications applications applications received approved rejected being processed 2014 618 147 219 1 057 2015 135 150 128 914 2016 6 113 55 806 2017 11 146 26 591 2018 0 93 29 465

Note:

As the processing of applications received during a year may not be completed within the same year, the application cases and number of applications approved, rejected and being processed during the year may not correspond with the application cases and number of applications received during the year.

Management of water resources

17. MR DENNIS KWOK (in Chinese): President, at present, around 70% to 80% of Hong Kong's fresh water supply comes from Dongjiang while the remainder comes from local catchments. In reply to a question raised by a Member of this Council on 27 June last year, the Government said that the first stage of Tseung Kwan O ("TKO") desalination plant under construction was expected to be completed by 2022. The fresh water production capacity of the desalination plant will be 135 000 cubic metres per day (equivalent to around 5% of the fresh water consumption of Hong Kong) and can ultimately be increased to 270 000 cubic metres per day. However, the Government indicated that it had no plan to set a target percentage of the fresh water production capacity of desalination plants at 30% of Hong Kong's water consumption. Regarding the management of water resources, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) as there are views that pollution of water sources that may be caused and the additional demand for fresh water generated by the rapid development of the Mainland economy and climate change may lead to an unstable Dongjiang water supply, but seawater desalination as a sustainable source of water supply will not be affected by such 7526 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

problems, of the reasons why the Government has no plan to set a target percentage of the fresh water production capacity of desalination plants at 30% of Hong Kong's water consumption;

(2) apart from TKO desalination plant, whether the Government has studied the implementation of other seawater desalination projects; if so, of the outcome (including fresh water production capacity); if not, the reasons for that;

(3) as the Government indicated last year that it would supply in phases reclaimed water for toilet flushing in the northeast New Territories, and that it planned to launch a public consultation and commence the legislative amendment work on the supply of reclaimed water, of the progress of such work; whether it has studied the supply of reclaimed water to other districts; if so, of the outcome (including the timetable); if not, the reasons for that;

(4) as the Government is taking forward the Inter-Reservoirs Transfer Scheme, under which a tunnel connecting the Kowloon Byewash Reservoir and the Lower Shing Mun Reservoir is to be built to reduce overflow from the Kowloon Group of Reservoirs and increase water resources, of the progress of the Scheme; and

(5) of the number of government buildings currently installed with a grey water reuse system or rainwater harvesting system, and set out by building name the volume of grey water used and rainwater harvested last year; if such statistics are unavailable, of the reasons for that; whether it has plans to install such systems in all government buildings; if so, of the details (including the timetable); if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Chinese): President, to cope with the impact of climate change, increase of water demand brought about by population and economic growth, and keen demand for water resources due to development of the Pearl River Delta region, etc., the Water Supplies Department ("WSD") promulgated the Total Water Management Strategy ("the Strategy") in 2008 to ensure a sustainable and reliable water supply in Hong Kong. The Strategy puts an emphasis on containing the growth of water demand through LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7527 promoting water conservation and exploiting new water resources. On water conservation, we have installed flow controllers and water saving devices for public housing, government buildings and schools; promulgated "Water Efficiency Labelling Scheme"; implemented education programmes such as "Cherish Water Campus" and "Cherish Water Ambassador"; launched measures to reduce water leakage, which include establishing the "Water Intelligent Network" in government water mains, as well as promoting and assisting leakage detection and maintenance of private water mains; extended the use of seawater for flushing, etc. On exploiting new water resources, apart from rainwater from local catchments, imported water from Dongjiang and seawater for toilet flushing, WSD is striving to explore water sources which are not susceptible to climate change, including desalinated seawater and recycled water (including reclaimed water, recycled grey water and harvested rainwater) for non-potable use.

The reply to Mr KWOK's question is as follows:

(1) In the future, water sources in Hong Kong would be more diversified. Apart from the three existing water sources, namely rainwater from local catchments, imported water from Dongjiang and seawater for toilet flushing, desalinated seawater and recycled water would be introduced to allow more flexibility, as well as to ensure security in Hong Kong's water supply. At present, the energy consumption and cost of drinking water produced by desalination are still relatively high. It is mainly used to cope with the impact of climate change on water resources. In the future, the proportion of water sources would vary according to a host of factors, including water demand (subject to effectiveness of various water conservation measures, and population and economic growth), local rainfall (can be affected by annual rainfall fluctuations and climate change), cost-effectiveness, as well as technological development of the various water sources, their reliability, impacts to the environment, etc. We will review proportions of the different water sources from time to time according to the latest circumstances.

(2) We do not have any study to implement other desalination projects at this stage. When planning for water supply in individual development areas, we will investigate whether desalination would be more suitable than other water sources. The water supply 7528 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

arrangements in individual development areas would be affected by various factors, including the distance between the development areas and the coast, as well as the existing water supply network and facilities. The arrangements would also be affected by the capacities of the corresponding water supply networks and facilities etc.

(3) As the Shek Wu Hui Sewage Treatment Works will be upgraded into an Effluent Polishing Plant by adopting tertiary treatment, we plan to further process the tertiary treated effluent to become reclaimed water. We plan to supply, in phases from 2022 onwards, reclaimed water for non-potable use, such as flushing, to users in the northeast New Territories who are currently being supplied with temporary mains water for flushing. We will first supply reclaimed water to Sheung Shui and Fanling and extend the supply to Kwu Tung North and Fanling North New Development Areas in accordance with their development programmes.

We are currently implementing the associated infrastructure works for the supply of reclaimed water in Sheung Shui and Fanling, including the construction of a service reservoir and the laying of trunk water mains and local distribution mains. In addition, we are designing the remaining works, including the water reclamation facilities, a pumping system and the remaining local distribution mains in Sheung Shui and Fanling.

Following the completion of the public consultation on the proposals for the supply of recycled water (including reclaimed water) in December 2018, we are now preparing works for the relevant legislative amendments. While we are still analysing in detail the public opinions collected during the consultation, the preliminary results indicate that the public are generally supportive of the proposal to supply recycled water by WSD. With a view to further reducing the use of fresh water, we will continue to review the extension of supply of reclaimed water to other new development areas and areas still being supplied with temporary mains water for flushing, wherever it is technically feasible and cost-effective to do so.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7529

(4) The Drainage Services Department has commenced the works contract for the "Inter-reservoirs Transfer Scheme" in February 2019, with the anticipated completion in the fourth quarter of 2022.

(5) In line with the Government's policy on green buildings, works departments would as far as practicable, install on-site rainwater harvesting or grey water recycling systems in government buildings in public works projects. By the end of 2018, new buildings of about 90 government projects have been installed with rainwater harvesting or grey water recycling systems. However, as the water collected for reuse by these systems is rather limited, we have not measured or collected statistics on the relevant water volumes. On the other hand, we are actively pursuing the implementation of a centralized grey water recycling system at the Development of Anderson Road Quarry Site. The system comprises of a grey water treatment plant with a daily capacity of 3 300 cu m. It will treat grey water collected within the development, and then distribute the treated grey water back to the development for non-potable use such as flushing.

Pilot Scheme on Home Care and Support for Elderly Persons with Mild Impairment

18. MR SHIU KA-CHUN (in Chinese): President, in December 2017, the Social Welfare Department ("SWD") launched a three-year Pilot Scheme on Home Care and Support for Elderly Persons with Mild Impairment ("the Pilot Scheme") to provide, on a co-payment basis, home care and support services to the elderly persons on the waiting list for the Integrated Home Care Services ("IHCS") (Ordinary Cases). The Pilot Scheme offers 4 000 service places. SWD has commissioned a consultant to formulate a standardized assessment tool for use by the IHCS teams to conduct assessments on elderly persons, with a view to identifying elderly persons eligible for taking part in the Pilot Scheme. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the reasons for limiting the number of service places for the Pilot Scheme at 4 000;

7530 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

(2) as SWD has commissioned a consultant to conduct a review on the effectiveness of the Pilot Scheme, of (i) the number, name list and qualifications of the members in the consultant team responsible for such task, (ii) the consultant fees involved, and (iii) the timetable for the review and whether the review will include public engagement activities;

(3) regarding the Pilot Scheme, of (i) the cumulative total amount of expenditure to date and the details of the various expenditure items, (ii) the expenditures for the previous and the current financial years, and (iii) the estimated expenditure for the next financial year; the cumulative total amount of funds allocated to date to service providers taking part in the Pilot Scheme, as well as the average cost per service session for each item of the services provided under the Pilot Scheme;

(4) of the details of the assessment tool, including the criteria adopted and a list of the items in the tool (with the whole assessment tool attached);

(5) of (i) the number of runs and (ii) the dates of the training programme on the use of the assessment tool conducted by SWD for members of the IHCS teams;

(6) of the respective numbers of elderly persons, since the introduction of the Pilot Scheme, who have (i) applied for joining the Scheme, (ii) undergone assessment, (iii) been assessed as being eligible for joining the Scheme, (iv) used the services provided under the Scheme (with a breakdown by the co-payment category to which they belonged), and (v) withdrawn from the Scheme, together with a tabulated breakdown by District Council district; the respective numbers of persons currently on the waiting lists for the various items of the services provided under the Scheme;

(7) of a breakdown of the number of elderly persons who have withdrawn from the Pilot Scheme by the reasons for withdrawal as set out in Table 1;

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7531

Table 1 Reason for withdrawal Number of persons (i) No suitable service providers/service packages (ii) Expiry of the service period (iii) To be/Having been admitted to subsidized community care services or subsidized/private residential care services, or to receive/receiving such services (iv) Deceased (v) Having carers such as family members or domestic helpers (vi) Others (including hospitalization and having left Hong Kong) Total:

(8) in respect of each item of services provided under the Pilot Scheme, of (i) the number of elderly persons who are currently using the service, (ii) the percentage of such number in the total number of users of the various services under the Pilot Scheme, (iii) the average monthly number of users for the service, and (iv) the number of user-times to date for the service (set out in Table 2);

Table 2 Service item (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) a. Escort service (for going out/medical appointments) b. Meal service (meal delivery) c. Personal care d. Simple nursing care e. Physical exercise f. Home-making g. Home safety assessment and health management h. Purchase and delivery of daily necessities i. Other services (e.g. support for carers) Total user-times:

7532 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

(9) of (i) the average waiting time for the various items of services provided under the Pilot Scheme and (ii) the average time per person for which they are used; and

(10) of the criteria adopted by SWD for setting the charges for meal service and other services provided under the Pilot Scheme at $54 per meal and $131 per hour respectively?

SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Chinese): President, my reply to the Member's question is as follows:

(1) The Government launched the Pilot Scheme on Home Care and Support for Elderly Persons with Mild Impairment ("the Pilot Scheme") in December 2017 to provide further assessments for elderly persons waitlisting for Integrated Home Care Services (Ordinary Cases) ("IHCS(OC)") throughout the territory, and offer additional service quota for those elderly persons assessed to be of mild impairment. At the planning stage of the Pilot Scheme, the Social Welfare Department ("SWD") set the number of service quota under the Pilot Scheme at 4 000 by making reference to the number of elderly persons waitlisting for IHCS(OC) at the time.

(2) SWD commissioned the Sau Po Centre on Ageing of The University of Hong Kong ("Sau Po Centre") to evaluate the effectiveness of the Pilot Scheme in February 2018. The consultation team is led by Prof Terry LUM Yat Sang, Head of the Department of Social Work and Social Administration of The University of Hong Kong. Other major members of the consultation team include the Director of Sau Po Centre and two other Assistant Professors, as well as several researchers. The total cost of the consultancy study is about $1.4 million.

The consultation team will conduct focus groups and interviews with the Approved Service Providers ("ASPs"), service users and their carers to collect their views on the Pilot Scheme during the evaluation process. The evaluation is expected to be completed by end-2019.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7533

(3) The Community Care Fund provided a funding of $383 million to cover the expenditure involved in the Pilot Scheme. In the one-year period from the launch of the Pilot Scheme in December 2017 to December 2018, the total subsidy disbursed under the Pilot Scheme was about $22.26 million, which included subsidies for services provided to the participants, subsidies for staffing provided to ASPs, and subsidies for other service operation, etc. In addition, about $910,000 was spent on administration costs, including the cost for the evaluation. SWD does not have information on the average cost for each item of the services provided.

(4) SWD commissioned Sau Po Centre to design a simple and standardized assessment tool to identify elderly persons with mild impairment and analyse their service needs, so as to provide them with suitable home care and support services. The accredited assessors of the Pilot Scheme have been using the assessment tool to conduct comprehensive assessments on such aspects of the elderly persons as their cognition/communication, mood/psychosocial well-being, functional status, health conditions, disease diagnoses, nutritional issues and procedures/treatments, etc. The assessment tool was designed with reference to the assessment tool of the internationally recognized InterRAI Check-Up. Due to copyright regulations, the assessment tool of the Pilot Scheme will only be provided to trained assessors for the purpose of conducting assessments.

(5) SWD and Sau Po Centre have so far conducted five rounds of training programmes for assessors, with the dates as follows:

(i) 28 December 2017 and 29 December 2017;

(ii) 11 January 2018 and 12 January 2018;

(iii) 30 January 2018 and 31 January 2018;

(iv) 6 February 2018 and 7 February 2018; and

(v) 17 January 2019 and 24 January 2019.

7534 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

(6) to (9)

As at end-December 2018, a total of 2 691 elderly persons waitlisting for IHCS(OC) were assessed upon being invited to join the Pilot Scheme, out of which 2 412 elderly persons were eligible and had applied to join the Pilot Scheme. Among them, 1 567 elderly persons had received the services and the subsidy payments, and their breakdowns by co-payment categories and service types are as follows:

Co-payment Number of Number of Service Type Category(1) Persons Persons I 693 994 Home Services II 715 (63.4%) III 79 343 Meal Services IV 73 (21.9%) 230 V 7 Home and Meal Services (14.7%) Total 1 567 Total 1 567

Note:

(1) The five co-payment rates for meal services are set at 20%, 30%, 35%, 40% and 45% of the service values, whereas the five co-payment rates for home services are set at 0%, 9%, 15%, 21% and 27% of the service values.

In addition, as at end-December 2018, a total of 43 elderly persons left the Pilot Scheme and their breakdown by reasons for termination of services is as follows:

Reasons for Termination of Services Number of Persons Passing away 17 Admitted to residential care services 5 Admitted to subvented community care services 2 Withdrawn from services(2) 19 Total 43

Note:

(2) SWD does not have information on the service users' reasons for withdrawing from the services.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7535

Through the 55 IHCS teams of the 24 non-governmental organizations operating IHCS(OC), the Pilot Scheme provides elderly persons receiving services under the Pilot Scheme with the necessary home care and support services as soon as possible. At present, elderly persons do not have to wait for the relevant services.

SWD does not have the breakdowns of the statistics of the Pilot Scheme by District Council districts, and the information on the average usage time per case, the average number of user-times per month of the services, etc.

(10) The prices for each meal and each hour of home services under the Pilot Scheme are set with reference to the permitted ceiling prices in respect of the relevant services recognized by SWD under the Pilot Scheme on Community Care Service Voucher for the Elderly.

Wastage of the Administrative Officer and Executive Officer grades staff

19. MR LAM CHEUK-TING (in Chinese): President, regarding the wastage of the Administrative Officer ("AO") and Executive Officer ("EO") grades staff, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the wastage of (a) directorate and (b) non-directorate officers in the two grades in the past three financial years, with a breakdown by reason for departure (i.e. retirement and other reasons) (set out in the table below); and

AO grade EO grade Other Other Financial Retirement Total Retirement Total reasons reasons Year (a) (b) (a) (b) (a) (b) (a) (b) (a) (b) (a) (b) 2015-2016 2016-2017 2017-2018

(2) of the measures in place to reduce the wastage of staff in the two grades?

7536 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

SECRETARY FOR THE CIVIL SERVICE (in Chinese): President, my consolidated reply to the two parts of the question is as follows:

The number of (a) directorate and (b) non-directorate officers in the Administrative Officer ("AO") grade and Executive Officer ("EO") grade who left the service from 2015-2016 to 2017-2018 financial year is tabulated below:

AO grade EO grade Other Other Financial Retirement Total Retirement Total reasons reasons Year (a) (b) (a) (b) (a) (b) (a) (b) (a) (b) (a) (b) 2015-2016 8 1 2 7 10 8 9 24 1 39 10 63 2016-2017 14 1 3 6 17 7 7 36 0 55 7 91 2017-2018 6 0 4 5 10 5 11 26 1 73 12 99

The wastage rate of AO grade in the three aforementioned financial years was 2.9%, 3.8% and 2.3% respectively, and that of EO grade was 2.4%, 3.0% and 3.4% respectively. The wastage rate of both grades during the same period was lower than that of the civil service as a whole, which was 4.7%, 4.7% and 5.1% respectively. Besides reaching retirement age, other reasons for leaving the service included resignation, completion of agreement and death. The major reasons for resignation included marriage or family reasons, taking up jobs in outside bodies and pursuing further studies etc.

The Civil Service Bureau will continue to pay attention to the vacancy situation of AO and EO grades across all ranks, and will carry out recruitment and promotion exercises timely. We will also continue to maintain close communication with officers of the two grades, and will understand their work through different channels and provide suitable assistance.

Implementation of the sanctions decided by the Security Council of the United Nations

20. MR HOLDEN CHOW (in Chinese): President, the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development indicated in reply to a question raised by a Member of this Council on 23 January this year that the Government had all along been implementing and enforcing the sanctions or restrictions imposed by the United Nations Security Council against 14 places and two organizations through the United Nations Sanctions Ordinance (Cap. 537) and the regulations made under that Ordinance by the Chief Executive. In the past five years, the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7537

Hong Kong Police Force ("HKPF") and the Customs and Excise Department ("C&ED") investigated 201 and 99 suspected cases of sanctions violations respectively. The manpower responsible for the relevant law enforcement work includes 69 staff members from the relevant investigation division of HKPF and 47 staff members from the Trade Controls Branch of C&ED. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of a breakdown of the aforesaid cases by the places/organizations under sanction they involved (set out in a table);

(2) whether it has assessed the adequacy of the current law enforcement manpower; if so, of the outcome; whether it has plans to increase the manpower; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and

(3) whether the current deployment of law enforcement manpower is based on the places/organizations under sanction; if so, of the details, and whether it has deployed law enforcement manpower based on the risk of the occurrence of sanctions violations; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Chinese): President, according to the Charter of the United Nations, Member States of the United Nations (including the People's Republic of China ("PRC")) should apply measures decided by the United Nations Security Council ("UNSC") to maintain or restore international peace and security. As part of the PRC, the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("HKSAR") implements UNSC sanctions pursuant to the instructions of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to fulfil our international obligation.

Currently, UNSC imposes sanctions or restrictions against 14 places(1) and two organizations.(2) The HKSAR Government has fully implemented sanctions or restrictions imposed by UNSC against the 14 places and two organizations through the United Nations Sanctions Ordinance (Cap. 537) ("the Ordinance") and the regulations made under the Ordinance by the Chief Executive.

(1) These 14 places are Afghanistan, Central African Republic, Democratic Republic of the Congo, DPRK, Guinea-Bissau, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Mali, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan and Yemen.

(2) The two organizations are Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant and Al-Qaida. 7538 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

The Hong Kong Police Force ("HKPF") and the Customs and Excise Department ("C&ED") are the law enforcement agencies of the Ordinance. Generally speaking, HKPF is mainly responsible for enforcement work related to the financial sanction and sanctions on financial transactions or transfer of funds, while C&ED is mainly responsible for enforcement against the supply, sale or transfer of arms and other items subject to sanction. The two law enforcement agencies have been acting in accordance with the law, without fear or favour, to follow up on suspected violations of the Ordinance.

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

(1) To ensure integrity and confidentiality of our investigation work, we will not disclose details of the cases, including the places or organizations involved.

(2) We have been monitoring the law enforcement agencies' manpower arrangements for handling suspected violations of the United Nations sanctions, and providing adequate resources as necessary. The Financial Investigation Division of the Narcotics Bureau of HKPF is responsible for, inter alia, enforcing the Ordinance. The Division will be expanded from the current size of 69 staff members to 79 in 2019-2020. As for C&ED, apart from the staff responsible for physical examination of cargoes at boundary control points, 47 staff members from the Trade Controls Branch are responsible for, inter alia, enforcing the Ordinance. The Government will continue to provide adequate resources to HKPF and C&ED according to their needs.

(3) Appropriate training has been provided to HKPF and C&ED staff who are responsible for enforcing the Ordinance so that they are capable of investigating and following up on suspected cases involving different sanctioned places or organizations. Instead of assigning individual law enforcement officers to be solely responsible for cases involving specific sanctioned places or organizations, HKPF and C&ED deploy their manpower flexibly to follow up on each and every suspected case. Such arrangement not only allows effective use of manpower, but also ensures proper follow-up of all suspected cases.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7539

Enforcement of the smoking ban

21. MR TONY TSE (in Chinese): President, although the legislation banning smoking in the indoor areas of restaurants has come into operation for over one decade, some members of the public currently still find, from time to time at present, patrons blatantly smoking in the indoor areas of restaurants. This, coupled with the fact that there are often patrons and staff members of restaurants smoking in the open-air areas of restaurants and in the areas outside restaurant entrances, has caused nuisances to other patrons. Regarding the enforcement of the smoking ban, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the number of staff members in the Tobacco and Alcohol Control Office ("TACO") under the Department of Health who are currently responsible for the enforcement of the smoking ban; whether there are plans to increase such manpower;

(2) of the respective numbers of (i) complaints received in the past five years and (ii) prosecutions instituted last year, by the authorities in respect of smoking offences, with a breakdown by type of no smoking areas;

(3) whether TACO has proactively deployed staff to conduct inspections at restaurants; if so, set out by year the respective numbers of routine and surprise inspections conducted during daytime and night-time in the past five years;

(4) whether the authorities received complaints in the past five years about law enforcement officers in TACO suspected of being absent from duty without authorization; if so, of the number of such complaints and, among them, the number of those found to be substantiated, as well as the penalties imposed on the officers concerned;

(5) whether it has uncovered cases of restaurant operators condoning or giving tacit consent to patrons smoking in the indoor areas of restaurants; if so, of the measures to deal with the situation; and

7540 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

(6) whether it will consider designating the following areas as statutory no smoking areas: (i) areas within a reasonable distance outside the entrances of restaurants and (ii) open-air areas of restaurants which are within a reasonable distance from the indoor areas of the restaurants; whether, in the long run, it will, by drawing reference from the anti-smoking policies adopted in certain overseas countries, switch from the current practice of designating statutory no smoking areas to imposing a total ban on smoking in open-air public areas (except designated smoking areas)?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Chinese): President, since the amendment of the Smoking (Public Health) Ordinance (Cap. 371) in 2006, the statutory smoking ban has been gradually extended and now covers all indoor working places and public places as well as many outdoor public places. Around 240 public transport facilities have been designated as no smoking areas ("NSAs") progressively. Since 2016, the Government has also extended the smoking ban to 11 bus interchanges leading to expressways or tunnels by phases.

My reply to the various parts of the question raised by Mr Tony TSE is as follows:

(1) The Tobacco Control Office of the Department of Health has been renamed as Tobacco and Alcohol Control Office ("TACO") in November 2018. Apart from Cap. 371, TACO is also responsible for the enforcement of the new Part 5 of the Dutiable Commodities (Liquor) Regulations (Cap. 109B), which prohibits the sale and supply of intoxicating liquor to minors in the course of business. The current approved establishment of TACO's frontline enforcement staff is 119. The Department of Health will review its staffing position regularly to meet actual needs, and will seek additional resources, if required, in accordance with the established mechanism.

(2) The numbers of complaints received and fixed penalty notices/summonses issued in relation to smoking offences processed by TACO in the past five years are as follows:

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7541

Year 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Complaints Food premises 2 220 2 336 2 761 2 370 2 214 received Non-food premises(1) 15 134 15 539 20 178 15 984 15 886 Total 17 354 17 875 22 939 18 354 18 100 Fixed penalty Food premises 598 519 598 672 542 notices or Non-food premises(1) 7 429 7 337 8 259 9 188 8 282 summonses issued Total 8 027 7 856 8 857 9 860 8 824

Note:

(1) TACO does not maintain breakdown of enforcement figures according to the different types of NSAs.

(3) TACO follows up on every complaint by arranging daytime and night-time surprise inspections. In addition, TACO also conducts proactive inspections at locations with more serious smoking problems. To ensure effective enforcement, all inspections conducted by TACO are surprise inspections. TACO has strengthened night-time enforcement actions since 2017. The number of daytime and night-time operations conducted in 2017 and 2018 are as follows:

Year 2017 2018 Daytime Operation(2) 1 455 1 373 Night-time Operation(3) 542 1 002 Total Operation 1 997 2 375

Notes:

(2) "Daytime operation" covers the "morning and afternoon shift" for the period from 0630 hrs to 1830 hrs.

(3) "Night-time operation" in 2017 covers the "afternoon and evening shift", "evening shift" and "overnight shift" for the periods 1200 hrs to 2300 hrs, 1800 hrs to 2300 hrs , and 2000 hrs to 0600 hrs respectively. "Night-time operation" in 2018 covers the "afternoon and evening shift" and "evening shift" for the period 1000 hrs to 2300 hrs and the "overnight shift" for the period 2000 hrs to 0600 hrs.

TACO does not maintain the breakdown of the daytime and night-time inspection figures at food premises.

7542 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

(4) TACO has not found any cases of unauthorized absence involving law enforcement officers that would result in disciplinary action in the past five years. TACO also does not maintain the relevant complaint figures.

(5) Under Cap. 371, venue managers of NSAs are empowered to request smokers to cease smoking or leave the NSAs, and may call for police assistance if necessary. Venue managers have been reminded of their authority empowered by Cap. 371 during inspections and through talks on smoking ban regulations conducted by TACO. In addition, guidelines are in place to assist venue managers to implement the smoking ban. When members of the public are found smoking in NSAs, Tobacco and Alcohol Control Inspectors will prosecute offenders without prior warning. In general, venue managers are cooperative in facilitating operations conducted by the law enforcement officers of TACO.

(6) The main purpose of designating NSAs or introducing tobacco control measures is to minimize the effect of secondhand smoke on the public. There is also a need to balance the interests of all parties, including both smokers and non-smokers. Before putting any smoking ban or other tobacco control measures in place, it is imperative to ensure that they can be effectively enforced and can be easily complied with by the public, such as whether there are clear and conspicuous demarcations between NSAs and non-NSAs. The Government has received both supporting and opposing views when extending the smoking ban in the past. We must therefore carefully consider and take into account different views when further extending the smoking ban.

Capability of children and youths to exercise self-control in using mobile phones and browsing social media

22. MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Chinese): President, the findings of some surveys indicate that children and youths generally have lower self-control over the use of mobile phones, and they are prone to developing depression and anxiety once they have become addicted to browsing the Internet. Some concern groups have pointed out that prolonged use of mobile phones and browsing social media by children and youths may affect their work and rest routines, physical LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7543 and mental health as well as interpersonal relationships, and they also have a higher chance of encountering cyber frauds and bullying as well as being exposed to harmful and false information. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the number of requests for assistance received in the past three years by the Education Bureau and subvented social welfare organizations concerning the addiction of children and youths to browsing the Internet or social media, with a breakdown by the age group to which they belonged;

(2) whether, in the past three years, it (i) conducted statistical surveys on the habits of children and youths on using mobile phones and browsing social media as well as the impacts of such habits on their physical and mental well-being, and (ii) formulated, in collaboration with the various stakeholders, guidelines to assist parents in strengthening their children's capability to exercise self-control in using mobile phones and browsing social media; and

(3) whether it will allocate additional resources to (i) offer counselling to children and youths and (ii) provide support to teachers, parents and community organizations in order to help children and youths strengthen their capability to exercise self-control in using mobile phones and browsing social media; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Chinese): President, having consulted the relevant bureaux, our consolidated reply to the Member's question is as follows:

(1) The Education Bureau and the Social Welfare Department ("SWD") do not have the relevant statistics and information.

(2) The Department of Health ("DH") conducted a survey on "Use of Internet and Electronic Screen Products" in 2017 targeting pre-school children, primary and secondary school students with the aim to understand their practice in using Internet and the electronic screen products as well as the effects exerted on their daily lives. Similar survey was also conducted in 2014. 7544 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

The Government set up an Advisory Group on Health Effects of Use of Internet and Electronic Screen Products (Advisory Group) in 2013 comprising of members from the Education Bureau, SWD, DH, representatives from the social welfare sector and relevant colleges of medical specialties, etc. The Advisory Group published the "Report of Advisory Group on Health Effects of Use of Internet and Electronic Screen Products" ("the Report") in 2014 with recommendations for children, adolescents, parents and teachers on healthy use of the Internet and electronic screen products. The Report has been uploaded to DH's website. DH also produced a set of four modules of health tips for parents, teachers, primary and secondary students respectively and set up a designated web page for the public to search, browse and download related health information and resources.

Separately, the Education Bureau attaches importance to helping students exercise self-discipline and prudence so that they can use information technology and social media properly and lead a healthy lifestyle. Relevant learning elements, including ethical use of the Internet as well as prevention of Internet addiction and cyberbullying, have been incorporated into the related subjects at the primary and secondary-levels as well as the curriculum framework of moral and civic education. Schools also plan their school-based curricula and activities accordingly.

The Education Bureau continuously provides support for schools such as producing various learning and teaching resources based on life events to help teachers raise students' awareness of cyber security and the proper attitude and cultivate in them a proper habit of using smart phones safely. Besides, professional training programmes are organized for principals and teachers to better equip them with the relevant knowledge and skills.

(3) SWD has been subventing non-governmental organizations ("NGOs") to provide young people with a range of preventive, developmental and remedial services to help them deal with their academic, social and emotional difficulties, as well as educate them on the proper use of mobile phones and social media on a needs basis. The services concerned include those provided through integrated children and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7545 youth services centres, school social work, youth outreach service and the Community Support Service Scheme to offer appropriate support to young people in need. Besides, starting from 1 December 2018, SWD has subvented NGOs to set up five Cyber Youth Support Teams ("the Teams"), which reach out to at-risk and hidden youth on the online platforms commonly used by young people. The Teams provide advisory and counselling services with regard to their problems in social, emotion, personal growth and development areas as well as deviant behaviours relating to the use of the Internet. Where necessary, with the consent of the young people, the social workers will meet with them for in-depth discussions and provide suitable follow-up services, including referring them and their family members to relevant mainstream services.

Besides, to assist schools in preventing and handling the problem of Internet addiction among students, a set of teaching materials entitled Prevention of Internet Addiction for Personal Growth Education lessons and other relevant information are provided for schools by the Education Bureau. Relevant training is also offered for teachers and social workers on a need basis so that they can help and refer students with the problem of Internet addiction to receive necessary professional services. The Education Bureau has coorganized school recognition scheme with professional bodies to encourage schools to promote healthy use of the Internet among students. For parent education, the Committee on Home-School Cooperation and schools organize various activities such as seminars, to foster parents' understanding of healthy use of the Internet and ways to prevent the problem of Internet addiction among their children, and remind them of the need to care more about and pay heed to their children's habit of using the Internet, while seeking help from school social workers and guidance personnel whenever necessary. Furthermore, videos and articles on how to help children use electronic products properly and handle the problem of Internet addiction among children are also available on Smart Parent Net, the parent education website launched by the Education Bureau, for parents' reference. Besides, a telephone hotline has been set up through a NGO to provide individual support for parents, teachers and students in need.

7546 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

GOVERNMENT BILLS

First Reading and Second Reading of Government Bills

First Reading of Government Bills

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

JUDICIAL OFFICERS (EXTENSION OF RETIREMENT AGE) (AMENDMENT) BILL 2019

INLAND REVENUE (AMENDMENT) (TAX CONCESSIONS) BILL 2019

ELECTORAL LEGISLATION (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) BILL 2019

CLERK (in Cantonese): Judicial Officers (Extension of Retirement Age) (Amendment) Bill 2019 Inland Revenue (Amendment) (Tax Concessions) Bill 2019 Electoral Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2019.

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

Second Reading of Government Bills

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

JUDICIAL OFFICERS (EXTENSION OF RETIREMENT AGE) (AMENDMENT) BILL 2019

CHIEF SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION (in Cantonese): President, I move the Second Reading of the Judicial Officers (Extension of Retirement Age) (Amendment) Bill 2019 ("the Bill").

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7547

The Bill seeks to amend the relevant ordinances, which will enable the Judiciary to implement various recommendations and related arrangements pertaining to the extension of the statutory retirement ages of Judges and Judicial Officers.

In light of the persistent recruitment difficulties at the Court of First Instance of the High Court level, the Chief Justice is of a firm belief that an extension of the statutory retirement ages for Judges and Judicial Officers will encourage recruitment of the best legal talents to the Judiciary, while it is also important to retain for as long as practicable the benefit of the experience and skills of serving Judges and Judicial Officers.

Furthermore, the statutory retirement ages of Hong Kong's Judges and Judicial Officers are lower than those of most overseas jurisdictions. As such, after the Judiciary has conducted a consultancy study on the statutory retirement ages for Judges and Judicial Officers, it puts forward various proposals to the Government. The Government supports the proposals in full. I am going to explain the major points of the proposals in the ensuing paragraphs.

First, regarding the statutory retirement ages:

(a) we propose to extend the statutory retirement ages for Judges of the Court of Final Appeal, the Court of Appeal and the Court of First Instance of the High Court from 65 to 70;

(b) we propose that the statutory retirement ages for District Judges are maintained at 65 in order to avoid creating career blockages at the lower level as well as to facilitate the injection of new blood; and

(c) we propose to extend the statutory retirement ages for Members of the Lands Tribunal, Magistrates and other Judicial Officers at the magistrate level from 60 to 65;

Second, regarding early retirement ages:

(a) we propose to raise the statutory early retirement age of Judges of the Court of Final Appeal, the Court of Appeal and the Court of First Instance of the High Court from 60 to 65 correspondingly;

7548 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

(b) we propose to introduce a statutory early retirement age for Members of the Lands Tribunal, Magistrates and other Judicial Officers at the magistrate level at 60; and

(c) we propose to introduce a new statutory discretionary early retirement age of 60 for Judges of the Court of Final Appeal , Court of Appeal and the Court of First Instance of the High Court upon approval of the Chief Justice;

Third, regarding discretionary extension arrangements:

(a) we propose to maintain the similar discretionary extension arrangements for Judges and Judicial Officers at all levels of court by providing for discretionary extension of term of office for District Judges with an extension period of not exceeding five years in aggregate;

Regarding transitional arrangements:

(a) we propose to put in place a mechanism which allows serving Judges and Judicial Officers to choose whether or not to transfer to the new retirement ages.

In order to implement the proposals, we introduce the Bill and recommend legislative amendments to four ordinances, namely the High Court Ordinance; the District Court Ordinance; the Pensions Benefits (Judicial Officers) Ordinance; and the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance.

Besides implementing the above proposals, the Bill also provides for appropriate details for the relevant arrangements, including specific arrangements to allow serving Judges and Judicial Officers to choose whether to transfer to the new retirement ages or to remain under the existing retirement ages. Generally, a serving Judge or Judicial Officer can exercise the option of joining the new retirement arrangements during an opting period of two years, and the new arrangements shall be valid regardless if he is later elevated to a higher judicial position in the Judiciary after the opting period.

The implementation of the proposals will enable the Judiciary to sustain their manpower across different levels of court, which is crucial to the efficient and effective operation of the Judiciary.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7549

The Government has consulted various stakeholders, including the Hong Kong Bar Association, The Law Society of Hong Kong and the Legislative Council's Panel on Administration of Justice and Legal Services on the proposals. They all indicated their support to these proposals.

President, I hope Members will support the Bill, so that the Judiciary may implement the proposals on the arrangements for the extension of the statutory retirement ages of Judges and Judicial Officers, with a view to facilitating the injection of new blood as well as retaining experienced serving Judges and Judicial Officers.

I so submit, thank you.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the Judicial Officers (Extension of Retirement Age) (Amendment) Bill 2019, be read the Second time.

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

INLAND REVENUE (AMENDMENT) (TAX CONCESSIONS) BILL 2019

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): President, I move the Second Reading of the Inland Revenue (Amendment) (Tax Concessions) Bill 2019 ("the Bill").

The object of the Bill is to give effect to a proposal concerning tax concessions in the Budget introduced by the Government for the 2019-2020 financial year.

The Bill provides that the salaries tax, tax under personal assessment and profits tax for year of assessment ("YA") 2018-2019 be reduced by 75%, subject to a ceiling of $20,000 per case. The reductions will be reflected in taxpayers' final tax payable for YA 2018-2019. The proposed one-off reductions will benefit 1.91 million taxpayers of salaries tax and tax under personal assessment, and 145 000 tax-paying corporations and unincorporated businesses. The government revenue forgone amounts to $18.9 billion in 2019-2020.

7550 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

President, we have issued to this Council the Legislative Council Brief to explain the proposed tax reductions in the Bill. The proposed tax reductions will not only help reduce the tax burden on taxpayers, but also benefit our economy. I hope Members will support the passage of the Bill for early implementation of the proposed tax concessions that will benefit the taxpayers.

I so submit. Thank you, President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the Inland Revenue (Amendment) (Tax Concessions) bill 2019 be read the Second time.

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

ELECTORAL LEGISLATION (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) BILL 2019

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): President, I move the Second Reading of the Electoral Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2019 ("the Bill").

The Bill introduces necessary technical legislative amendments for the 2020 Legislative Council General Election and other public elections, including technical amendments concerning the electorate of the functional constituencies, arrangements in the Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Conduct) Ordinance (Cap. 554), as well as various electoral procedures. The proposed amendments are set out in details at paragraphs 3 to 9 of the Legislative Council Brief.

Review of the existing electorate of the functional constituencies

Regarding the electorate of the functional constituencies, following the established practice and in consultation with relevant bureaux/departments, we have conducted a review on the delineation of the electorate of the functional constituencies under the Legislative Council Ordinance (Cap. 542). Based on the above review, we propose to make a series of necessary technical amendments whilst maintaining the original delineation of the functional constituencies. The proposed amendments seek: LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7551

(a) to update the names of corporates that have had their names changed;

(b) to remove corporates which have ceased operation; and

(c) to add new electors in the light of the prevailing situation of the functional constituencies concerned.

Other technical amendments

On the other hand, we also wish to take this opportunity to introduce technical legislative amendments for the upcoming Legislative Council General Election and other public elections, with a view to improving electoral arrangements.

First, we propose to improve the way candidates of Geographical Constituencies or the District Council (second) functional constituencies of the Legislative Council election submit their nomination forms by allowing them to submit the nomination forms in a way authorized by the Chief Electoral Officer. The relevant amendment seeks to align the arrangements of submission of nomination form for candidates in candidate lists of Geographical Constituencies or the District Council (second) functional constituencies with those for candidates in the traditional functional constituencies as well as other public elections by allowing candidates who are unable to submit nomination forms in person for any justifiable reasons to submit the nomination forms in an alternative way.

In addition, we propose to follow Hongkong Post's new requirement according to the changes to Hong Kong Post's postage structure introduced in 2016 by establishing an objective yardstick on the size of postage-free letters to be sent by candidates in future elections.

Lastly, to prepare for the next election cycle, we have reviewed certain arrangements under the Elections (Corrupt and Illegal Conduct) Ordinance (Cap. 554). In this connection, we propose to raise the limits prescribed for ratifying minor errors for different elections, so as to facilitate candidates to rectify minor errors or omissions in their election returns. We also propose to revise the threshold for submission of invoices and receipts from $100 to $500 for all public elections, and to extend the deadline for submitting election return for the Chief Executive election from 30 days to 60 days.

7552 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

With these remarks, President, I implore Members to support the Bill. To dovetail with the next election cycle, I hope the Bill can be passed in mid-2019, so that the relevant new measures can be implemented in time for the 2019 District Council Ordinary Election to be held in November. Thank you, President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the Electoral Legislation (Miscellaneous Amendments) Bill 2019 be read the Second time.

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

Resumption of Second Reading Debate on Government Bill

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This Council resumes the Second Reading debate on the Inland Revenue and MPF Schemes Legislation (Tax Deductions for Annuity Premiums and MPF Voluntary Contributions) (Amendment) Bill 2018.

INLAND REVENUE AND MPF SCHEMES LEGISLATION (TAX DEDUCTIONS FOR ANNUITY PREMIUMS AND MPF VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS) (AMENDMENT) BILL 2018

Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 12 December 2018

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Chairman of the Bills Committee will first address the Council on the Committee's Report.

MR WONG TING-KWONG (in Cantonese): President, in my capacity as Chairman of the Bills Committee on Inland Revenue and MPF Schemes Legislation (Tax Deductions for Annuity Premiums and MPF Voluntary Contributions) (Amendment) Bill 2018 ("the Bills Committee"), I report to the Legislative Council on the major deliberations of the Bills Committee.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7553

The Inland Revenue and MPF Schemes Legislation (Tax Deductions for Annuity Premiums and MPF Voluntary Contributions) (Amendment) Bill 2018 ("the Bill") aims to implement the proposed tax deduction for taxpayers who make Mandatory Provident Fund voluntary contributions ("MPF VCs") or take out a qualified deferred annuity.

The Bill proposes that a taxpayer is entitled to a maximum tax deductible limit of $60,000 for MPF tax deductible voluntary contributions ("TVCs") and deferred annuity premiums, where the deferred annuity premiums is also applicable to the taxpayer's spouse. The Insurance Authority ("IA") will issue guideline such that premiums for deferred annuity policies that meet the requirements in the guidelines will be tax deductible.

Some members have enquired about the reasons for not raising the aggregate maximum tax deductible limit further to $100,000 per year as some members of the industry have suggested. The Administration has advised that in determining the revised limit of $60,000 per year, it has made reference to the maximum tax deductible limit of other deduction items under the salaries tax regime and new measures under contemplation. The Administration will make reference to the market response and the views of Members of the Legislative Council when reviewing the maximum deductible limit in future.

Members have raised certain enquiries on qualifying deferred annuity policy, including the factors which IA will take into consideration in formulating the criteria for a qualifying deferred annuity policy; whether IA would conduct any public consultation on the criteria to be specified in the guidelines; the number of existing deferred annuity products that satisfied the proposed criteria; and how taxpayers would know whether a deferred annuity policy is certified by IA as in compliance with the criteria. The Administration has advised that the guidelines laid down by IA will set out the technical details of the eligibility criteria and other related requirements and an industry consultation on the guidelines had been conducted. In formulating the criteria for a qualifying deferred annuity policy to be specified in the guidelines, IA will take into consideration whether the product serves the purposes of long-term retirement financial planning and consumer protection.

As to the deferred annuity products available in the market, the Administration has advised that there are 44 existing deferred annuity products in 7554 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 the market but, for the time being, only a few of them satisfy the intended guidelines to be set down by IA. Upon confirmation of the guidelines, it is expected that there will be more eligible products as insurers are likely to be able to adjust some existing products to meet the qualifying criteria. IA will publish the list of the eligible deferred annuity products on its website.

The Bills Committee had also studied meticulously the operational details of the proposed tax deductions, including the order of deductions for the same taxpayer's tax deductible MPF VCs and eligible annuity premiums, voluntary contributions paid by way of deductions from salary, and the power to be exercised by the Commissioner of Inland Revenue in handling applications for tax deductions by both the taxpayer and whose spouse (i.e. a married couple).

Besides, some members were concerned about the way of handling the benefits from a TVC account in means tests required by certain public services and social welfare schemes. A member considered that contributions made to TVC accounts and MPF Mandatory Contributions ("MCs") are of the same nature in the sense that both will be subject to preservation requirements. He also opined that the accrued benefits from TVCs and MCs should both be excluded from being counted as assets in means tests.

Given the differences between TVCs and MCs, the Administration considered it inappropriate to uniformly require the accrued benefits of TVCs to be excluded from the calculation of assets of the applicants in carrying out means tests solely because TVCs and MCs are subject to the same preservation requirements. Each of the means-tested public services or welfare schemes has its unique policy objective, target beneficiaries to be covered by the policy, and criteria for defining the meaning of "asset". Hence, there might not be a one-size-fits-all treatment of accrued benefits of TVCs for all these means-tested public services or schemes. The Administration has further advised that in general, if the accrued benefits of TVCs of the applicants cannot be withdrawn at the time of applications for means-tested public services and welfare schemes, their accrued benefits of TVCs will not be regarded as assets.

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

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7555

In the course of deliberations, members expressed concerns and made suggestions on various issues, including the performance and management fees of MPF schemes, "universal" retirement protection, etc.

Deputy President, the opinions of mine and the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong ("DAB") on the Bill are as follows:

The Bill aims to provide tax deductions to people who make MPF VCs and purchase deferred annuity products, so as to encourage members of the public to be better prepared for their retirement. Such purpose is commendable in any case. Moreover, during the scrutiny of the Bill, the Administration had properly addressed the issues of concern raised by members of the Bills Committee and members of the public, such as the guidelines to be published by IA, in which the criteria for an eligible deferred annuity policy and the technical details of other related requirements will be set out to ensure protection for the interests of those who take out deferred annuities in future.

In addition, the Bureau submitted in its paper issued to the Bills Committee that relevant Policy Bureaux/departments will not regard the accrued benefits of TVCs as assets in processing the applications for various means-tested public services and welfare schemes in future, so that the eligibility of applicants will not be affected. Hence, DAB and I see no reason why we should not support the Bill.

Certainly, DAB and I do hope that the Administration will conduct a comprehensive review on the effectiveness of the policy concerned after the Bill comes into operation. If the policy turns out to be effective, the Administration may consider further increasing the aggregate maximum tax deductible limit for MPF VCs and deferred annuity products purchased from $60,000 proposed in the Bill to $100,000. Besides, it is imperative that the Administration should further reform the existing MPF regime to reduce the various fees payable under MPF schemes and make available a wider selection of MPF products with stable returns to members of the public, thereby enhancing their confidence in MPF and providing them with more stable and reliable safeguards for their retirement.

Deputy President, with these remarks, both DAB and I support the Bill.

7556 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

MR CHAN KIN-POR (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the Government's plan to introduce tax concessions for Mandatory Provident Fund voluntary contributions ("MPF VCs") and premiums for deferred annuity policies aims to encourage members of the public to make savings as a financial arrangement for their retirement in future. At present, the grassroots elderly are entitled to both the Old Age Living Allowance and Comprehensive Social Security Assistance, whereas the elderly of the middle-class cannot enjoy the protection by social security since they have certain assets and are financially capable. Therefore, they can only live on MPF and their personal savings after retirement. Those middle-class people who do not have proper retirement planning will inevitably fret about their post-retirement life.

I have been advocating over the past that the Government should adopt the insurance scheme model which has been prevalent in foreign countries for a long time to address our problems arising from an ageing society. It is particularly necessary to cater for the needs of the post-retirement life of those middle-class people who were subject to heavy tax payments but entitled to few welfare benefits. Relevant measures should include the voluntary health insurance scheme which is about to be rolled and the deferred annuity scheme right under our scrutiny, as well as the MPF VC scheme. All that the Government has to do is to provide limited financial incentives to encourage those people who are financially more capable to save up for the rainy days, thereby minimizing the burden on public resources from the middle-class in future. I consider this a win-win option that can help the middle-class while resolving social problems. On the other hand, this will help take forward the development of the deferred annuity market and make up for the inadequacies of the public annuity plan.

Regarding the currently proposed tax concessions to be granted in the form of tax deduction, the Government has been dealing with the implementation details in a rather rigorous manner. I agree with the Government's move since it is a must to safeguard the consumers' interests and prevent abuse of public funds at the same time. For example, the Bill provides that the internal rate of return must be disclosed and the guaranteed annuity rate must not be less than 50%, thereby enhancing the transparency of the deferred annuity scheme to facilitate the making of appropriate choices by members of the public. This will also help enhance the regulatory efficacy of the legislation.

Moreover, the Government has taken Members' advice as appropriate. The originally proposed amount of deduction at $36,000 could make possible a saving of only $5,000 or $6,000, which do not seem quite attractive to the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7557 middle-class. Members in the industry are worried that it may fail to give people the incentive to join the scheme, thus defeating the original purpose. In light of this, some Members advised the Government to increase the tax deductible amount to $100,000. After discussion, the Government finally agreed to increase the amount concerned to $60,000 instead and up to $100,000 can be saved. With the amount revised, the scheme will be much more attractive. Increasing the tax deductible amount will not only attract more people to join the scheme but also help take forward the development of the deferred annuity market. Of course, we also hope the Government will increase the amount of tax deduction with reference to the changes in and development of the market to maintain the competitiveness of deferred annuity products.

On product design, the industry expects the authorities to ensure flexibility in such products in addition to safeguarding consumers' rights and interests so as to tie in with the future development of the market. It is also opined that the Government should put in place a mechanism that allows members of the public to make one-off contribution to the schemes concerned. As the amount of tax deduction currently proposed is calculated on a yearly basis, those making one-off contributions will not benefit from such tax concessions. In fact, there will really be some people who choose to make one-off contributions for some reasons. For example, they may have been given bonuses or cash awards which they would like to spend on taking out insurance policies. However, if contributions are to be made on a yearly basis, they may wonder how they should deal with the unused portion of the bonuses or cash awards received since the interest rates offered by banks for savings are rather low. Hence, they would rather make one-off contributions. Having regard that making one-off contributions enables one to have bigger return on investment, I hope the Government will also take into account the needs of those who opt to do so when it conducts reviews in future to offer them relevant tax concessions in the form of tax deduction. For example they can be allowed to break down the gross amount of one-off contribution for making declaration in their tax returns on a yearly basis.

Deputy President, I support the Bill.

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

(No Member indicated a wish to speak)

7558 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): If not, I now call upon the Secretary to reply. Then, the debate will come to a close.

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): Deputy President, first of all, I would like to thank Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Chairman of the Bills Committee on Inland Revenue and MPF Schemes Legislation (Tax Deductions for Annuity Premiums and MPF Voluntary Contributions) (Amendment) Bill 2018 ("the Bills Committee") and other members, as well as the Legislative Council Secretariat and the Legal Adviser for their effort in facilitating the smooth completion of the scrutiny of the Inland Revenue and MPF Schemes Legislation (Tax Deductions for Annuity Premiums and MPF Voluntary Contributions) (Amendment) Bill 2018 ("the Bill"). I would also like to thank the industry, the Insurance Authority ("IA") and the Mandatory Provident Fund Schemes Authority ("MPFA") for their invaluable views on the proposal of tax deductions.

We provide taxpayers with tax incentives to encourage them to take out deferred annuities or make MPF voluntary contributions ("VCs") in the hope that they will start saving money as early as possible for retirement to hedge against longevity risk. Having examined the experience of other places, we learned that in encouraging members of the public to make voluntary savings for use after retirement, resistance may come from their lack of understanding or even misunderstanding of the retirement planning instruments. Therefore, given the provision of tax deductions alone is not enough to serve the purpose, our another focus is how to help people understand their personal financial planning needs for making long-term savings arrangements that suit their own needs. The Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau has contacted and asked the Investor and Financial Education Council and the Consumer Council to study ways that can help members of the public make the right choice.

During past discussion, we have found that people in general do not understand annuity very well. The advantage of deferred annuities lies in that they allow people to have a stable income for a long period of time when the accumulation phase is over, and many think tanks or actuarial/associations have told that annuitization of savings is a desirable strategy of retirement planning for it requires strong financial discipline to save money so that people will not spend LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7559 every penny saved at one stroke. Yet, given that a deferred annuity is a long-term insurance contract, the policyholder must make choices in respect of the accumulation phase, the total amount of premiums to be paid and the annuitization period to suit individual needs in entering into an insurance contract.

The purpose of annuities is to reduce risk and while putting policyholder's mind at peace rather than to take risks in order to reap returns as is the case with other investment arrangements. Therefore, comparison should not be drawn between deferred annuities and tax deductible VCs. Members of the public should make choices according to their own needs and risk bearing ability.

The Bill amends the Inland Revenue Ordinance (Cap. 112) to enable taxpayers to enjoy deductions in salaries tax or personal income tax and tax under personal assessment for annuity premiums paid under qualifying deferred annuity policies and for MPF VCs made. In the meantime, the Bill also amends the Mandatory Provident Fund Schemes Ordinance (Cap. 485) and the related subsidiary legislation to provide for the setting up of a tax deductible voluntary contribution ("TVC") account in an MPF scheme to hold TVCs as well as the relevant requirements.

The Bill stipulates that qualifying deferred annuities should comply with the relevant requirements set out in the guidelines published by IA, which fall into two major categories, namely ensuring that qualifying annuity products meet the objectives of retirement financial planning and that consumers' rights and interests are safeguarded. The principal requirements include: minimum total premium of $180,000; minimum payment period of 5 years; minimum annuity period of 10 years; annuitization at the age of 50 or beyond; internal rate of return of the product clearly stated in the sales brochure and relevant communications with the policyholder; clear presentation of guaranteed payment and variable payment: and clear separation of premiums of riders from the premiums for the qualifying annuity.

As regards TVCs, in order to achieve the retirement savings target, the contributions are subject to the preservation requirements, that is, withdrawal is allowed only upon retirement at the age of 65 or on statutorily permissible grounds. This is to avoid any leakage of the benefits accrued before retirement.

7560 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

Both the industry and Members of this Council do hope that the aggregate maximum tax deductible limit for every taxpayer can be further raised. We have taken into due consideration the views of the industry and that of Members together with taxpayers' interest in coming up with the currently proposed ceiling of $60,000: It is an aggregate limit for MPF TVCs and deferred annuity premiums for greater flexibility. We also allow a taxpaying couple to allocate tax deductions for deferred annuity premiums amongst themselves in order to claim the total deductions of $120,000, provided that the deductions claimed by each taxpayer does not exceed the individual limit (i.e. $60,000). Depending on the feedback from the public after the introduction of the tax deductions, we will examine in due course whether there will be room for further raising the tax deductible limit.

Some Members have also enquired if it will be possible to expand the scope of tax deduction to cover other suitable money management tools. The Government is open to this on condition that a mechanism is put in place to ensure that the financial arrangements in question are for the sake of making long-term savings to cater for retirement needs.

As Mr WONG Ting-kwong has reported just now, the Bills Committee had discussed various issues ranging from the factors that will be taken into consideration in formulating the criteria for a qualifying deferred annuity policy, the return of the annuity, the ways of making TVCs, the regulation on intermediaries and conduct of public education, how bureaux/departments will treat the accrued benefits derived from TVCs in their respective means-tested public services and welfare schemes, to the technical details related to tax deductions. In turn, we had given detailed explanations to the Bills Committee and no further questions were raised by the Bills Committee.

Deputy President, the current tax deduction proposal was first put forward by the Financial Secretary in last year's budget and is tabled to the Council today for resumption of Second Reading debate. Within such a short period of about one year, the proposal will most likely be turned into a policy initiative soon which will benefit the public. It is because the Government, Members and the industry also hope that it will be implemented as soon as possible so to benefit members of the public who can prepare for the future. Once again, I would like to thank Members for their invaluable views and support for the Bill.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7561

The Bill has already gained the support of the Bills Committee, and I implore the Council to pass it so that the relevant tax deduction arrangements can come into operation on 1 April this year.

I so submit, Deputy President.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the Inland Revenue and MPF Schemes Legislation (Tax Deductions for Annuity Premiums and MPF Voluntary Contributions) (Amendment) Bill 2018 be read the Second time. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

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

(No hands raised)

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

CLERK (in Cantonese): Inland Revenue and MPF Schemes Legislation (Tax Deductions for Annuity Premiums and MPF Voluntary Contributions) (Amendment) Bill 2018.

Council became committee of the whole Council.

Consideration by Committee of the Whole Council

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Council now becomes committee of the whole Council to consider the Inland Revenue and MPF Schemes Legislation (Tax Deductions for Annuity Premiums and MPF Voluntary Contributions) (Amendment) Bill 2018.

7562 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

INLAND REVENUE AND MPF SCHEMES LEGISLATION (TAX DEDUCTIONS FOR ANNUITY PREMIUMS AND MPF VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS) (AMENDMENT) BILL 2018

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the following clauses stand part of the Bill.

CLERK (in Cantonese): Clauses 1 to 24.

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

(No Member indicated a wish to speak)

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the clauses read out by the Clerk stand part of the Bill. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

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

(No hands raised)

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

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): All the proceedings on the Inland Revenue and MPF Schemes Legislation (Tax Deductions for Annuity Premiums and MPF Voluntary Contributions) (Amendment) Bill 2018 have been concluded in committee of the whole Council. Council now resumes.

Council then resumed.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7563

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): President, I now report to the Council: That the

Inland Revenue and MPF Schemes Legislation (Tax Deductions for Annuity Premiums and MPF Voluntary Contributions) (Amendment) Bill 2018 has been passed by committee of the whole Council without amendment. I move the motion that "This Council adopts the report".

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by the Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury be passed.

In accordance with the Rules of Procedure, this motion shall be voted on without amendment or debate.

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

(Members raised their hands)

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

(No hands raised)

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

Third Reading of Government Bill

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Government Bill: Third Reading.

7564 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

INLAND REVENUE AND MPF SCHEMES LEGISLATION (TAX DEDUCTIONS FOR ANNUITY PREMIUMS AND MPF VOLUNTARY CONTRIBUTIONS) (AMENDMENT) BILL 2018

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I move that the

Inland Revenue and MPF Schemes Legislation (Tax Deductions for Annuity Premiums and MPF Voluntary Contributions) (Amendment) Bill 2018 be read the Third time and do pass.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the Inland Revenue and MPF Schemes Legislation (Tax Deductions for Annuity Premiums and MPF Voluntary Contributions) (Amendment) Bill 2018 be read the Third time and do pass.

Does any Member wish to speak?

(No Member indicated a wish to speak)

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

(Members raised their hands)

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

(No hands raised)

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

CLERK (in Cantonese): Inland Revenue and MPF Schemes Legislation (Tax Deductions for Annuity Premiums and MPF Voluntary Contributions) (Amendment) Bill 2018.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7565

GOVERNMENT MOTIONS

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Government motions. The Chief Secretary for Administration will move two proposed resolutions under the Criminal Procedure Ordinance and the Coroners Ordinance respectively:

First motion: To approve the Criminal Procedure (Witnesses' Allowances) (Amendment) Rules 2019.

Second motion: To approve the Coroners (Witnesses' Allowances) (Amendment) Rules 2019.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I have earlier informed Members through the Legislative Council Secretariat that as the Chief Secretary's two motions seek to increase the maximum allowances payable to the witnesses in criminal proceedings and coroners' inquests, this Council will proceed to a joint debate on the two motions.

After the joint debate has come to a close, this Council will first proceed to vote on the Chief Secretary's first motion. Irrespective of whether the first motion is passed or not, the Chief Secretary may move his second motion.

The joint debate now begins. Members who wish to speak please press the "Request to speak" button.

I now call upon the Chief Secretary to speak on the two motions and move his first motion.

PROPOSED RESOLUTION UNDER THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ORDINANCE

CHIEF SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I move that the first Resolution standing in my name on the Agenda be passed to seek the approval of the Legislative Council for the Criminal Procedure (Witnesses' Allowances) (Amendment) Rules 2019 made by the Criminal Procedure Rules Committee under section 9B of the Criminal Procedure 7566 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

Ordinance. I will also shortly be moving the second Resolution standing in my name be passed to seek the approval of the Legislative Council for the Coroners (Witnesses' Allowances) (Amendment) Rules 2019 made by the Chief Justice under section 54 of the Coroners Ordinance.

At present, the maximum allowance payable to ordinary witnesses in criminal proceedings and coroners' inquests is $515 for each day of attendance or $255 for not exceeding four hours of attendance. The maximum allowance for professional and expert witnesses is higher, at $2,770 for each day of attendance or $1,385 for not exceeding four hours of attendance.

Under the adjustment mechanism approved by the Finance Committee of the Legislative Council, changes to the rate of allowance for ordinary witnesses would be made in accordance with the movements in the overall Median Monthly Employment Earnings of Employees ("MMEE") in Hong Kong while those for professional and expert witnesses would be made in accordance with the changes in the mid-point salary of a Government Medical and Health Officer. The Finance Committee has also delegated the authority to approve the relevant adjustments to the Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury.

The existing rates of allowances were set in 2017 based on the biennial review conducted in 2016. The Judiciary Administration ("JA") reviewed the rates of allowances in 2018. Taking into account the movements in the overall MMEE and the mid-point salary of a Government Medical and Health Officer from the third quarter of 2016 to the third quarter of 2018, JA proposed and the Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury approved to increase the maximum rate of allowance for ordinary witnesses from $515 to $575 for each day of attendance and from $255 to $285 for not exceeding four hours of attendance. For professional and expert witnesses, the maximum rate of allowance would be increased from $2,770 to $3,065 for each day of attendance and from $1,385 to $1,530 for not exceeding four hours of attendance. These adjustments aim to maintain the real value of the rates of allowances to minimize any financial loss suffered by members of the public testifying as witnesses in courts.

The Criminal Procedure (Witnesses' Allowances) (Amendment) Rules 2019 and the Coroners (Witnesses' Allowances) (Amendment) Rules 2019 seek to implement the new rates of allowances. I invite Members to approve the two Resolutions. Thank you, Deputy President.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7567

The Chief Secretary for Administration moved the following motion:

"RESOLVED that the Criminal Procedure (Witnesses' Allowances) (Amendment) Rules 2019, made by the Criminal Procedures Rules Committee on 19 February 2019, be approved."

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the first motion moved by the Chief Secretary for Administration be passed.

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

(No Member indicated a wish to speak)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): If not, this Council now first votes on the Chief Secretary's first motion.

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

(Members raised their hands)

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

(No hands raised)

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

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Chief Secretary, you may move your second motion.

7568 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

PROPOSED RESOLUTION UNDER THE CORONERS ORDINANCE

CHIEF SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I move that my second motion, as printed on the Agenda, be passed.

The Chief Secretary for Administration moved the following motion:

"RESOLVED that the Coroners (Witnesses' Allowances) (Amendment) Rules 2019, made by the Chief Justice on 19 February 2019, be approved."

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the second motion moved by the Chief Secretary for Administration be passed.

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

(Members raised their hands)

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

(No hands raised)

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

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Proposed resolution under the Public Finance Ordinance.

Members who wish to speak please press the "Request to speak" button.

I call upon the Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury to speak and move the motion.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7569

PROPOSED RESOLUTION UNDER THE PUBLIC FINANCE ORDINANCE

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I move that the motion, as printed on the Agenda, be passed.

The purpose of this motion is to seek funds on account to enable the Government to carry on its services between the start of the financial year on 1 April 2019 and the time when the Appropriation Ordinance 2019 comes into operation. This is a long established and essential procedure. The specific arrangements also follow those of recent years.

According to the Budget timetable this year, the Legislative Council will resume the Second Reading Debate of the Appropriation Bill 2019 at its meeting on 8 May 2019. As such, the Appropriation Ordinance 2019 would not come into operation before 8 May 2019. To ensure that Government will not have to halt public services, including services closely related to people's livelihood such as education, social welfare, health care and security due to the lack of funds when the new financial year starts on 1 April 2019, we need to propose this motion.

The funds on account sought under each subhead in accordance with the fourth paragraph of the resolution have been determined with reference to the relevant provisions in the 2019-2010 Estimates of Expenditure. The initial amount of funds on account under each head which has incorporated requirements at subhead level is provided in the form of a footnote to this speech. In gist, the proposed funds on account should be able to cope with around two months of the Government's operational requirements. The aggregate amount of funds on account is $131,081,699,000 before the Appropriation Ordinance 2019 comes into operation. This represents around 25% of the total appropriation of $515,794,785,000 under the Appropriation Bill 2019.

Subject to the above aggregate amount not being exceeded, the resolution enables the Financial Secretary to vary the funds on account in respect of any subhead, but these variations must not exceed the provision for that subhead in the 2019-2020 Estimates of Expenditure. To enhance transparency and in line with the established practice, we will report to the Finance Committee of this Council if the Financial Secretary has exercised this authority to meet necessary requirements. 7570 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

The Government has to make payments for a large number of expenditure items every day. Taking the first week between 1 April and 7 April of the 2019-2020 financial year as an example, numerous government expenditure items to be settled during the week include:

(a) subvention payments of around $5.7 billion to the Hospital Authority;

(b) payments for the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance and Social Security Allowance totalling around $1.4 billion to about 130 000 families and 150 000 individuals respectively;

(c) grants of around $1.6 billion to University Grants Committee-funded universities;

(d) subvention payments of around $700 million to the Vocational Training Council;

(e) subsidies of around $600 million to about 750 kindergartens; and

(f) pension gratuities of around $600 million to retired civil servants.

There are also other expenses such as salaries of contract staff as well as accounts payable to suppliers.

It takes at least two to three working days for government departments and banks to process a large number of payments made by autopay. It also takes some days to complete the statutory procedures after passage of the Vote on Account resolution including the gazettal process and procedures for issuance of the Vote on Account warrant, so that the Government can make payments starting from 1 April as usual. In order to ensure that Government has the necessary resources to continue those services provided to the public, I urge Members to support the motion today.

The Vote on Account will be subsumed under the Appropriation Ordinance 2019 upon its enactment and commencement.

Deputy President, I beg to move.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7571

Footnote

Amount shown Initial amount in the Head of Expenditure of funds on Estimates account 2019-2020 $'000 $'000 21 Chief Executive's Office ...... 120,545 24,109 22 Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department ...... 1,821,273 585,691 25 Architectural Services Department ...... 2,379,893 482,299 24 Audit Commission ...... 182,882 36,577 23 Auxiliary Medical Service ...... 107,321 21,465 82 Buildings Department ...... 1,656,263 332,921 26 Census and Statistics Department ...... 817,789 163,958 27 Civil Aid Service...... 124,004 25,992 28 Civil Aviation Department ...... 1,157,484 242,644 33 Civil Engineering and Development Department ...... 3,040,354 616,313 30 Correctional Services Department ...... 4,228,478 928,140 31 Customs and Excise Department ...... 4,943,961 1,163,569 37 Department of Health ...... 13,300,751 2,754,070 92 Department of Justice ...... 2,329,724 466,393 39 Drainage Services Department ...... 2,935,378 652,022 42 Electrical and Mechanical Services Department ...... 1,176,102 657,846 44 Environmental Protection Department ...... 6,959,161 2,833,624 45 Fire Services Department ...... 7,161,588 2,035,281 49 Food and Environmental Hygiene Department ...... 8,434,909 1,965,036 46 General Expenses of the Civil Service ...... 4,106,593 821,319 166 Government Flying Service ...... 735,367 451,200 48 Government Laboratory ...... 538,622 157,706 59 Government Logistics Department ...... 568,389 196,071 51 Government Property Agency ...... 2,227,077 505,417 143 Government Secretariat: Civil Service Bureau ...... 733,778 146,756 152 Government Secretariat: Commerce and Economic Development Bureau (Commerce, Industry and Tourism Branch) 3,171,327 1,297,778 7572 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

Amount shown Initial amount in the Head of Expenditure of funds on Estimates account 2019-2020 55 Government Secretariat: Commerce and Economic Development Bureau (Communications and Creative Industries Branch) ...... 903,866 715,990 144 Government Secretariat: Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau ...... 766,755 156,514 138 Government Secretariat: Development Bureau (Planning and Lands Branch) ...... 1,015,941 779,189 159 Government Secretariat: Development Bureau (Works Branch) ...... 708,532 214,026 156 Government Secretariat: Education Bureau ...... 67,944,609 15,076,784 137 Government Secretariat: Environment Bureau ...... 1,795,931 1,725,987 148 Government Secretariat: Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau (Financial Services Branch) ...... 872,510 684,393 147 Government Secretariat: Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau (The Treasury Branch) ...... 305,311 88,279 139 Government Secretariat: Food and Health Bureau (Food Branch) ...... 178,304 35,661 140 Government Secretariat: Food and Health Bureau (Health Branch) ...... 71,181,690 15,493,355 53 Government Secretariat: Home Affairs Bureau ...... 2,265,617 716,621 135 Government Secretariat: Innovation and Technology Bureau ...... 751,008 430,474 155 Government Secretariat: Innovation and Technology Commission ...... 820,794 280,990 141 Government Secretariat: Labour and Welfare Bureau...... 937,078 281,481 47 Government Secretariat: Office of the Government Chief Information Officer ...... 806,504 174,864 142 Government Secretariat: Offices of the Chief Secretary for Administration and the Financial Secretary ...... 1,030,663 232,136 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7573

Amount shown Initial amount in the Head of Expenditure of funds on Estimates account 2019-2020 96 Government Secretariat: Overseas Economic and Trade Offices ...... 531,495 106,715 151 Government Secretariat: Security Bureau ... 819,927 383,538 158 Government Secretariat: Transport and Housing Bureau (Transport Branch) ...... 337,151 120,807 60 Highways Department ...... 4,175,667 845,333 63 Home Affairs Department ...... 3,260,297 801,058 168 Hong Kong Observatory ...... 381,364 98,886 122 Hong Kong Police Force ...... 20,682,101 4,426,535 62 Housing Department ...... 357,962 71,593 70 Immigration Department ...... 6,152,753 1,254,839 72 Independent Commission Against Corruption ...... 1,167,704 243,396 121 Independent Police Complaints Council ..... 95,852 19,171 74 Information Services Department ...... 545,982 109,755 76 Inland Revenue Department ...... 1,721,902 344,381 78 Intellectual Property Department ...... 185,778 37,156 79 Invest Hong Kong ...... 144,307 28,862 174 Joint Secretariat for the Advisory Bodies on Civil Service and Judicial Salaries and Conditions of Service ...... 48,349 9,670 80 Judiciary ...... 2,109,451 423,211 90 Labour Department ...... 2,062,711 473,564 91 Lands Department ...... 3,017,840 610,432 94 Legal Aid Department...... 1,590,214 318,251 112 Legislative Council Commission ...... 954,274 224,374 95 Leisure and Cultural Services Department ... 9,916,896 2,385,558 100 Marine Department ...... 1,623,339 428,351 106 Miscellaneous Services ...... 33,152,664 1,379,966 180 Office for Film, Newspaper and Article Administration ...... 51,627 10,326 114 Office of The Ombudsman ...... 122,055 24,411 116 Official Receiver's Office ...... 223,201 44,689 120 Pensions ...... 39,596,125 7,932,825 118 Planning Department ...... 788,965 170,830 136 Public Service Commission Secretariat ...... 27,694 5,539 160 Radio Television Hong Kong ...... 1,021,055 258,792 7574 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

Amount shown Initial amount in the Head of Expenditure of funds on Estimates account 2019-2020 162 Rating and Valuation Department ...... 689,846 137,970 163 Registration and Electoral Office ...... 796,430 159,766 169 Secretariat, Commissioner on Interception of Communications and Surveillance ...... 25,158 5,032 170 Social Welfare Department ...... 85,115,708 25,925,654 181 Trade and Industry Department...... 929,794 610,759 186 Transport Department ...... 6,727,739 1,853,236 188 Treasury ...... 432,932 86,587 190 University Grants Committee...... 22,500,710 6,260,142 194 Water Supplies Department ...... 8,674,551 1,749,445 173 Working Family and Student Financial Assistance Agency ...... 18,717,089 13,975,353 ______508,720,785 131,007,699 184 Transfers to Funds ...... 7,074,000 74,000 ______Total...... 515,794,785 131,081,699 ======

Note:

* The initial amount of funds on account under Head 106 includes $1 billion under Subhead 789 Additional commitments for contingency.

The Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury moved the following motion:

"RESOLVED that―

1. Authority is given for a sum not exceeding $131,081,699,000 to be charged on the general revenue for expenditure on the services of the Government in respect of the financial year commencing on 1 April 2019.

2. Subject to this Resolution, the sum so charged may be expended against the heads of expenditure as shown in the Estimates of Expenditure 2019-20 laid before the Legislative Council on 27 February 2019 or, if the Estimates are changed LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7575

under the provisions of the Public Finance Ordinance (Cap. 2) as applied by section 7(2) of that Ordinance, as shown in the Estimates as so changed.

3. Expenditure in respect of any head of expenditure must not exceed the aggregate of the amounts authorized by paragraph 4 to be expended in respect of the subheads in that head of expenditure.

4. Expenditure in respect of each subhead in a head of expenditure must not exceed―

(a) for an Operating Account Recurrent subhead of expenditure, an amount equivalent to―

(i) except if the subhead is listed in Schedule 1 to this Resolution, 20% of the provision shown in the Estimates in respect of that subhead; or

(ii) if the subhead is listed in Schedule 1 to this Resolution, the percentage of the provision shown in the Estimates in respect of that subhead that is specified in that Schedule in relation to that subhead; and

(b) for an Operating Account Non-Recurrent subhead of expenditure or a Capital Account subhead of expenditure, an amount equivalent to―

(i) except if the subhead is listed in Schedule 2 to this Resolution, 100% of the provision shown in the Estimates in respect of that subhead; or

(ii) if the subhead is listed in Schedule 2 to this Resolution, the amount that is specified in that Schedule in relation to that subhead,

or such other amount, not exceeding an amount equivalent to 100% of the provision shown in the Estimates in respect of that subhead, as may in any case be approved by the Financial Secretary. 7576 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

Schedule 1 [para. 4(a)]

Percentage of provision Head of Expenditure Subhead shown in Estimates

59 Government Logistics 225 Traffic Accident 100 Department Victims Assistance Scheme―levies

90 Labour Department 280 Contribution to the 30 Occupational Safety and Health Council

295 Contribution to the 30 Occupational Deafness Compensation Board

120 Pensions 026 Employees' 40 compensation, injury, incapacity and death related payments and expenses

152 Government 000 Operational expenses 25 Secretariat: Commerce and Economic Development Bureau (Commerce, Industry and Tourism Branch)

155 Government 000 Operational expenses 25 Secretariat: Innovation and Technology Commission

170 Social Welfare 157 Assistance for patients 100 Department and their families

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7577

Percentage of provision Head of Expenditure Subhead shown in Estimates

176 Criminal and law 25 enforcement injuries compensation

177 Emergency relief 100

179 Comprehensive social 30 security assistance scheme

180 Social security 30 allowance scheme

Schedule 2 [para. 4(b)]

Amount Head of Expenditure Subhead $

106 Miscellaneous 689 Additional 0 Services commitments

789 Additional 1,000,000,000 commitments

184 Transfers to Funds 987 Payment to the Capital 0 Investment Fund

988 Payment to the Loan 0" Fund

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by the Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury be passed.

7578 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

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

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, today is 20 March. Only 10 days are left before the new financial year starts on 1 April. Hence, as always, the Secretary pointed out just now the importance of seeking initial funds on account, and how they needed time to transfer the money to the subheads and to complete the administrative procedures. He thus urged us to quickly pass the resolution, or the Government would have no money to use. However, this is nothing but a show put up by the Government. If the Government is in such a desperate need of money and this resolution is so important, it should not have waited until today to propose the resolution. There was no Council meetings in the past two weeks. Deputy President, you need to go to Beijing. You are a member of the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference. You certainly think that the resolution has to be passed today, and you do not need my reassurance that it will be so. The resolution can be passed for sure. And the debate will not last till tomorrow. I believe only a couple of Members will speak.

Deputy President, this is my seventh year as a Member of this Council. Almost every year in the past, I spoke on this Vote on Account Resolution. The resolution has become a ritual to the Government. The resolution will be passed anyway, no matter I vote against it or abstain. But I wish to tell members of the public one thing. This Vote on Account Resolution under scrutiny now seeks to apply for a sum of $131,081,699,000, which is equivalent to a quarter of the annual budget. It is a large sum of money. However, past history tells us that the Legislative Council will probably need less than an hour to pass the funding, perhaps even without a Member claiming a division. But I will claim a division as I am here today. So, will Members please come back to vote later.

I will not support this Vote on Account Resolution. Fellow Members, if you intend to oppose the Budget, you have no reasons to unconditionally support this resolution. It is actually a small Budget. It seeks to apply for a sum of money equivalent to a quarter of the Budget. The Budget this year is the worst one. The popularity of Financial Secretary Paul CHAN dropped to a record low after his Budget delivery. I have described the Budgets of former Financial Secretary John TSANG as a financial scam, and the Budget of Financial Secretary Paul CHAN does not even qualify to be called a scam.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7579

Although the surplus announced in this Budget is less than before, the Financial Secretary still earmarks a large sum of money for the rich and powerful people. This includes $5.5 billion earmarked for the development of Cyberport 5; $7.7 billion to support the Hong Kong Science and Technology Parks Corporation, and $15 billion less in revenue for waiving rates of large consortia. But members of the public who live in tiny flats or "nano flats" cannot even receive $6,000. I will lash out at the Government with similar examples in greater details when the Budget resumes its Second Reading. Given that this Budget is unfair and unworthy of our support, and that this Vote on Account Resolution represents 25% of the Budget amount, I will focus my ensuing speech on this 25% provision.

Members probably think that this Vote on Account Resolution is very straightforward and should not be voted down; otherwise, the Government will have a fiscal cliff and cease operation, and Hong Kong will collapse. However, I wish to take this opportunity of examining a quarter of the Government's annual spending to tell the public whether the performance of the SAR Government, especially that of the financial officials in the past year, deserves our unconditional support.

The Budget, once delivered, cannot be altered. Certainly, Members can propose amendments later, but we all know that the scale of amendment is increasingly small; the number of amendments allowed and their scope are also increasingly small, and the subjects you are allowed to touch have been reduced. Even if Members are allowed to propose an amendment, the speaking time is increasingly shortened and the likelihood of having it passed is zero. I will thus seize every opportunity in this Vote on Account Resolution, or when this Council considers the Budget, to express my stand.

The popularity of Financial Secretary Paul CHAN has dropped to -30%, which is a record low. On the day of Budget delivery, the rating of the Budget was 47.1, which was 1.1 lower than last year. The Financial Secretary has appeared nonchalant and even described public responses as acceptable. If the response is acceptable, I do not know what should be regarded as unacceptable. In fact, this Vote on Account Resolution includes the funds for one fifth of the salary of the Financial Secretary. Go and ask anyone on the street, especially a member of the grass roots, or people who do not enjoy any tax rebates and rates concessions, or those who do not apply for Comprehensive Social Security Assistance ("CSSA"), or the self-subsistent "N-have nots". The last cash handout of $4,000 aroused strong public criticism. Because of the criticism, he 7580 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 cut the cash handout altogether this year. Does he deserve these two months of salary? Certainly not. He should certainly be requested to step down, or withdraw his Budget and do it again. Hence, if we oppose the Vote on Account Resolution, we can stop giving Paul CHAN the two months of salary.

Second, I wish to give a piece of advice to Members from the business sector. The Vote on Account Resolution also contains the funds for the salaries of the Secretary for Security and the Secretary for Justice. What have these two Secretaries been doing over the past few months? They have been drafting amendments to the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance. We are free to express our views. There will be a debate in the future. I notice that the business sector has some concerns about the amendments. But the Government refuses to accept any views. The funds on account involve the funds to be used by the Government in April and May. The funds will enable the Security Bureau and the Department of Justice to work on the amendments to the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance. So, today, if we vote down the Vote on Account Resolution, it is an expression of our stance. It will serve its function. This is particularly meaningful to the Members from the business sector. They have to voice their objection to the Government on the proposed amendments to the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance.

In the past two days, Carrie LAM still hypocritically said that the amendments were meant to uphold justice and must be passed in July. Taiwan has not made such a request. How is she going to uphold justice? Why does she have to lie to the public? Precisely because of this reason, and in order to stop her from carrying out any more evil doings and stop her from forcing the amendment bill through this Council, I call on Members from the business sector to vote down this resolution, or at least abstain during the scrutiny process. By so doing, they can send a clear message to the Security Bureau and the Department of Justice that they do not want them to amend the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance.

This $130-odd billion of funds on account certainly includes the money for the salaries of the Secretaries of Departments and Directors of Bureaux. One of them is Secretary Dr LAW Chi-kwong, the "prodigy with super IQ". I do not think we should pay him these few months of salary. He has kept low profile lately. But two months ago, the whole Legislative Council was fooled by his remark that "people's lifespan can reach 120 years and 60-year-old is only their middle age". He adjusted the eligible age for elderly CSSA from 60 to 65 in the Budget last year. Do Member remember what Carrie LAM said at a Question LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7581 and Answer Session? I remember the question was put by Ms YUNG Hoi-yan. And the Chief Executive replied that the proposal "was approved by Members themselves". Everyone on-the-spot felt they were fooled.

If you ask a member of the public today, especially an elderly citizen who will soon reach age 60 whether you should vote for or against a funding proposal to pay two months of salary for Dr LAW Chi-kwong, I believe they do not want to support Secretary for Labour and Welfare anymore, not even for an extra second. He used the Budget to hide a malicious proposal and then excused himself by saying that the proposal to increase the eligible age for elderly CSSA was endorsed by us. We should also use this provisional funding proposal of the Budget to voice our objection.

When the Budget enters the Committee stage, Members will certainly propose amendments to slash his salary. Pro-establishment members can also propose such an amendment. Even if they do not do so, we will also do so, and they can speak on the amendment to at least vent their anger. The Government has used the Budget to fool the Legislative Council. How can we not speak out? So, if Members support this resolution, they are supporting Dr LAW Chi-kwong, agreeing to continue to pay him the salary and echoing his measures. They will be fooled by him.

The Government is arrogant. It regards the Budget and this Vote on Account Resolution as a ritual. Certainly, some Members may question whether we should vote down this resolution just because we are discontent, and whether the 60-odd Members of the Legislative Council should vote down the entire Budget or this resolution just because each of them has their own dissatisfaction with the Government. This is exactly what we will do; otherwise, how can we pressurize the Government?

The pro-establishment and royalist Members certainly think that I should not even say so. I originally intended to invite Deputy President to join me in calling on the Government to withdraw the proposed increase of eligible age for elderly CSSA to 65. If the Government refused to do so, we would then vote down the Budget. Now, we do not need to wait until the scrutiny of the Budget. Today, we can vote down this Vote on Account Resolution and force the Government to give in. The Government is unwilling to give in at all, and it does not think it has any mistakes.

7582 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

Deputy President, over the years, the Legislative Council has underestimated the importance of the Vote on Account Resolution. The Government regards the resolution as a ritual and an effective and necessary procedure. It certainly would not say it out loud that the resolution is a ritual. But we all know that this is a habitual procedure. Some Members would not even speak at the debate of this resolution.

However, I need to point out that such a sloppy debating attitude is globally uncommon. Take the United States Congress as an example. When they scrutinize the vote on account motion, the opposition congressmen would use debating tactics, you may call such tactics filibustering or whatsoever, to force the ruling party to respond to their demands. In the past months, both Members of the democratic camp and pro-Government camp were furious about the Government's indifference to the concern over the proposed increase of the eligible age for the elderly CSSA from 60 to 65. If we concertedly oppose the Vote on Account Resolution, or refuse to overwhelmingly support it or let it win by a large margin, and if there can be some 10 to 20 opposition votes, even if those are not genuine opposition, Paul CHAN cannot be so arrogant; and he cannot be so confident that the resolution can be passed today (I mean, 20 March), and he just needs to worry about whether it is passed by a large or small margin. Later, when I claim a division, even if Members cannot come back in time to vote after lunch, I believe they can still have more votes on their side.

Members, of all the binding motions, the strongest ones are the Budget, and the second one is this one on Vote on Account because it concerns the government expenditures in the coming few months. We can truly pressurize the SAR Government and the public officers with these motions.

Just think about the attitude of Dr LAW Chi-kwong and Carrie LAM on the elderly CSSA. If Members vote down the Vote on Account Resolution today, the Government may immediately change the eligible age for elderly CSSA back to 60. So, they do not even need to vote down the Budget. They can still vote for it. The royalists and the pro-Government media are saying that we are thwarting government policies. Actually, this rationale is wrong. We do not want the Legislative Council to become a rubber stamp. We do not want the Government to be so arrogant and fearless. We do not want the Government to do everything like a ritual, saying that it respects Members' views but actually not.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7583

Every year, the motions that are most important, most binding and most effective in putting pressure on the Government are the Budget and this one on Vote on Account. They can make the Government realize that it has made a mistake and force it to do a rethink, or even change its policies. This is beneficial to the people of Hong Kong, even if only a few policies are changed.

So, I call on Members to vote against the Vote on Account Resolution.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Deputy President, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has said very well just now. This is in fact a conventional practice of this Council all these years that we should follow the tradition to have the proposed resolution passed before the formal passage of the Appropriation Bill 2019 ("the Bill") so that wages can be paid as usual. However, has the Government attached equal importance to our tradition? The Government has antagonized the people on every front with everything it does, including the assertion made yesterday on spending $620 billion of our taxpayers' money to complete a mission which I would describe as nothing but a major scam in everybody's eyes―first by deceiving the public that the project costs would be capped at $1,000 billion; and then by claiming that everything is built for the people of Hong Kong.

With the passage of this Vote on Account Resolution, our public officers will get paid as usual. But in what way have they handled infrastructural projects in Hong Kong? When it comes to cost overrun relating to the implementation of infrastructural projects, Hong Kong is undoubtedly the world champion, and our "achievements" in this respect can well be included in the Guinness World Records. There was a cost overrun of 54% in the construction of the boundary control point at Liantang; 55% in the construction of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Link Road; 28% in the construction of the Central-Wan Chai Bypass; 28% and 36% respectively in taking forward the two major work projects concerning the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link ("XRL"); and 47% in taking forward the project on the reconstruction and improvement of Tuen Mun Road. What have these figures revealed to us? Michael WONG told us yesterday that the problem was in fact not that serious, and that we had recorded a cost overrun of 10% only. Actually, this is an average figure based on all work projects implemented, including minor works. How outrageous it is to put the matter in this way!

7584 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

MTR services finally resume normal today, but as I have said, the incident that occurred two days ago might have resulted in deaths and injuries, but what responsibility has Frank CHAN held in the case? All members of the senior management of the MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL"), including the Board Chairman and all Board members, are appointed by the Government and Frank CHAN, and the Government is the biggest shareholder of MTRCL. In addition to the collision of MTR trains this time, we have already witnessed a spate of serious incidents involving the MTR system, XRL and the Shatin to Central Link. While MTRCL has previously been accused of spending taxpayers' money recklessly, what we are talking about this time is a matter of life and death. With favouritism displayed by the President of this Council towards the Government, Frank CHAN is saved from the trouble of attending the meeting today to reply to urgent questions raised by Members here in this Chamber, and he is now free to hide himself in his office and ignore our questions. And then, the Government advises us to follow the tradition and approve this funding which amounts to $130 billion as soon as possible, since this is just a small sum of money, and the services involved are of great importance.

According to the Government, a part of the funding will be used for the payment of comprehensive social security assistance ("CSSA") under subhead 179, and the amount involved constitutes 30% of the CSSA provision shown in the Budget. However, it is infuriating that by raising the eligible age for elderly CSSA, persons aged 60 to 64 are excluded from the scope of protection, and the Government is now asking us to approve the funding for this 30% of the CSSA provision! How sickening it is for the Government to handle the matter in this way! We can only say that it has corrupted to an extent beyond description! But these senior officials will receive the punishment they deserve, as evidenced by their dropping popularity rating, which has fallen to a record low for every one of them from that lady to those who were given the lowest rating, such as Frank CHAN and "Teresa of illegal-structures".

We should not forget how the new Government and its governance team have bragged about their new philosophy and new governance style when they first took office, but what have they done so far? They have put away everything that can bring genuine benefits to the people but they expect us to process their funding applications as expeditiously as possible. How shameless! The Government claims that it will monitor the progress of works projects, but the total amount involved in project cost overruns is so huge that it is sufficient to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7585 finance the implementation of several universal retirement protection schemes. Carrie LAM came to power back then by engaging herself in poverty alleviation, but the Government's efforts in this respect have actually aggravated the problem.

What Hong Kong people want is very simple; they only care about livelihood issues and do not want to get involved in political matters. Just take accommodation among our basic needs of living in respect of clothing, food, housing and transport as an example. With an ever-increasing number of people living in subdivided units, can we really rely on these senior officials to provide us with adequate public housing? The current waiting time for public housing is 5.5 years, but it will soon be extended to 7 years. Yet, there is still an urgent need for the passage of this Vote on Account Resolution, so that our senior officials will get paid as usual, including some Bureau Directors here who are earning an annual salary of several million dollars.

The Legislative Council is unbearably rotten now when the pro-establishment camp and the royalist camp are the majority. However, both the Bill and this Vote on Account Resolution have provided us with very good opportunities to severely criticize the Government for letting the people down, and illustrate how the performance of senior officials does not live up to their pay. Unlike that under the Bill, we cannot propose a salary cut for underperforming officials when scrutinizing this Vote on Account Resolution as it only seeks to apply for the granting of a one-off provision without specifying the sum charged against any individual head of expenditure.

When it comes to livelihood issues, the Government has not only failed to improve the living standards of the people but also rendered the conditions of grass-root patients very miserable as far as the provision of hospital services is concerned. As witnessed in the situation during the last influenza season―it is in fact not yet over considering that there was still a record-breaking number of patients admitted into hospitals yesterday―the number of hospital beds has dropped from the peak level of 29 000 in 1997 to 28 000 at present despite of the population growth and the rising proportion of the elderly population. In an application for a funding of over $10 billion submitted for the redevelopment of a hospital, the project concerned will only lead to an increase of 80 hospital beds. What kind of government is this? When patients have to sleep in beds placed in the corridor or outside the toilet, our senior officials are still receiving a handsome salary and they can do things their own way. They can simply ignore 7586 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 their popularity rating because even with low popularity, nothing can be done about them and this Vote on Account Resolution will still be passed when it is put to a vote later. The public, however, find this unacceptable.

The care we Hong Kong people receive in terms of elderly benefits and health care services is only comparable to that offered to people of the Third World. Our medical expenditure accounts for only below 2.9% of the Gross Domestic Product, a level similar to that recorded in some worst performing backward places and Third World countries. We often boast about the many skyscrapers found in the territory, but a simple search on the Internet can reveal that Hong Kong is most well-known either for its highest living expenses or poorest living environment in the world. Many grass roots are living in a small room with an area of only 80 square feet, with the washroom, kitchen and living area closely packed in the same place, but our senior officials claim that they have already done their best. Frank CHAN says that he has already done his best and is providing another 100-odd temporary housing units now. What kind of a government is this?

We can hardly prevent the enactment of the Inland Revenue and MPF Schemes Legislation (Tax Deductions for Annuity Premiums and MPF Voluntary Contributions) (Amendment) Bill 2018, which has been passed just now. But I have to point out that while I don't know whether our senior officials have read a lot from the Bible, there is a saying in the Bible which suggests that for those who do not have, even what they have will be taken from them; while for those who have, they shall be given so that they shall have more abundance. Hence, those who can afford making voluntary contributions up to an amount of $60,000 will be given a higher limit of tax deductions, and who will thus be benefited? This will undoubtedly bring benefit to members of the business sector and people working in large banks or engaging in the insurance business, while the poor who cannot afford making voluntary contributions of the prescribed amount will have to wait for the assistance and relief from the Government.

However, people should not think that they can readily obtain assistance and relief from the Government. A proposal was put forward last year to hand out $4,000 under the Caring and Sharing Scheme, but it has still caused widespread public grievances because the whole thing has become very lousy. It is estimated that $11 billion will be handed out under the Scheme but the administrative cost involved can be as high as $300 million. The chaos today LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7587 have only served to remind us of the good job done by "Moustache TSANG", the former Financial Secretary who has also proposed to hand out cash some years ago. Unlike the incumbent Financial Secretary, he did not throw the whole city into a state of total chaos and attract endless criticisms in society. In the present case, a slight adjustment was only made after a lot of twists and turns to exempt applicants from the requirement of producing address proof and other related documents.

The performances of our senior officials and the Government are of such a poor quality, and they now claim that we should regard this Vote on Account Resolution as formality and have it passed. Yet, how do they treat Members of this Council? Mr Andrew WAN is present now. The operation of the Department of Justice has been supported by public money over the years, but Members were suppressed, arrested and charged with the offence of common assault. As Members of this Council, we voice for members of the public in this Chamber, and every single cent approved here comes from the public coffer, but the Government has used the money to get rid of unwelcome Members, or has tried in every way to disqualify them so that they would not run for election again. Thanks to the "rubbish" in the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau and the Department of Justice, the governance of Hong Kong has been worsening. Is the Government still in a position to urge Members to handle this Vote on Account Resolution as formality? Would the Government still seek for the funding approval in full if it has the slightest sense of shame? The people of Hong Kong are so pathetic that they have to pray for their own safety now even when riding on MTR. What kind of a government is this? How can they keep claiming that they have already done their best?

I can still remember how ambitious the governance team was when a group of senior officials took office some two years ago under the leadership of a lady who has over 30 years of experience in public administration. However, many people are still living a miserable life now, with their hopes for the allocation of a public housing unit, the provision of more hospital beds and the offering of more comprehensive elderly care services crumbled to nothing. Yet, the Government has kept telling us that there would be good days in the future. We can imagine that the Government will adopt a tough stance as usual when an application is first submitted to this Council later for a funding of $500 million for carrying out a feasibility study, and then another application for a funding of over $600 billion for implementation of the reclamation project.

7588 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

Tricks commonly used in a scam are now being played by the Government to cheat the people of Hong Kong. The Government will as usual settle the down payment first, claiming that only a limited amount of money would be involved, and that the remaining amount would definitely be affordable to us since it would be repaid by instalments over a fixed period of time. These are the tricks usually adopted to lure people into making instalment payment plans. When people can no longer afford to repay the loan, the Government will only say that it has forgotten to remind them of the need to pay interests. Therefore, in times of economic downturn when the Government cannot repay the loan, we will have no alternative but to reduce benefits and increase tax.

As the saying goes, "government offices are like iron and officials are like running water", public officers who are responsible for submitting the funding applications today may no longer be in office upon completion of the project. Secretary Michael WONG is still young and he may still remain in office, but Secretary LAU and even "777" may have already left office by then. The Government would then defend by saying that wrong calculations have regrettably been made at the outset. As in the case of raising the eligible age for elderly CSSA, the relevant proposal was passed together with the Budget in one go, but why it happens that no one realizes this until now? The Government is willing to make all sorts of promises when everyone seems to be dreaming, but the decision will become irreversible after the funding applications have been approved, and the project will definitely be implemented after the completion of the feasibility study.

With the granting of the funding over $620 billion and the dumping of the first pile of fill, Hong Kong will be taken to a path of no return no matter what lies ahead, because a contract has already been signed and works have already commenced. To have the project completed, we can only tighten our belt and keep injecting funds, be it $600 billion, $1.2 trillion or $1.8 trillion. The Government will then advise the people that due to the very tight financial position, it has already done its best and has no spare resources to provide more benefits to the elderly. Moreover, the Hospital Authority has been provided with huge financial resources, and an additional provision of $400 million has already been allocated this year for purchasing ultra-expensive new drugs, which is a rather substantial expenditure. Nevertheless, when it becomes necessary to deploy tens or even hundreds of billions dollars to carry out infrastructural projects, the Government has no hesitation at all, and the provision of a sewage treatment plant alone has already costed us over $11 billion.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7589

The most important thing is to implement infrastructural projects on an ongoing basis, because there are so many people waiting to receive their share of benefits. When huge benefits are given for sharing among work contractors, Chinese-funded companies and tycoons, would it be possible for them to reap exorbitant profits without the infrastructural projects? The Government has become so lousy that it can go so far as to lie to Members, saying that everything is done for the sake of the people, and all the funds approved will be spent on assisting the underprivileged. If we do not examine seriously and ask for explanations from the Government, would public officers take the trouble to explain their cases to us? Even though we gnash our teeth to make severe criticisms against the Government here, the proposed resolution will still be passed when it is put to a vote later. We cannot allow the Government and such bad practices to continue to go unchecked like this.

I so submit.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I would like to remind Members that we are now debating on the proposed resolution moved under the Public Finance Ordinance. This is a Vote on Account Resolution which seeks to maintain the Government's operation from the beginning of the new fiscal year on 1 April 2019 to the day when the Budget is put to a vote in this Council. The Secretary has already elaborated to Members earlier that the relevant expenditure does not cover the project costs for certain infrastructures mentioned by some Members just now. I wish to draw Members' attention to this point, as well as the need to focus their speech on the subject under discussion today.

MR AU NOK-HIN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, do not worry. I am not sure if I will use up my 15-minute speaking time. I will discuss public finance.

Public finance is a major issue in Hong Kong at present. Personally, I have much reservation about the vote-on-account resolution scrutinized by this Council today. As I remember, soon after I joined the legislature last year, I had to deal with a vote-on-account resolution. At the time, the resolution was probably placed on the Agenda of the first or second Council meeting I attended. One very important question discussed by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen last year and also just now is: Why has the Legislative Council been so indifferent to the vote-on-account resolution over all these years? Members have merely dealt 7590 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 with it as a matter of routine, and only very few Members have risen to speak in the Chamber. Only a few Members will rise to speak, and the Chamber is almost silent. According to him, this is very rare around the world. I have borne in mind his words all along, so I also prepare to speak this year.

When we scrutinized the resolution on implementing the Government Green Bond Programme last year, Members learnt a valuable lesson because they realized that the Government could refrain from mentioning the policy objective in the resolution wording. It merely stated pointblank that the Government Green Bond Programme would be implemented and urged this Council to endorse its passage. I hope Members can seriously deliberate various motions, including the present vote-on-account resolution and, in particular, motions involving public finance. The reason is simple. It is because this is a power conferred on the Legislative Council by the Basic Law and also our duty.

The legislature's discussions on the request for funds on account over the past few years have reflected a perception very often held by Members, the perception that since the relevant funds on account merely involve the financial arrangements for various livelihood-related public services, Members should conduct scrutiny expeditiously instead of hindering the passage of the resolution, or else the Government can hardly sustain its operation. But I hope Members holding this viewpoint can pay attention to a few things. First, will the resources from the funds on account only be used for public services as Members have expected? The answer is that they will be used for such services. But will they be used only for such services? If the answer is in the negative, we should ask about the uses of the funds on account.

The Secretary's earlier speech asserts that the funds on account are intended for the Hospital Authority, the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance, the University Grants Committee, the Vocational Training Council, kindergarten subsidies and pensions. Members will agree that all these are public services necessary to the community. But if Members do a simple computation, they will find that the sums under the various expenditure items mentioned by the Secretary merely add up to $10.6 billion only―I hope my computation is correct. But the Government is now seeking a sum of $131 billion. How urgent is this sum of $120 billion in difference? What are its actual uses? All such questions certainly can be examined in great detail. Nevertheless, the Government has not given a clear account nor presented any detailed information to the Legislative Council. Therefore, I think this is a loophole.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7591

Deputy President, I wish to make it a point to say here that the sums of funds on account sought by the Government under section 7(1) of the Public Finance Ordinance ("the Ordinance") are on the increase year after year, and the extent of increase is significant. Members can take a look at the chart in my hand. After checking the record, I have found that in 2009―Deputy President, perhaps you are too far away from me―and 2010, the requested funds on account amounted to $61 billion and $58.9 billion respectively. The sums in the years that followed were around $70 billion or $80 billion. Members can look at this red line. I hope the Deputy President can also see it. But since 2016, the sum has kept rising somewhat inexplicably. The sum for this year already exceeds $100 billion. The sum in 2016 was $90.4 billion, and this year, it already exceeds $100 billion. Over the past 10 years―let me put aside inflation―it is an indisputable fact that government expenditure has increased. Nonetheless, the sum has doubled. In that case, what kind of public finance discipline has actually been reflected by this upward trend? Which areas are marked by obvious expenditure growth? Is it a reflection that the relevant expenditures are necessary to society? In my view, it may not do any good to society if Members deal with this motion as a matter of routine and disregard expenditure changes.

Second, Members have argued that people's livelihood and the Government's operation are very important. But have Members seriously examined the legal basis of the vote-on-account resolution? Honourable Members, we discuss the vote-on-account resolution every year. But will Members read the contents? What is the ambit of section 7(1) of the Ordinance? What are the principles or criteria upheld by the Government in allocating funding? Section 7(1) of the Ordinance stipulates, "The Legislative Council may, in advance of an Appropriation Ordinance, by resolution authorize expenditure for the services of the Government in respect of a financial year to be charged on the general revenue, in accordance with this Ordinance and subject to such limitations and conditions as may be specified in the resolution." Upon hearing this, perhaps Members are still unable to understand directly the relationship between this provision and funds on account.

Let us look at the conclusion reached by the legislature in its scrutiny of a previous vote-on-account resolution. Over the past two weeks, various pro-establishment Members (including the Deputy President) attended the "Two Sessions" in Beijing. The Legislative Council's time for scrutinizing budget estimates and also the request for funds on account has been reduced in order to make way for the schedule of the "Two Sessions". I think that this arrangement, one which has been adopted over the past few years, is not desirable.

7592 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

Records of the legislature show that in 2008-2009, the House Committee formed a Subcommittee to scrutinize the vote-on-account resolution. The Subcommittee spent two weeks―because some Members needed to attend the "Two Sessions", the Subcommittee only held two or three meetings also within a time frame of two weeks―on dealing specifically with the vote-on-account resolution. The Subcommittee Chairman at the time was Mr James TO, who is now present on my right hand side. The Subcommittee led by him raised several recommendations with the Government. The first one was that the Government should only seek funds on account for those essential or urgent items under the non-recurrent expenditure subheads, instead of uniformly seeking funds on account equivalent to 100% of the provisions shown in the estimates. The Government should tell Members which items are essential or urgent. The Government should be able to tell us specifically, right? If the sums are incorporated into the total amount, then nobody will be aware of those items.

Second, the notice to move the motion for the funds on account should be given after the Estimates for Expenditures for the coming year was laid before the Legislative Council. The Legislative Council should also be provided with sufficient notification period for moving the motion so that Members would have enough time to scrutinize the resolution. Even though funds on account are for interim uses, the Government should not present the resolution at the last moment, right? The Government can give advance notice.

Third, the Government should review whether there was any practical need to empower the Financial Secretary to vary the funds on account approved in respect of any subhead in accordance with the fourth paragraph of the resolution. This recommendation is very controversial. I talk about the recommendations put forth by the Subcommittee in 2008 because over the past 10 years, whether speaking of John TSANG, Paul CHAN, Prof K C CHAN or James Henry LAU―without any distinction of their order of precedence―none of them has given any response to the recommendations of the Legislative Council. Except adopting the administrative measure or formality of giving notice to the Legislative Council on moving a vote-on-account resolution after the announcement of the Budget, I cannot see any improvement measures from the Government. May I ask whether Secretary James Henry LAU is aware that the Legislative Council put forth certain recommendations in 2008, in the hope that the Government could make improvement? Can the Government tell people how much of the $131 billion this year will be spent on essential or urgent items? What is the proportion of such items?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7593

Besides, I also notice that the Government has uniformly sought funds on account which are equivalent to the provisions shown in the estimates every year. For instance, paragraph 4(a) of the resolution states that for an operating account recurrent subhead of expenditure, the relevant sum is capped at only 20% of the relevant provision. In accordance with paragraph 4(b) of the resolution, for an operating account non-recurrent subhead of expenditure, the relevant sum can be equivalent to 100% of the relevant provision. The rate stipulated in paragraph 4(a) is 20%, whereas paragraph 4(b) concerning a non-recurrent subhead of expenditure states that the rate is 100%.

The classification under paragraph four of the resolution is based on the dichotomy of "recurrent expenditure" and "non-recurrent expenditure". But I do not think that this is comprehensive enough because there are bound to be exceptions. One example is the operational expenses under two expenditure heads in the Schedule: "Head―152 Government Secretariat: Commerce and Economic Development Bureau (Commerce, Industry and Tourism Branch)" and "Head―155 Government Secretariat: Innovation and Technology Commission". The Government intends to seek from this Council a respective amount which is equivalent to 25% of the relevant provision. Why is the percentage increased to 25%? Why do only these two departments have such needs? What do these two departments intend to develop? We do not know. The whole thing is like an "urban legend", and no answers have been given over all these years.

The third point which is also very controversial is the power of the Financial Secretary. Where does the problem lie? Paragraph four of the resolution stipulates this towards the end: "or such other amount … as may in any case be approved by the Financial Secretary". This line should be separated as an independent paragraph 4(c) because it confers on the Financial Secretary the power―a very huge power indeed―to approve any changes to the amounts of funds on account under various expenditure subheads in any case. Theoretically, he can change an amount as he likes.

We have checked the records on Members' speeches in the past and found that former Member Emily LAU said in 2008: "During the meeting, our Legal Adviser also asked about the purpose of this paragraph. And yet, no one answered." How absurd and ridiculous it is! Has the Financial Secretary ever used this power to approve any changes over all these years? Yes or No? I will be glad to be told by the authorities that they have not used this power over the years, and that it is only of a pre-emptive nature. But if the authorities have used this power, then I will be eager to know where they have used it.

7594 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

Deputy President, the various loopholes in the resolution I discussed earlier on do not come into existence just overnight. For all these years, the Government has never addressed the queries of this Council. Neither does it intend to improve accountability. Instead, it has allowed the loopholes in the public finance system to expand and sought more and more funds on account.

Speaking of the press conference on the "Lantau Tomorrow" plan yesterday, we have repeatedly criticized the relevant projections, saying that they are misleading. I do not understand why at this moment, the authorities can … Well actually, the Government simply does not know how high the price of sea sand will reach in the future and how much fiscal revenue it can obtain from Grade A offices, and so on. All those figures are mere projections. But the Government tries to mislead people, saying that the relevant sums will definitely reach the levels as projected. Nevertheless, experience shows that cost overrun occurs precisely for all these reasons. We do not want to see the degradation of Hong Kong's public finance into such an appalling state. For the above reasons, I will cast an opposition vote later on. Some Members (notably pro-establishment Members) may criticize us for filibustering, misleading the public and impeding the operation of various government services. I urge them to dispense with such arguments because I for one definitely have no such intention whatsoever.

Besides, Members may think that it is reasonable not to speak. But in my view, Members will fail in their intrinsic duty if they refuse to diligently discharge their job of scrutinizing the resolution. Deputy President, as you may remember, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung once said that the scrutiny of a Budget should be comparable to an autopsy. However, has the "corpse" been taken out yet? It looks like it is still in the morgue. If one wants to perform an autopsy and dissection on a corpse, one must have the corpse taken out first. Am I right? The whole thing is simply a loophole. And I even do not know whether the skin of the corpse has already been cut open.

For all these reasons, I reiterate that I have no intention to set myself against public services or obstruct the Government's operation. My objection is centred on the serious lack of accountability in the Government's public finance system at present, and this is reflected by this vote-on-account resolution. It looks like the Government is at ease and very arrogant. I think the Government LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7595 should thoroughly review the criteria for computing the amounts of funds on account, to say the very least. That way, it can set people's mind at ease about the uses of the relevant funds on account.

Deputy President, I so submit.

MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I am glad that Mr AU Nok-hin … has made the explanation. In fact, it is not necessary for me to bring up the matter once again every year as if I were reciting the Holy Scriptures. Besides, I have not brought up the matter for years. I consider that the Government will have to consider a host of matters after the Budget is published. It will take a longer while for the Government to consider them because they may involve an extensive scope. For that reason, it is necessary for the Administration to request for provisional funding by way of proposing a resolution just like what it does this time. Nevertheless, the problem is―Mr AU has saved me a lot of time to explain it as he has elaborated on that―concerning the necessary expenditure for the reform in this funding request, the Government has already exercised self-constraint by limiting the ceiling in a prudent way. It has also considered the distribution of resources, identified the necessary part and the unnecessary part to ensure that it is not asking for funding exceeding what it needs. Besides, it has explained the reform to be taken forward. Mr AU has already mentioned the past practice. As a matter of fact, a lot of Members, including myself, have made an effort to present their views on the Budget.

Certainly, from the Administration's perspective, some people will always think like this: Let us take it easy for the sake of convenience, as a one-off formula will be acceptable. This is actually putting more weight on administrative convenience. But it does not necessarily mean that they share the same view with Members who are responsible for making the decision in the process of allocating public funds. But I will not go into details on that issue.

Nevertheless, the second point I wish to point out is that apart from the first point concerning the provisional funding this time, actually it can help us buy some time―about two to three months, so that we can ponder on what amendments we should propose when we deliberate the Budget in detail later on. In particular, we can make points about major principles and tell the Government 7596 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 some practices through this debate. It may not be necessary for us to wait until a full debate on the Budget before proposing such practices as we should go into details of some other issues.

All I can say is that the public find it objectionable after the Financial Secretary announced the Budget on 28 February that, as the saying goes, "The trouble lies not in scarcity but in uneven distribution." I am not going into details about the figures but the general situation is that among the measures of "handing out candies" of more than $40 billion, the concession in salaries tax and rates have accounted for $32 billion, about 80%. After calculation, we find that the "N have-nots" group is left out―including housewives, university students and "wage earners" with meagre incomes―the number of this group of people is quite high. I reckon that the number is close to 3 million or more.

Therefore, I wish to take this opportunity of debating the provisional funding request to remind the Government that the uneven distribution of wealth should not happen. I hope the Government will think about it and adopt the same mechanism as it adopted last year by handing out $3,000 to the "N have-nots". We have expressed our views in this regard and I am not going to repeat. However, it will actually affect the voting inclination of the Democratic Party or other colleagues. Besides, it will make the public think that regardless of the good intention of the Government proposal, inequality arose in last year's Budget and remedial measures had to be taken afterwards. However, before the remedial measures are materialized and the subsidies meted out, the Government seems to have forgotten everything as the Secretary recently keeps on stressing that he will not hand out money this time. Does he really want to see people take to the streets again?

Honestly speaking, I consider that the Government should listen to more views of Members and the public after the provisional funding request is put forward. I know a lot of colleagues may not agree that we should "hand out money", but we should at least ask: If the Government can launch some holistic measures to benefit a larger number of people, will it be more equitable to the public given that the amount is far beyond the $3,000 ceiling? It is a matter of equitability, rather than making it clear at the very beginning that how much money should be handed out to each member of the public. That is not the case at all.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7597

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

MR CHAN HAK-KAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I have been sitting in this Chamber listening to Members views on the proposed resolution in relation to the provisional funding request moved under the Public Finance Ordinance. Now I wish to express my personal views. I think there are two inappropriate notions or misunderstandings which I wish to clarify. Before I make my clarification, I have to say that I agree with what Mr James TO has just said. The proposed resolution in relation to the provisional funding request is necessary because the Government really needs the money to deal with some daily expenditures before the Budget is officially approved.

Just now I listened to the speeches delivered by colleagues from the pan-democratic camp and I find that there are two inaccuracies. First of all, many colleagues have mentioned policy matters, but it seems that there is no direct relationship between today's debate on the proposed resolution in relation to the provisional funding request and policy matters. For example, some colleagues mentioned that due to the cost overruns, they did not agree with certain Government infrastructure projects. They proposed that the provisional funding request under the proposed resolution had to be reduced in some ways because they disapproved of some public officers or government departments. In fact, such requests do not cover the relevant infrastructure projects or policy areas they have mentioned. Instead of bringing up these issues in today's motion debate, they should discuss these matters in the committees concerned or the relevant panels. Actually, the funding request cannot be approved until Members have debated and the Finance Committee has passed it. For that reason, the cost overruns of some infrastructure projects are not listed in the agenda of the proposed resolution in relation to the provisional funding request. This is their first misunderstanding.

The second misunderstanding, I think, arises from their sweeping generalization. As I said just now, since they disagree with certain public officers or disapprove of the approach of some government departments, they wanted to take this chance to cut their expenditure. However, the proposed resolution in relation to the provisional funding request involves many government departments in a wide scope. Members who have read the papers provided by the Government should be able to see all the details. It would be unfair for us to veto the proposed resolution in relation to the provisional funding request just because Members are not happy with certain government 7598 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 departments, as there are important expenditures under the proposed resolution in relation to the provisional funding request. For example, expenditures of the Fire Services Department, general expenditures of the civil service and pensions, and more importantly, one of the expenditures is "Head 112―Legislative Council Commission".

Deputy President, it is alright for us to be dissatisfied with government officials. In fact, the public are not satisfied with the Legislative Council or certain Members of the Legislative Council. Members of the public tell us that as some Members always violate the Rules of Procedure by disturbing the proceeding and making a noise, the remunerations of these Members should be reduced. If so, should we also consider the expenditures of the Legislative Council Commission under the provisional funding request? If the answer is positive, should we veto the funding request? As to Members who expressed just now that the proposed resolution in relation to the provisional funding request should be vetoed, I wish to ask them to consider stopping receiving their remuneration for the next two to three months and think whether it is necessary to provide their assistants with expenses on an accountable basis. I hope that instead of just reprimanding public officials, they should also think about the impact of the operations of the legislature if they veto the proposed resolution in relation to the provisional funding request. For that reason, I implore Members to think twice about whether it is necessary to veto the entire proposed resolution in relation to the provisional funding request simply because they are not satisfied with certain policies or they want to pinpoint certain government officials. What they are doing now will have a very serious impact on the entire society as well the operation of the Government, the Secretariat and their own Members' offices.

Those are the two views I wish to clarify. Thank you, Deputy President.

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

(No Member indicated a wish to speak)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): If not, I now call upon the Secretary to reply. Then, the debate will come to a close.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7599

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I only wish to add that the Appropriation Bill 2019 is now under deliberation by the Finance Committee. At the special meetings of the Finance Committee from 8 to 12 April, various Policy Bureaux will explain the details of their respective policy areas, and Members can also air their views on the second Budget meeting on 17 and 18 April.

Therefore, I agree to the supplementary information given earlier by Mr CHAN Hak-kan. I now implore Members to support this appropriation resolution, so that during the period from 1 April 2019 on which the new financial year starts till the implementation of the Appropriation Bill 2019, the Government can obtain the necessary resources to provide various livelihood services.

Thank you, Deputy President.

DEPUTY 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)

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

(Members raised their hands)

Mr AU Nok-hin rose to claim a division.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr AU Nok-hin has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for five minutes.

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

7600 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

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 Tommy CHEUNG, Prof Joseph LEE, 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 Michael TIEN, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Dr Helena WONG, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr Andrew WAN, Dr Junius HO, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan, Mr KWONG Chun-yu, Mr Tony TSE and Ms CHAN Hoi-yan voted for the motion.

Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Mr Alvin YEUNG, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Jeremy TAM, Mr Gary FAN and Mr AU Nok-hin voted against the motion.

Mr SHIU Ka-chun abstained.

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

THE PRESIDENT announced that there were 51 Members present, 39 were in favour of the motion, 10 against it and 1 abstained. Since the question was agreed by a majority of the Members present, he therefore declared that the motion was passed.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7601

MEMBER'S MOTION ON SUBSIDIARY LEGISLATION/INSTRUMENT

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Member's motion on subsidiary legislation or instrument.

Proposed resolution under the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance to extend the period for amending the Public Health and Municipal Services (Fees) (Amendment) Regulation 2019, which was laid on the Table of this Council on 20 February 2019.

(Members kept speaking aloud at the meeting)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please keep quiet.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I call upon Mr CHAN Hak-kan to speak and move the motion.

PROPOSED RESOLUTION TO EXTEND THE PERIOD FOR AMENDING SUBSIDIARY LEGISLATION

MR CHAN HAK-KAN (in Cantonese): President, in my capacity as Chairman of the Subcommittee, I move the motion standing in my name as printed on the Agenda.

At the meeting of the Housing Committee on 1 March 2019, Members agreed to form a Subcommittee to study the Public Health and Municipal Services (Fees) (Amendment) Regulation 2019, which was tabled to the Legislative Council on 20 February 2019. The Subcommittee agreed that I should move a motion to extend the scrutiny period to the Legislative Council meeting on 17 April 2019, so that the Subcommittee could have more time to complete its work and then report the results of deliberations to the House Committee.

President, with these remarks, I beg Members to support the motion.

7602 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

Mr CHAN Hak-kan moved the following motion:

"RESOLVED that in relation to the Public Health and Municipal Services (Fees) (Amendment) Regulation 2019, published in the Gazette as Legal Notice No. 14 of 2019, and laid on the table of the Legislative Council on 20 February 2019, the period for amending subsidiary legislation referred to in section 34(2) of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance (Cap. 1) be extended under section 34(4) of that Ordinance to the meeting of 17 April 2019."

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

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

(No Member indicated a wish to speak)

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

(Members raised their hands)

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

(No hands raised)

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

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7603

MEMBERS' MOTIONS

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

Motion on "Proactively expanding development opportunities in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area".

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

I call upon Mr WONG Ting-kwong to speak and move the motion.

MOTION ON "PROACTIVELY EXPANDING DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES IN THE GUANGDONG-HONG KONG-MACAO GREATER BAY AREA"

MR WONG TING-KWONG (in Cantonese): President, after years of deliberations and study, and the incorporation of the views expounded by Hong Kong, Macao and the major cities in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area ("the Greater Bay Area"), the Central Government promulgated the Outline Development Plan for the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area ("the Plan") last month. This signifies that the development of the Greater Bay Area has reached the important stage of full implementation. Spanning a period until 2035, the Plan sets the objective of developing a first-class international bay area where the economic system and mode of development are mainly supported by innovation, and the markets within are basically highly connected. As specified in the Plan, the four core cities of Hong Kong, Macao, Guangzhou and Shenzhen should serve as the core engines for regional development, and Hong Kong is required to consolidate and enhance its status as an international financial, transportation and trade centre as well as an international aviation hub. Also, Hong Kong must make great efforts to develop the innovation and technology industries, nurture emerging industries, establish itself as a centre for international legal and dispute resolution services in the Asia-Pacific region, and turn itself into an intellectual property trading hub of the region, thereby building a more competitive international metropolis.

During the 40 years of reform and opening up of the country, "one country, two systems" has been the greatest advantage of Hong Kong, while the reform and opening up of the country has served as the biggest arena for us. The 7604 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 implementation of national strategies such as the Belt and Road Initiative and the Greater Bay Area development now presents a key new opportunity that we ought to fully realize and properly grasp.

Regarding Hong Kong's participation in the development of the Greater Bay Area, I think there are two points that Hong Kong must bear in mind: first, seize the opportunity; second, take proactive actions. Perhaps, Members may tease me about what I said, thinking that it is simply something stale. However, it is necessary for Hong Kong to truly bear in mind these two points.

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

At the early stage of the reunification, the Mainland still lagged way behind Hong Kong in various areas. Shenzhen, for example, constantly approached Hong Kong with the intention of vigorously developing high technology together with us, but was met with a lukewarm response from the HKSAR Government. Therefore, Shenzhen proceeded with the development on its own.

Time flies and 20 years have passed. With the growth of enterprises like Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd., Zhongxing Telecommunication Equipment Corporation, and Tencent, Shenzhen has occupied a foremost position in the world in terms of its capacity for innovation in various technological realms such as 5G technology and new energy vehicles. Shenzhen is making rapid progress from imitative innovation towards original innovation, and moving from a follower to a leader. What is more, its GDP has surpassed that of Hong Kong at "Shenzhen's speed".

My fellow Members, in order to cope with the latest development trend, the country now gives Hong Kong a second chance to seize the opportunity once given up by us. The development strategy for the Greater Bay Area has afforded Hong Kong a new round of opportunities to cooperate with Guangdong, and a fresh occasion which can be described with the advertising slogan of Standard Chartered Marathon 2019: "Together, we run further". Therefore, there is no reason whatsoever for Hong Kong to miss this hard-to-come-by opportunity again.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7605

Furthermore, we must adjust our mindset and act proactively. The arrogant mindset held by Hong Kong has long hindered its cooperation with Guangdong. As the Mainland has undergone 40 years of rapid development, it is no longer appropriate for us to stick with the condescending mindset that we held in the old days towards the Mainland. To Hong Kong, we should adjust our mindset to interact with the Mainland on equal terms and to take the initiative to integrate with the Greater Bay Area. This is crucial to the development of the Greater Bay Area and will enable Hong Kong to benefit from the relevant development.

If we fail to abandon the long-standing arrogant mindset, it will only make the efforts we made in the integrated development of the Greater Bay Area inefficacious. Therefore, mindset adjustment is a crucial step to take as it will make all the suggestions below and our work in the future much easier.

Deputy President, as stated in the Plan, we have to leverage Hong Kong's leading position in the financial services sector; strengthen our status as a global offshore Renminbi business hub and our role as an international asset management centre and a risk management centre; and progressively promote a mechanism for mutual access to capital and products in the financial markets. In the Greater Bay Area, the most prominent advantage that Hong Kong has lies in the financial sector. In the light of this, expanding the scope for cross-boundary investment by Hong Kong and Mainland residents and institutions will promote the development of the real economy of the entire Greater Bay Area. The Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong ("the DAB") is glad to see that Governments of the two places have accepted the requests of the DAB about supporting further liberalization of the Mainland market to allow the sale of Hong Kong insurance products in the Greater Bay Area. The DAB also hopes that the two places can further expand the scope of mutual access to various investment tools, and develop more offshore Renminbi and risk management products.

Turning to innovation and technology, though the investment in scientific research has been on the low side in Hong Kong before, Hong Kong is still able to make certain achievements in areas such as biotechnology and original research due to the presence of scientific research talents, plus the protection for intellectual property rights and the free flow of information and talents.

7606 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

If Hong Kong's basic research can integrate with Shenzhen's applied science and technology, and the advanced manufacturing industry in the Greater Bay Area to foster the commercialization and industrialized production of scientific research results through the Hong Kong-Shenzhen Innovation and Technology Park in the Lok Ma Chau Loop for example, I believe the synergy effect brought by the cooperation between Hong Kong and other cities in the Greater Bay Area will enable Hong Kong to have a promising prospect amid the intense global competition in innovation and technology, thereby giving impetus to the further transformation of Hong Kong's economic and industrial structures, and building Hong Kong into an international technology and innovation hub which is globally influential.

Also, the SAR Government should join hands with cities in the Greater Bay Area in developing financial technology. With the research in such fields as artificial intelligence and electronic payment, and the application of the relevant research work, the financial institutions and the industrial and commercial enterprises in the area will have their operating efficiency enhanced, and the relevant sectors will find assistance in exploring new modes of development. One example will be the building of a highly-connected electronic payment system for the purpose of establishing a regional platform with wide applicability to minimize the transaction cost within the area.

Meanwhile, among the cities in the Greater Bay Area, Shenzhen has developed into the prime centre for start-ups in the area. Not only does this help to attract more scientists and inventors, but also serves to bring in entrepreneurs, venture capital funds, private equity funds, etc. Hence, working together with Shenzhen, Hong Kong can expect to play a role in providing innovation and technology enterprises in the Greater Bay Area with comprehensive financing services from initial financing to initial public offering and refinancing in the future.

As the development of the Greater Bay Area is gaining momentum, the economic and trading ties among the nine municipalities of Guangzhou, Hong Kong and Macao will grow closer than ever. Given the existence of "one country, two systems", three customs territories and three currencies in the Greater Bay Area, it is necessary to explore what policy breakthroughs and system innovations are required for promoting interconnectivity of market factors and cross-boundary flow of resources such as capital and people.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7607

The DAB has put forward to the Central Government a number of suggestions in respect of the following two aspects. The first one is about improving the airspace arrangements. Our suggestions include assisting and encouraging Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macao to draw reference from overseas experience when studying the establishment of a joint airspace management centre for handling issues about the management of the airspace of the Greater Bay Area under an innovative model.

The second aspect concerns enhancing the Mainland boundary control system governing the movement of Hong Kong people by implementing co-location arrangements at more boundary control points such as at the Huanggang Port, or studying the implementation of a "joint boundary control system" whereby the clearance procedures of the two places can be completed in one go. This is to enhance the efficiency of boundary control and facilitate the flows of people and goods. At the same time, there should be a study on the implementation of 24-hour customs clearance at boundary controls such as at the Shenzhen Bay Port, and the streamlining of customs clearance procedures, so as to facilitate the increasingly hectic cross-boundary activities.

It is also the suggestion of the DAB that the operations of various airports and ports in the Greater Bay Area should be better coordinated, so that the Greater Bay Area will be built into an international high value-added multi-purpose freight centre. What is more, we have appealed for an enhancement of the efficiency and functions of Hong Kong's ports in re-exporting goods to cities on the Mainland.

In addition, we have proposed that the governments of the two places should re-consider constructing the Hong Kong-Shenzhen Western Express Line for connecting the core areas of the two places, and should commence the construction of the Hong Kong-Shenzhen Eastern Express Line―the one just mentioned is in the Western part, whereas the one I am talking about is in the East―with the aim of facilitating the flows of people and goods, and achieving the target of "East in, East out".

Deputy President, now, the Central Authorities have implemented measures for granting residence permits to Hong Kong and Macao residents, and including subsidies for individual income tax differential in the "Hong Kong taxation for Hong Kong people" arrangements. These measures are aimed at attracting Hong Kong and Macao residents to settle in the Greater Bay Area, and removing some major obstacles to their living and working there.

7608 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

In the future, the high-quality economic growth of the Greater Bay Area will bolster a rapid expansion of the middle class there, thus bringing more opportunities for the financial sector in the Greater Bay Area to develop individual wealth management business. Meanwhile, people in the area will also demand more integrated and convenient financial services. In this connection, the governments of the two places have already launched preparatory work relating to various projects such as the cross-boundary "Wealth Management Connect".

Deputy President, as for areas other than economics, they will be expounded in the speeches of other Members of the DAB later. I so submit.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WONG Ting-kwong, please move your motion.

MR WONG TING-KWONG (in Cantonese): I move my motion.

Mr WONG Ting-kwong moved the following motion: (Translation)

"That the Central Government has promulgated the Outline Development Plan for the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area ('the Plan'), the contents of which have taken on board the views of Hong Kong, Macao and the major cities in the Greater Bay Area, setting out the directions for future development of the Greater Bay Area, putting forward specific economic development objectives for Hong Kong and proposing a number of measures to facilitate Hong Kong people in living and working on the Mainland; in order to enable Hong Kong to properly perform the role of a core engine for regional development, grasp new opportunities of future development and improve people's livelihood, this Council urges the SAR Government to formulate policies and allocate more resources to develop pillar industries, innovation and technology and other emerging industries, and to adopt more proactive measures to facilitate the daily living and travel of members of the public in Hong Kong, so as to offer appropriate channels of business expansion in the Greater Bay Area to enterprises of different sizes (micro, small, medium and large), create more new development and employment opportunities for Hong Kong people, particularly young people, and provide Hong Kong people with living space of better quality."

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7609

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

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Eight Members will move amendments to this motion. This Council will conduct a joint debate on the motion and the amendments.

I will call upon Members who will move the amendments to speak in the following order: Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Tony TSE, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr Martin LIAO, Dr KWOK Ka-ki and Mr HO Kai-ming, but they may not move the amendments at this stage.

IR DR LO WAI-KWOK (in Cantonese): Deputy President, first of all, I thank Mr WONG Ting-kwong for moving the original motion which urges the SAR Government and the various sectors of society to actively explore the development opportunities in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area ("the Greater Bay Area"), a theme which I believe most of the Members will recognize. The Business and Professionals Alliance for Hong Kong ("BPA") has been very concerned about this subject matter. Mr Christopher CHEUNG and I thus propose our respective amendments on different areas of concern with a view to introducing some specific policy measures.

Deputy President, on 18 February, the country promulgated the Outline Development Plan for the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area ("the Plan"), which highlights the positioning and development direction of various cities in the Greater Bay Area. It has drawn great attention from various sectors in Hong Kong, Macao and the Mainland and was the hot discussion topic during the sessions of the National People's Congress and the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference ("CPPCC") held in Beijing in March. In the afternoon on 4 March, Mr HAN Zheng, Vice Premier of the State Council who is in charge of Hong Kong and Macao affairs, attended the joint meeting of the Hong Kong and Macao delegates at CPPCC. In the concluding speech, Vice Premier HAN pointed out that the development plan for the Greater Bay Area was a national strategy which involved three customs territories, three currencies and two systems. The Greater Bay Area, which had the highest level of 7610 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 internationalization and market vibrancy, was able to capitalize on the edges of Hong Kong and Macao, and provided opportunities and a platform for Hong Kong and Macao to integrate into the overall national development. With the flow of people, goods and capital in the Greater Bay Area being further enhanced, the level of convenience needed to be stepped up. The various cities in the Greater Bay Area must identify their long-term goals, and move step by step forward from the current position. In regard to the policy initiatives concerned, they should be launched once they are ready. The support from the Central Government to the development of the Greater Bay Area is encouraging indeed.

However, it is regrettable that some people in the community do not recognize and support the development of the Greater Bay Area and think that Hong Kong is being planned, which is not true and will mislead the public. In my view, before discussing how to implement the Plan, it is necessary to briefly clarify the fallacy of Hong Kong being planned for the avoidance of doubt.

Deputy President, the collaboration among nine major cities in the Pearl River Delta and Hong Kong and Macao is not an item lately put onto the agenda, but is the fruit of the 40 years of reform and opening-up of our country. Since the 1980s, through economic reform and liberalization, Guangdong Province has been providing a large amount of relatively cheap land sites and manpower resources to the Hong Kong enterprises, while the latter has also been providing capital, management and technologies to the Mainland. As we have witnessed, being flexible and innovative, the people of both sides are able to grasp the opportunities to achieve a win-win situation. While Guangdong Province is enjoying rapid economic development, the Hong Kong economy is also transforming from traditional manufacturing industries towards high value-added service industries.

The planning of the Greater Bay Area is a novel development under the new international economic tendency, signifying the transformation from competition among individual cities to competition among city clusters. The planning is significant in coordinating the different positions and roles of various cities in order to have better division of work and complement each other's strengths, and to avoid problems such as each city charting its own course, overlapping and mismatch of resources and unreasonable waste of production capacity.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7611

In the course of formulating the Plan, Hong Kong is not being planned, as there is a high degree of participation from various departments of the SAR Government and contribution of numerous suggestions from the business and professional sectors of Hong Kong. BPA, for instance, has conveyed the views and suggestions of the business and professional sectors through various channels to the Hong Kong SAR Government, the relevant ministries and departments of the Central Government and the Guangdong Provincial Government. In late April last year, the leading team of BPA organized a tour to visit Guangdong. We met the leadership of the Guangdong Provincial Committee and Provincial Government, and submitted a proposal to promote the development of the Greater Bay Area and deepen cooperation between Guangdong and Hong Kong.

We are delighted to see that the Plan responds to not a few aspirations of the business and professional sectors in Hong Kong, and coincides with some suggestions from BPA. It is noteworthy that as emphasized in the Plan, Hong Kong should vigorously develop the innovation and technology ("I&T") industry, consolidate its status as an international financial and trade centre and an international maritime and aviation hub, and build itself into a centre for international legal and dispute resolution services in the Asia Pacific region. This precisely is the fruit of many years of hard fighting by various sectors of the Hong Kong society, forming a competitive edge widely recognized by people in and outside Hong Kong. The development of the Greater Bay Area will further provide Hong Kong with new opportunities to consolidate and upgrade its status.

Deputy President, there is another argument that the implementation of the Plan may intensify Mainland intervention, thus tarnishing the uniqueness of Hong Kong under "one country, two systems". This kind of worry is unnecessary as the practical situation is exactly the opposite.

It is repeatedly stressed in the Plan that the Greater Bay Area involves the governments of the three places, three administrative systems and cross-boundary management. The Central Government also highly emphasizes that all the systemic edges of Hong Kong and Macao under "one country, two systems" should be maintained, and attaches importance to the various possible problems that may arise from the integration development of three regions. It has set up the Leading Group for the Development of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area led by Vice Premier HAN Zheng, with membership comprising the heads of central ministries and chief executives of Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macao, thus forming a strong and powerful coordination mechanism. In 7612 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 regard to the policy initiatives concerned, they will be launched once they are ready with the consensus reached upon discussion by various parties. For instance, eight measures for the convenience and benefit of the people were launched on 1 March. Therefore, I deeply believe that the implementation of the Plan can not only inject new dynamics into the sustainable development of Hong Kong, but also enrich the substance of "one country, two systems".

Deputy President, against the above mentioned background, the various sectors in the Hong Kong society should avoid unnecessary disputes and make suggestions for the implementation of the Plan. The SAR Government should also proactively plan and make good use of the fiscal surplus in rolling out targeted policy initiatives to consolidate the existing advantages and enhance our competitiveness, and in promoting the development of a diversified economy and regional cooperation. The major measures cover the following aspects: In establishing as an international I&T centre, Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macao should endeavour to improve the I&T collaboration mechanisms, formulate I&T development planning in the Greater Bay Area, and set up an I&T commission for the Greater Bay Area to coordinate I&T exchanges and collaboration in the area. At the same time, they should launch an I&T partnership scheme and establish exchange platforms for I&T talents, enhance the training and introduction of I&T talents, strengthen the integration and matching of production supply chains within the Greater Bay Area and promote commercialization of research and development results.

In relation to promoting connectivity in cross-boundary transport infrastructure and among marine, land and air transportation networks, I, in my capacity as a Member of CPPCC, submitted a personal proposal to CPPCC this year and the theme is about enhancing connectivity in the Greater Bay Area and building an international maritime and aviation hub. In my view, the Governments of Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macao should set up a cross-boundary transport management institution to coordinate resource alignment and utilization of the existing ports, airports and bridges, make proper planning on further construction and operation of various infrastructural facilities, rationalize the passenger and traffic flows among various ports and airports, further fine-tune the arrangements for customs clearance of goods between Hong Kong and the Mainland, and strive for the opening up of more boundary control points to implement 24-hour clearance operation, with a view to developing the Greater Bay Area into a world-class shipping and logistics hub, and consolidating Hong Kong's status as an international maritime and aviation hub.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7613

Due to the difference between the systems in Hong Kong and the Mainland, when the enterprises move north for development, they usually encounter the difficulties that "big doors are open, but small doors are not yet open". Through various platforms, I have repeatedly urged different central ministries and various local governments in the Greater Bay Area to step up communication so as to remove obstacles and provide more support in the promotion of cooperation among the related sectors in the Greater Bay Area.

As regards jointly building a quality living circle to provide an ideal place for living, working and travelling, I suggest striving to build the "one-hour living circle" in the Greater Bay Area, upgrading the Mainland Travel Permits for Hong Kong and Macao Residents so that more functions can be incorporated, extending the scope of cross-boundary welfare for Hong Kong and Macao residents, extending the applicability of Hong Kong health care vouchers to the hospitals and clinics in the Greater Bay Area, improving the cross-boundary ambulance service, providing transport subsidy for travelling between Hong Kong and the Mainland to the Hong Kong elderly residing on the Mainland on a long-term basis, and offering concessionary policies to encourage Hong Kong tertiary institutions to set up branch campuses in the Greater Bay Area.

I so submit (The buzzer sounded) … and hope that Members will support my amendment …

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ir Dr LO, your speaking time is up.

MR CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I greatly support and agree with the motion on "Proactively expanding development opportunities in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area" proposed by Mr WONG Ting-kwong today, and would like to thank him for proposing this motion for our discussion. In my view, the Outline Development Plan for the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area ("the Plan") promulgated earlier by the State offers a precious development opportunity for both Hong Kong and the Motherland to realize economic take-off again. Arguably, the Plan is of equal importance with the reform and opening-up policy of 40 years ago. Therefore, we must join hands with the Motherland to complete this great mission, with a view to upgrading the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area ("the Greater Bay Area") to a first-class international bay area.

7614 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

There are doubts that our positioning in the Plan is subject to restrictions and concerns that Hong Kong will lose our original uniqueness and degenerate into an ordinary Mainland city. However, I hold that those uttering such remarks are either unknowledgeable about facts or so short-sighted that they do not see the direction and way forward for the future economic development of Hong Kong, nor have they thought for the future of our next generation. Since both the population and the gross economic output of the entire Greater Bay Area are 9 to 10 times those of Hong Kong, there is no reason why we should not make good use of this huge market to create a new future for Hong Kong. On the contrary, I hope that Members read clearly the explicit suggestion in the Plan that we should "fully and accurately implement the principle of 'one country, two systems'; fully leverage the composite advantages of Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macao; … further enhance the Greater Bay Area's supporting and leading role in the country's economic development and opening up"(Preamble).

In other words, the Plan calls exactly for making use of "one country, two systems", the uniqueness of Hong Kong, to facilitate the development of the Greater Bay Area. As an international financial centre having accumulated more experience in international interactions, Hong Kong can surely play an active leading role in taking the development of the Greater Bay Area to a new level.

Nevertheless, I am also concerned that, while being part of one country, the Greater Bay Area has three different legal systems and three different customs territories, coupled with tremendous differences between financial management systems among the three places. If we are to build a first-class international bay area, we must be audaciously innovative in implementing institutional reform to overcome the systemic and institutional barriers among the three places with a view to ensuring smooth connectivity. Therefore, I propose an early and pilot implementation of the "connectivity among three new domains" policy in the Greater Bay Area. If the impossible in other economic regions becomes possible in the Greater Bay Area, namely achieving full connectivity among the financial markets, we are already halfway to success. I am going to present the contents of the "connectivity among three new domains" as follows.

The first one is "connectivity in capital". As the saying goes: "An army marches on its stomach." Financial resources are essential for the development of innovation and technology in the Greater Bay Area. In the light of three different monetary policies in the area, as well as foreign exchange controls in the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7615

Mainland, we must find ways to enhance capital mobility among Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macao. I propose to develop a financial innovation zone in the Greater Bay Area and consider engaging financial institutions of the three places to jointly establish a Greater Bay Area Commercial Bank for International Development, with a view to setting up a Renminbi-based liquidity pool with full connectivity for the Greater Bay Area so as to provide necessary development funds for innovation and technology as well as various enterprises in the area. As the largest offshore Renminbi ("RMB") centre and an international financial centre, coupled with its active efforts to become an asset management centre in recent years, Hong Kong can definitely contribute its strengths to the economic take-off of the Greater Bay Area.

(THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair)

The second point is "connectivity in talents". At present, because of the issues of regulations and thresholds, Hong Kong securities dealers are unable enter the Greater Bay Area to provide investors in the area with such financial services as Hong Kong stocks trading, asset management, fundraising from the capital market, mergers and acquisitions. The financial sector eagerly hopes that a small door is open, as in the case of the insurance sector, to allow Hong Kong securities dealers to set up office in the Greater Bay Area. We have a large number of experienced financial talents who can serve corporate investors in the Greater Bay Area. We can also let our vibrant and creative young people go to the Greater Bay Area to give full play to their talents and contribute their strengths to the financial development.

The third and most important point is "connectivity in systems". We must overcome any difficulties to foster connectivity, which is essential for rapid growth. Therefore, we propose that the governments of Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macao should set up a Greater Bay Area Development and Reform Committee to coordinate efforts to introduce more innovative financial products, expand the mutual market access schemes, enable mutual investment in each other's products and establish a cross-border electronic payment system in the Greater Bay Area. They should also look into setting up a Financial Supervision and Coordination Centre tasked with overall rationalization of the different financial regulatory regimes of the three places.

7616 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

President, in addition to accomplishing the aforementioned "connectivity among three new domains", we have to straighten out the problem of having three exchanges within one country. Although Hong Kong is an international financial centre often ranked among the top three in the world in terms of initial public offering volume, the two exchanges in the Mainland are also very aggressive in performance. For example, the Shanghai Stock Exchange has been actively engaged in the launch of the Science and Technology Innovation Board, offering conditions even more lax than those of Hong Kong, and the first batch of stocks are expected to be listed in June this year. On the other hand, in Shenzhen, China's Silicon Valley, the Shenzhen Stock Exchange has also nurtured a number of constructive and promising innovation and technology enterprises. Therefore, I think that the three exchanges should strengthen coordination in this respect to avoid vicious competition.

Of course, Hong Kong itself still has quite a number of advantages. It is the only place in the country allowing both inward and outward free flow of capital without control, and its financial system is underpinned by a strict and effective regulatory mechanism which has also received recognition from international investors. We should make good use of this advantage to actively develop the market for derivatives. In addition to pushing for an early start of the trading of A-share index futures in Hong Kong, we have to continue with our efforts in lobbying the Central Government for inclusion of Hong Kong-listed initial public offerings in the lists of eligible securities under the mutual market access schemes, and actively develop the RMB market and RMB interest rate futures so as to provide a channel for international investors to hedge against A-share risk and enable Mainland investors to invest in Hong Kong's mature market of derivatives in future so as to reduce the risk of excessive volatility of the Mainland stock market.

In addition to strengthening the schemes for mutual market access with the Mainland, I strongly agree with the Globally Connected section of the three-year Strategic Plan of the Hong Kong Exchanges and Clearing Limited, which suggests bringing more global liquidity to Asia Pacific underlying assets and attracting more overseas enterprises to list in Hong Kong. I believe that such initiatives not just give greater play to our unique advantages in enhancing our competitiveness, but also avoid head-to-head competition with the two exchanges in the Mainland.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7617

In the past, Hong Kong has made quite some contribution in the path of reform and opening up of the Motherland. Therefore, I firmly believe that Hong Kong will be able to embark on a voyage side by side with our counterparts in the Greater Bay Area, catching the wind to set course for the second economic take-off of our country.

President, with these remarks, I support any motion that agrees with active participation in the development of the Greater Bay Area. Thank you, President.

MR TONY TSE (in Cantonese): President, first of all, I would like to thank Mr WONG Ting-kwong for moving this motion so that the Legislative Council has an opportunity to discuss the Outline Development Plan for the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area ("the Plan") promulgated by the Central Government on 18 February, i.e. last month.

As mentioned in the Plan, the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area ("the Greater Bay Area") is one of the areas of the country with the highest degree of openness and the most vibrant economic activities, and it assumes a significant strategic position in the country's overall development plan.

The development of the Greater Bay Area seeks to, through further deepening of the cooperation among Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macao, promote economic synergistic development, leverage the respective complementary advantages of the three places, and construct a first-rate international bay area which is ideal for living, working and travelling. In the Greater Bay Area, the four major cities of Hong Kong, Macao, Guangzhou and Shenzhen will perform the roles of core engines for regional development.

As regards the opportunities brought about by the planned development of the Greater Bay Area for the Hong Kong economy and Hong Kong people, as well as the various specific policy measures put forward in the Plan, they have been pretty much mentioned by Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok and Mr Christopher CHEUNG. I will focus my attention on the five measures suggested in my amendment.

Concerning the first measure, I suggest that the Mainland individual income tax payable by Hong Kong people working in the Greater Bay Area should not be higher than the tax payable by them on the same amount of income 7618 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 received in Hong Kong, which is in line with the "Hong Kong taxation for Hong Kong people" principle that I advocated earlier. Shortly after the submission of my amendment to the Legislative Council Secretariat, the Central Government announced eight measures to further facilitate Hong Kong and Macao residents in working and starting businesses in the Greater Bay Area, including the provision of subsidies to top-tier talents and short-supplied talents outside the territory to make up the difference in income tax payments. This measure has to a large extent responded to my aspiration. I hope that the definitions on "top-tier talents" and "short-supplied talents" given by the Mainland authorities can be as broad as possible so that apart from innovation and technology talents, the Hong Kong professionals from the architectural, surveying, town planning and landscape constituency can also benefit so that they can give full play to their capabilities through participating in the development of the Greater Bay Area.

The second measure is strengthening cooperation with other cities in the Greater Bay Area in operating and managing cross-boundary transport infrastructure, so as to enhance the overall operational efficiency of the facilities. Earlier on, I asked the Information Services Division of the Legislative Council to conduct a study on "Planning and development of peripheral areas of high-speed railway ("HSR") stations in Hong Kong, Guangzhou and Shanghai". We have the conclusion that it has been the practice of many Mainland and overseas cities to carry out re-planning and development for the peripheral areas of HSR stations to facilitate urban renewal or nurture new economic growth zones. However, it seems that the West Kowloon Station in the Hong Kong Section of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link merely serves the purpose of a station.

At the very beginning, Hong Kong had its own arrangements for the purchase of HSR tickets by the public and tourists without making reference to the practice of the Mainland, resulting in the chaotic situation with extremely long queues of passengers. It was then that the Government immediately announced some remedial measures. Why did it not enhance communication and cooperation earlier to provide measures for the convenience and benefit of the people?

As regards the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge ("HZMB"), there were issues concerning the number of visitors using HZMB, the regulation and diversion of tour groups, the connecting transport services, the shopping and catering facilities, etc. They were only dealt with by the Hong Kong LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7619

Government after the problems have emerged, and it seemed that the Government had no prior communication with the related cities. In regard to the arrangement for using HZMB by private vehicles, in addition to the complicated procedures, the insurance arrangement and the charges are also to the dissatisfaction of many people, and the cargo volume has yet to show signs of turning the corner. I hope that the governments of the three places can join hands to resolve the problems concerned and make good use of this cross-harbour bridge of the century built with over $100 billion so that it will not be queried as a "white elephant" project.

The third measure is capitalizing on the advantages of Hong Kong to promote the formulation of performance standards for the service industry in the Greater Bay Area that are in line with international standards, and expanding the scope of mutual recognition of professional qualifications among the Mainland, Hong Kong and Macao. "Performance standards for the service industry" is a term used in the Mainland, which is equivalent to "professional system" in Hong Kong.

Following 40 years of reform and opening-up, the capabilities of the Mainland in terms of capital and talents have been remarkably enhanced. But it is in lack of a professional system to dovetail with international standards, an aspect that Hong Kong has the edge. In early this month when I attended the sessions of the National People's Congress and the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, I proposed, in respect of the development projects, making reference to the practice of Hong Kong by setting up a system similar to the authorized person system under which personal responsibilities will be imposed contractually, professionally and legally so as to step up monitoring of construction works quality in the Mainland and enhance the professional standard and integrity of the personnel concerned.

If the Mainland adopts the same set of professional standards as Hong Kong which has been effective in dovetailing with international standards, the room for development for the Hong Kong professionals will surely be greatly extended in the Greater Bay Area and even to the whole country.

The fourth measure is urging young people in Hong Kong, especially young professionals to take part in the development of the Greater Bay Area. An opinion poll has shown that not a few young people in Hong Kong do not have deep understanding of the planning or other aspects of the Greater Bay Area and were resistant to working or starting businesses in the Mainland. Therefore, 7620 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

I suggest cooperating with various cities in the Greater Bay Area and the relevant enterprises to launch more youth internship programmes targeting the professional sectors and organize more competitions relating to the planning and design of construction projects, so that more young professionals can personally understand the working and living environments in the Greater Bay Area, familiarize themselves with the laws and regulations of the Mainland and the operation of the sectors, and build up business and interpersonal networks, thus laying down a good foundation for their further development in the region in future. For instance, the Qianhai Architectural Design Competition held earlier has attracted participation of many professionals in Hong Kong.

The final measure is stepping up exchanges of and training for civil servants in Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macao. In the debate of the Motion of Thanks in respect of the Policy Address held earlier, I also mentioned the related issue. In this motion, I further suggest studying the exchange of civil servants with Guangzhou and Shenzhen on a pilot basis for short-term attachment training in the relevant corresponding departments, so as to develop empathetic thinking in swapped positions.

What is meant by "empathetic thinking in swapped positions"? It means looking at the world from the eyes and perspectives of our counterparts. Many middle level and even higher level civil servants in Hong Kong still stick to Hong Kong based mindset after over 20 years since reunification. In the course of policy formulation, infrastructural designing and town planning, they still only consider the 1 000-odd sq km of land south of Shenzhen River without considering in detail what happens on the rest of the 50 000-odd sq km of land in the Greater Bay Area, grasping the latest development within the Bay Area, or thinking about the views of the Mainland residents or the issues faced by the Mainland counterparts.

At the early stage after reunification, Hong Kong missed many golden opportunities to tie in with national development and failed to grasp many Mainland opportunities. For instance, many people say that the HZMB was constructed after a delay of 10 years. During duty visits overseas a decade ago, the government officials of Hong Kong kept telling others that Hong Kong was the vanguard of electronic payment and how marvellous our Octopus cards were. But now, we have already been overtaken by the Mainland.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7621

If the civil servants of Hong Kong and even some Legislative Council Members still cling to an attitude of isolationism, restraining ourselves from making any progress, not only will Hong Kong fail to perform the role of a core engine, but it will also be overtaken quickly by other cities in the Greater Bay Area which are now developing rapidly.

In order to develop "empathetic thinking in swapped positions", the most effective way is to have practical participation in dealing with the issues concerned, instead of taking some classes, attending some talks or spending a few days to visit some Mainland cities in a hurried manner. The period for attachment training is not necessary to be long, and can be three months or even one or two months. I really hope that the Government can consider this aspect in greater depth.

With these remarks, I implore Members to support my amendment.

MR YIU SI-WING (in Cantonese): President, the Central Government announced the Outline Development Plan for the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area ("the Plan") in February this year. A section in Chapter eight is given the specific heading "Building a Bay Area for Leisure", and it discusses the planning for tourism development. Speaking of the positioning of Hong Kong's tourism industry, the plan is to "leverage the characteristic advantages of the Greater Bay Area and Hong Kong's status as an international transportation centre … [t]o support Hong Kong in developing into an international tourism hub and a core demonstration zone for multi-destination tourism".

The Central Authorities support Hong Kong's development into an international tourism hub because the sea, land and air transport networks in Hong Kong are the most comprehensive among the 11 cities. The Hong Kong International Airport handled over 70 million passenger trips last year. Due to extensive flight routes and reasonable airfares, Hong Kong is not only a travel destination among overseas visitors but also the preferred transit point for tourists travelling between various places and the Mainland. With the successive completion and commissioning of various cross-boundary infrastructure facilities, Hong Kong's edge in providing transport connection with the Mainland (especially the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area ("the Greater Bay Area")) has become more obvious compared to various cities. We have the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge and the Liantang/Heung Yuen Wai Boundary 7622 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

Control Point in the west and east of the city respectively. After the commissioning of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link, a five-hour journey can already cover various provinces and cities with over 300 million people. Speaking of sea transport, we have a world-class cruise terminal, along with various sea routes bound for the Greater Bay Area cities. As the public transport network of Hong Kong is comprehensive, and a one-hour journey can already cover most regions, it is regarded by visitors as a city with the most convenient transport network.

At the same time, the Central Authorities' positioning of Hong Kong as a core demonstration zone for multi-destination tourism in the tourism planning for the Greater Bay Area is also quite reasonable. Hong Kong is a world-renowned travel city, and it is also the city that has received the greatest number of visitors. Last year, Hong Kong recorded as much as 65 million visitor arrivals, 29 million of which were constituted by overnight visitors. According to a survey conducted by a global market research company called Euromonitor International in 2018, Hong Kong remained in the top position for eight consecutive years in the ranking of the most popular cities worldwide among tourists. This shows that Hong Kong's tourism industry has won global acclaim.

Actually, the development of multi-destination tourism is favourable to visitors and the three places of Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macao because multi-destination tourism can enable tourists to visit various cities during a single journey and in turn enrich their travel experience. And certainly, this is also beneficial to the economic development of Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macao. Tourism industry is an important pillar industry in the Greater Bay Area. According to the statistics of the World Tourism Organization, the indirect contribution of the tourism industry to Hong Kong's Gross Domestic Product ("GDP") accounted for as much as 21.8% of the total in 2017. The industry facilitated the employment of 760 000 people, and this figure represented 19.1% of our total employment population. In the case of Macao, the rate of GDP contribution of its tourism industry (including the gaming industry) was 43.1%. And, according to the statistics of tourism departments in the Guangdong Province for the same year, the tourism revenue of the whole province amounted to as much as RMB1,200 billion and ranked first in the country. Its total GDP contribution amounted to 15.1% of the total, and its employment contribution rate was 19.5%. The development of the tourism industry as a key industry in the Greater Bay Area can directly help to drive its economic development and facilitate employment. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7623

The tourism industry is one with competitive edge in the Greater Bay Area. But the growth of overseas visitors to the region was just so-so over the past five years, without any big surprise. The average annual growth rate of foreign overnight visitors to the Guangdong Province was only 3%, whereas the rate of Hong Kong merely stood at 1.8%. Only Macao registered a more satisfactory growth, and it recorded a growth rate of 6.7% last year. At present, Hong Kong and Macao rely on the Mainland market as the major visitor source. In the case of the Guangdong Province, it depends on Hong Kong and Macao as the major visitor source. When it comes to overseas visitors, there remains much room for improvement. In recent years, the Governments of the three places have tried to open up overseas markets through the development of multi-destination tourism. But the result has just been so-so. The main reasons are as follows.

First, the respective promotion and publicity focuses of the three places are self-oriented, and they vary in the resource allocation strategy and also the degree of importance for developing multi-destination tourism. Even with cooperation, they are still unable to achieve full synergy.

Second, the 144-hour visa policy on tour groups introduced by the Mainland has failed to attain the desired effects. At present, overseas visitors entering the Guangdong Province in tour groups can enjoy visa exemption for 144 hours. But the policy is lacking in stability, in the sense that it may be suspended from time to time without any explanation on the reason. As a result, when promoting multi-destination tourism products, overseas and local travel agencies may be worried and concerned that visitors in such tour groups may file complaints or claims. This has greatly dampened the enthusiasm of travel agencies in developing and promoting multi-destination tourism products.

Third, the absence of priority clearance arrangements at various boundary control points has come to adversely affect visitors' experience. Like other visitors, overseas tour groups with multi-destination itineraries must queue up at boundary control points of the three places for clearance. During peak periods of entry and exit movements, they may have to wait for prolonged periods. Sometimes, they may even have to wait for one or two hours. This is an extremely bad experience for overseas visitors and may affect their comments.

President, with substantial tourism resources, Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macao can achieve mutual complementarity and have all the necessary conditions for attracting more overseas visitors. For instance, Hong Kong is a renowned 7624 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

"shoppers' paradise" featuring the Western and Chinese cultures and a metropolitan cityscape, along with two theme parks called the Disneyland and Ocean Park. In the case of Macao, it is characterized by its gaming industry and distinctive Portuguese-style architecture. And, the nine cities in the Guangdong Province are marked by their unique Lingnan culture, cuisine and also massive natural and man-made scenic spots.

Focusing on the existing tourism resources in the Greater Bay Area and also the previous problems with the promotion of multi-destination tourism, I wish to put forth several recommendations as follows.

My first recommendation is to include the promotion of tourism development in the Greater Bay Area as a regular task in the portfolio of the Steering Committee for the Development of the Greater Bay Area due to be set up, join hands with Macao and the Guangdong Province to comprehensively collate tourism resources in the Greater Bay Area and associated problems, clearly define the positioning of the tourism industry in the Greater Bay Area based on the Plan, and set a target for increasing the number of overseas visitors and an implementation timetable, so that the relevant tasks can be taken forward step by step through due planning.

My second recommendation is to improve the 144-hour visa arrangement in the Guangdong Province and set up priority clearance channels. As the notification mechanism for the 144-hour visa exemption is not standardized at present, the Governments of the three places should jointly raise improvement proposals with the relevant departments on institutionalizing the notification mechanism. Most desirably, various boundary control points should be equipped with priority clearance channels specifically for overseas visitors in tour groups, so as to enhance their travel experience.

Third, Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macao may cooperate with one another in setting up a dedicated fund for conducting joint promotion in various overseas markets; jointly set up a tourism promotion platform while also conducting market analysis and sales promotion; jointly formulate policies to support the tourism industry in the Greater Bay Area in developing products and conducting overseas promotion and publicity; offer subsidies to travel agencies in the Greater Bay Area for participating in overseas promotion and site visits, and provide more incentives for travel agencies embarking on the development of new products for multi-destination tourism.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7625

My fourth recommendation concerns the effective use of technology for promoting smart tourism, including the collection and analysis of big data for understanding the travel preferences and consumption habits of overseas and Mainland visitors and in turn providing data support for tourism planning and market promotion, and also expanding the application of electronic payment systems to encourage shops to accept popular electronic payment tools, so as to facilitate visitors' spending in Hong Kong.

President, as long as we can properly take forward the development planning for the Greater Bay Area, we will have unlimited opportunities. If the three places can achieve mutual complementarity through the coordination of resource deployment, they can certainly increase their tourism appeal and encourage more tourism practitioners to promote multi-destination tourism products. I hope the governments of the three places can examine all this in great detail. With its substantial experience in tourism promotion, Hong Kong can actually play a greater part.

President, I so submit.

MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): President, people watching television broadcast now may wonder why we are debating again the motion on "Proactively expanding development opportunities in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area" today, because Mr Jeffrey LAM has moved a motion on "Strengthening regional collaboration and jointly building the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Bay Area" at the Legislative Council sitting held on 30 May last year. If we make a comparison of the motion moved today with the one discussed back then, we will discover that amendments with similar contents have been moved respectively by the same group of Members to both motions. For example, both motions have urged for promotion of mutual recognition of professional qualifications, and implementation of tax concession measures for people working in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area ("the Greater Bay Area"). Amendments adopting very similar wordings have also been proposed by Mr Christopher CHEUNG and Mr YIU Si-wing on both occasions to voice out the aspirations of the sectors they represent.

However, no matter how superficially similar these motions and amendments are, a closer look will reveal that there is in fact a great change in the wordings used. For example, in his amendment moved last year, Ir Dr LO 7626 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

Wai-kwok only urged for enhancement of Hong Kong's competitiveness, promotion of sustainable development and grasping of the development opportunities, but he has highlighted in his amendment moved this time the need to consolidate and upgrade Hong Kong's status as an international financial and trade centre and an international maritime and aviation hub. As for the original motion moved by Mr WONG Ting-kwong, it is suggested that something should be done to "enable Hong Kong to properly perform the role of a core engine for regional development". If we look back at the motion moved last year, Mr Christopher CHEUNG was the only Member who specifically pointed out that the HKSAR Government should capitalize on the leading position of Hong Kong's financial industry, while most Members of the pro-establishment camp only mentioned that Hong Kong should grasp the opportunities and seek for the introduction of more favourable policies, without putting forward any concrete proposal on how Hong Kong should give full play to its unique advantages to maintain its international status.

Given such changes in the wordings used in amendments proposed to the motion moved this time, I have specifically examined the reasons thereof and found that the term "core engine" was the exact wording used in the Outline Development Plan for the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area ("the Plan") promulgated on 18 February. This has reflected a very important problem which I have frequently criticized, that is, the Government and fellow colleagues of the pro-establishment camp have all along been responding to the development planning of the Greater Bay Area with the mentality of "being planned".

Before promulgation of the Plan, no one knew what role the Central Authorities wished Hong Kong to perform, and the Government as well as the pro-establishment camp thus proposed that Hong Kong should seek development opportunities, tie in with the development of the Mainland and rely on favours from other Mainland cities. However, after the Central Authorities have decided that Hong Kong, Macao, Guangzhou and Shenzhen should serve as the four major "core engines" in the development of the Greater Bay Area, they cannot wait but come forward to advocate that Hong Kong should perform along the role of a "core engine". No matter how hard the Chief Executive has tried to deny that Hong Kong's position is in fact "being planned", is it not very clear whether the Government and the pro-establishment camp have all along adopted a mindset that awaits the Central Authorities to determine the role to be played by Hong Kong.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7627

Hence, no matter what the Government has said or how it is presented in the original motion to suggest that the contents of the Plan have already taken on board the views of Hong Kong, all these assertions are just illusions to me. Although the Government claimed that many consultative meetings were held and many proposals were put forward by the pro-establishment camp, with such a mentality of "being planned", how hard has the SAR Government tried to set the best positioning for Hong Kong, and how determined it has been in doing so? Moreover, with regard to the best positioning to be set, would it be the best choice for certain people of Hong Kong, or the best decision for Hong Kong as a city in the long run? Are there any contradictions and conflicts between the two? Can the matter be perceived from a different perspective? These are questions to which I can give no answer.

As a matter of fact, I have emphasized many times that different cities are competing for talents for their own benefits. Therefore, the SAR Government should focus its efforts not on striving for concessions from our neighbouring cities. When they want to tap Hong Kong talents for their own purposes, they will offer concessionary terms to lure talents and battle with us for capital and all sorts of advantages. As such, we should endeavour to retain talents instead, and employ this measure as a strategy to enhance our competitiveness.

As all of us may be aware, the Ministry of Finance and the State Administration of Taxation announced a few days ago the implementation of a scheme to provide tax relief to non-Mainland talents in the Greater Bay Area. Under the scheme, tax relief will be provided to non-Mainland (including Hong Kong) high-end talents and talents in short supply by offsetting the tax differential between the two places. This can most obviously reveal to us that the battlefield for talent competition is in fact not confined to the municipalities in the region, and the Central Government also knows very well that for the sake of the successful development of the Greater Bay Area, it should not hesitate to draw up a tax concession policy in this respect, so that the Greater Bay Area will be in a better position to compete for high-end talents and talents in short supply.

The Government and many fellow colleagues of the pro-establishment camp have expressed great support for this concession scheme, and similar proposals have thus been put forward by some Members in their amendments proposed today. Nevertheless, after the announcement of the proposed scheme, many people from different sectors have immediately expressed concerns, worrying that this will aggravate the problem of brain drain in Hong Kong. It will only become even more difficult for Hong Kong to retain scientific research 7628 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 talents and talents in re-industrialization. What strategy we should employ to respond to the tax concession scheme announced? Shall we adopt the approach suggested by fellow colleagues of the pro-establishment camp or the Government, and continue to encourage Hong Kong talents to grasp development opportunities in the Greater Bay Area and look for brighter development prospect on the Mainland? Or shall we offer suggestions and recommendations for the future of Hong Kong, and examine how Hong Kong can establish its unique role and position in this long process of competition?

Let me take this opportunity to illustrate my point with a simple example. As I recall, the SAR Government has often emphasized that Da-Jiang Innovations, a local company engaging in the development of unmanned aircraft systems, has taken up 80% of the world market. We are all very proud of the fact that the company started off with the research findings of a student in The Hong Kong Polytechnic University and has on that basis developed into a large-scale enterprise generating huge economic benefits. However, the entire industry chain and the industrial value of the enterprise have ultimately chosen to stay in the Greater Bay Area. Against this background, when talents nurtured locally are tapped to meet the needs of the Greater Bay Area, how great will this impact upon the market shares taken up by Hong Kong in the entire industry, and how well this can assist in promoting Hong Kong's development? Can this example serve as a footnote, as well as a factor for serious consideration by all fellow colleagues when they advocate that we should seek for development opportunities on the Mainland?

Hence, if priority is really accorded to the long term benefits of Hong Kong, the first thing we should do is to adjust our mentality, and let everyone understand clearly that Hong Kong should of course deal with the tasks assigned by the Central Government under the Plan, but it is more important to note that the competition actually lies in the comparative edges enjoyed by various parties. We are then left to decide how we should demonstrate our unique ability under our comparative edge.

Generally speaking, under the concept of comparative edge, the party which is less competitive will provide policy concessions as supplement to enhance its comparative edge, thereby addressing its inadequacies in this respect. Has the SAR Government developed such dynamic thinking? Does it have the intention to ensure that we will keep enjoying a leading and distinct competitive edge in the long run through this process of competition? If not, our long-term benefits will undoubtedly be affected. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7629

Therefore, if we advocate "complementary development and win-win collaboration", I think other municipalities in the region will be the parties to win. Thus, apart from adjusting our mentality, the second thing that the SAR Government should do is to concretely upgrade Hong Kong's competitive edges. We should bear in mind that other Mainland cities are very aggressive in competing for talents. In certain municipalities, a subsidy of several million yuan of research fund can easily be granted to qualified experts, while talents stationed in science parks will be provided with living and housing subsidies, and even one-stop services to address the education needs of their children.

If the Innovation and Technology Bureau plans to adopt such an approach to attract talents, I have to say that we can in no way compete with other Mainland cities in terms of the scale or the amounts of subsidies to be granted. However, talents in innovation and technology also attach great importance to freedom of speech, freedom of information and sound protection of intellectual property rights. How should we make efforts in such aspects so that innovation and technological institutions will establish a foothold in Hong Kong, and how will Hong Kong be able to attract world-renowned education institutions and research centres to set up their headquarters here?

Only by doing so can we possibly become the Silicon Valley of the Greater Bay Area. The Silicon Valley is also a base for talents in neighbouring areas to secure a foothold, although there is virtually no industry in the region. Can Hong Kong become another Silicon Valley, and how can we do so?

More importantly, the Central Government has repeatedly emphasized in the Plan that the implementation of "one country, two systems" is the most prominent feature of Hong Kong. However, we must not deceive ourselves and have to face squarely the fact that there is indeed a need for us to show not only to the Central Government but also to the entire international community that the implementation of "one country, two systems" here in Hong Kong has not been distorted or deformed.

In this connection, the Government has recently proposed to introduce legislative amendments to the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance, and this is a very good example to illustrate how important it is to implement "one country, two systems" and have an independent judicial system in Hong Kong. When the bottom line of the rule of law is blurred and made increasingly unclear, and investors are increasingly unsure of what protection will be afforded to them in Hong Kong, not only will the freedom enjoyed by Hong Kong people but also 7630 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

Hong Kong's long term economic development as well as its role in the Greater Bay Area be affected.

I would like to reiterate that if the SAR Government still clings to its mentality of doing its best to tie in with the development of the Mainland, Hong Kong will only end up falling between two stools. On the one hand, there will be a drain of local talents when they are lured to develop their career on the Mainland, and Hong Kong will hence be overtaken by other cities. On the other hand, over-reliance on the development of the Mainland will only trigger concerns in the international community about the implementation of "one country, two systems", thus eroding the core value of Hong Kong. (The buzzer sounded)

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

MR MARTIN LIAO (in Cantonese): President, this debate is timely because the Outline Development Plan for the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area ("the Plan") promulgated last month lays down a new milestone in the development of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area ("the Greater Bay Area"); and it also marks the debut of the critical stage of rapid development.

The Plan is an important document jointly formulated by the Hong Kong SAR Government and the Central Government, as well as the Guangdong Provincial Government and the Macao SAR Government. It outlines a majestic development blueprint for the region and comprehensively sets out the strategic positioning, development objectives and spatial layout. It targets at fundamentally creating an international first-class bay area and a world-class city cluster within four years. Another striking point is that, in order to overcome the restraints posed by "one country, two systems" and the separate customs territories and legal systems of the three places, the Plan puts forth many innovative institutions and mechanisms to enhance the flow of people, goods, capital and information in the region. Some of these institutions and mechanisms are being created or enhanced, and some are still at the research and exploration stage. The recent series of facilitation measures on taxation systems and residency are the results of systemic reforms to facilitate Hong Kong people to develop in the Greater Bay Area cities.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7631

President, in the development of the Greater Bay Area today, every second counts. But what worries us is that Hong Kong people, who are eager to explore the Greater Bay Area, and Hong Kong, which is assigned the important role as a core engine for regional development, are both not sufficiently prepared. The public still have a poor knowledge of the Greater Bay Area. They desperately need to grasp the full picture. The Hong Kong SAR Government should have a comprehensive strategy to lead Hong Kong in matching up with the whole development; it should also set up a mechanism to closely interact with different sectors of society, especially young people, and listen to their aspirations and views for further enhancement. These two aspects are what I wish to emphasize in my amendment, and they are also my earnest aspirations of the Steering Committee for the Development of the Greater Bay Area and the Greater Bay Area Development Office of the Hong Kong SAR Government.

President, after the promulgation of the Plan, the authorities have listed by policy portfolios the parts directly related to Hong Kong in the Greater Bay Area website. But the Greater Bay Area is one whole organic entity. The measures and developments in other cities will also interact with and affect Hong Kong. Although our government website already provides the links to the related documents of the Mainland Government, members of the public need far more than these summaries which can easily be made by computer programmes or information that can be searched on the Internet.

Hence, I propose in my amendment that the Government should categorize the organized information on the latest development opportunities in the Greater Bay Area from the perspective of Hong Kong, putting especial emphasis on explaining and publicizing the new thinking, new institutions and new concepts therein, and disseminate the information in a one-stop manner for easy understanding by Hong Kong people and Hong Kong enterprises. The Hong Kong perspective here does not only mean the parts that are directly related to Hong Kong; it means to comprehensively explain the impacts and meaning of these new developments to Hong Kong, so as to enable Hong Kong people to see the whole picture.

If Hong Kong people are unaware of the close relationship between the Greater Bay Area and their personal development prospects, they may be reluctant to know more about the development of the Greater Bay Area. For example, people know that Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macao are jointly developing innovation and technology ("I&T") as a core element of the Greater Bay Area. But how many people know the new pillar industries of the Greater 7632 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

Bay Area? According to the Plan, these are new-generation information technology, biotechnology, high-end equipment manufacturing and new materials, etc. The Greater Bay Area will also centre on key areas such as information consumption, new health care technologies, marine engineering equipment, hi-tech service industry, in order to launch major projects involving strategic emerging industries and to progressively develop "enclave economies". However, these new development and new concepts which concern the entire area are not elaborated or explained by the Government.

Moreover, according to the Plan, young people in Hong Kong and Macao and micro, small and medium enterprises are encouraged to develop in the Mainland. The Plan puts forth a number of cooperation platforms and schemes involving Qianhai, Nansha, Zhongshan, Jiangmen, Huizhou and Dongguan for young people to pursue innovation and entrepreneurship. However, there are many details. Can there be a comprehensive platform detailing the characteristics and development of these platforms and schemes, so that Hong Kong young people will know how to choose between them? Regarding pursuing business development and entrepreneurship, apart from focusing on I&T and finance, numerous opportunities can be found in the cultural and creative industry, tourism, catering, health care, elderly care, social services, etc. The Plan also mentions that consideration will be given to allowing Hong Kong people to teach in Guangdong, take up positions at state enterprises and apply for public service positions. All these details are pending follow-up and guidance by Hong Kong SAR Government for Hong Kong people.

In fact, promotional efforts by various parties have already helped Hong Kong people to know more about the Greater Bay Area. A survey last year finds that 55% of the young people interviewed have heard about the Greater Bay Area, showing roughly a 10% increase than the previous year. The survey also finds that more young people are considering choosing the Greater Bay Area as their future platform to pursue their dream, but they are concerned about the unfamiliar Mainland business environment and legal system and the lack of family support. The Government should more actively listen to the aspirations of young people and appropriately remove the obstacles for them to develop in the Mainland.

On the part of the Government, Hong Kong needs to tie in with the overall planning of the Greater Bay Area and the development of other cities. The policy portfolios involved cover industries, infrastructures, the judicial system LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7633 and the law, security, manpower, education, social welfare, urban management, environmental protection, etc. All these portfolios are inter-related. Regarding I&T, for instance, Hong Kong will need to participate in different cooperation zones and collaboration programmes in I&T, a joint technology cooperation funding scheme and the development of a big data centre; it also needs to participate in expediting the development of a Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao demonstration zone for cooperation in talents; and on financing, to develop Hong Kong into a financing centre for high-tech industries in the Greater Bay Area.

The corresponding strategies of the Hong Kong SAR Government will interact with the entire Greater Bay Area. These strategies are instrumental to the upgrading and transformation of Hong Kong as well. For instance, when the Guangzhou's and Shenzhen's airports are expanded and proceed to explore the development of branch line airports and general airports, how will Hong Kong pursue coordinated development and positive interaction with the airports in the region, so as to consolidate and enhance the status of Hong Kong as an international aviation hub? When the system for identifying talents in short supply in the Greater Bay Area is established, and when the channels of international talent recruitment are broadened with information regularly promulgated, will Hong Kong be able to comprehensively review and adequately absorb these much-wanted I&T and health care talents?

All in all, Hong Kong urgently needs to have a comprehensive plan and strategy to correspond to the situation, and be proactive in formulating timely and suitable policy measures for society to follow.

President, today, a number of amendments have put forth many constructive proposals for the development of the Greater Bay Area. They are worth our support. However, Mr WU Chi-wai's amendment shows a narrow-minded defensive attitude that "Hong Kong is the biggest". It specifically emphasizes turning Hong Kong "into a talent pool in the Greater Bay Area", and creating development and employment opportunities "in Hong Kong" for young people. It does not mention any cooperation with other member places in the Greater Bay Area. The amendment appears to be defending the interests of Hong Kong, but it will actually produce the opposite of the desired result. One should know that this is the last chance for Hong Kong to further develop before it is marginalized. The Greater Bay Area counts on the in-depth cooperation of various places in the area to overcome their individual 7634 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 development bottlenecks. And breakthroughs in scientific researches count on the cooperation of top-notch talents in these places. If we disregard cooperation and insist on keeping the talents to ourselves, and only focus on "utilizing" the Greater Bay Area to expedite the upgrading and transformation of Hong Kong, we are trying to climb a tree to catch fish. This will only prevent the Greater Bay Area from progressing forward. And Dr KWOK Ka-ki's amendment contains many untrue accusations that I cannot concur.

President, I so submit.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): President, no discussion about the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area ("the Greater Bay Area") can go without mentioning its past and present. The name "Greater Bay Area" was proposed in the Belt and Road Initiative document of the State in 2015, and included in the Government Work Report by Premier LI Keqiang in 2017. What matters most in such political jargon of the Mainland is the utmost exaggeration. These documents, which we describe as a collection of lies, exaggerations and empty words, would definitely be mentioned whenever the State had a new Five-Year Plan or a new leader. However, the subsequent development is not without a hitch. The Belt and Road Initiative has already been seen by many countries as an instrument with which China manipulates other countries through external debts. I do not agree with this view, but Western societies and even many Southeast Asian countries do see the motives behind it. So, what is the consequence? Many countries originally specified as participants in the Belt and Road Initiative document, including Pakistan, Nepal, Indonesia and Malaysia, have backed out one after another. Now that the Belt and Road Initiative does not work out, what should the new government do? I am referring to the Mainland Government. With no solution in sight, it has to find an alternative way out. This is how the Greater Bay Area has come into being.

Let us see in what ways the Greater Bay Area is attractive to Hong Kong. The Census and Statistics Department has published the "Gross domestic product per capita of the cities in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area in 2016". Macao tops the chart with US$70,160. While having a small population, it sees a huge inflow of money thanks to casino business. Hong Kong comes next with US$43,743, about six folds that of Zhaoqing, which has the lowest figure of US$7,708 in the Greater Bay Area.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7635

Hong Kong is a small economy. Over the past years, Hong Kong has had a clear goal. Small economies usually learn from the bright ones. Particularly, I recall the former Chief Executives saying that Hong Kong needs to become part of "Nylonkong"―New York, London and Hong Kong. "Old TUNG" and "Greedy TSANG" said that Hong Kong needs to be the best of Asia's world cities, which still makes some sense. The current development of the Greater Bay Area gives a feeling as if it is preferable for us to pursue development in a kindergarten after leaving secondary school in Hong Kong, because we would fare better this way.

I wish to challenge some towering Secretaries and the Chief Executive. I have a memory blank as to which official's children are studying in the Greater Bay Area, or even studying in the Mainland. The body tells no lies. Officials will certainly let their children study at the international schools in Hong Kong, and send them abroad for further studies when they have grown up, as in the case of the Secretary for Education's two children, while even advising others to continue their studies in the Greater Bay Area. I have not asked Secretary NIP or anyone else, but I will not do so, because everyone has a good idea of what the answer might be. To say the least, Carrie LAM is a case in point. Both of her sons studied at the best universities in the United Kingdom, i.e. Oxford University and Cambridge University. The same is true of "689", whose children also studied in the United Kingdom. Likewise, XI Jinping's daughter studied in the United States. Therefore, it is very obvious that, on the one hand, their children studied in the United Kingdom, the United States, Australia and Canada―this is not unique to them, as the children of state leaders have all been sent abroad―and, on the other hand, they advise the young people of Hong Kong to pursue development in the Greater Bay Area, as suggested by Mr WONG Ting-kwong. Are they taking young people as fools? They have sent their children abroad and then advised young people to go to the Greater Bay Area. The young people of Hong Kong are not stupid. That is why even the Hong Kong Guangdong Youth Association, which is probably an organization of the pro-establishment camp, said that 40% of the young people are reluctant to work and live in the Greater Bay Area, and a talent website even pointed out that 50% of the wage earners do not want to work in the Mainland. Obviously, the situation in Mainland China today can hardly convince the younger generation to go there. There is no freedom of speech and no foreseeable future. Moreover, even though we all know that the situation in Hong Kong is going from bad to worse, with constant deterioration in "one country, two systems", "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" and "a high degree of autonomy", there is at least something to be said for the last dwindling bit of freedom of press and speech in 7636 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

Hong Kong, in contrast to the arbitrary arrest and imprisonment in the Mainland. Of course, currently there are established ordinances for extradition of fugitives. I do not know whether extradition from Hong Kong for imprisonment in the Mainland will take place in the future, but at least that is not the case at the present moment. Under such circumstances, it is utter nonsense to suggest that the younger generation should go to the Greater Bay Area.

On the subject of how the development of the Greater Bay Area will make Hong Kong fare better, actually the Greater Bay Area is not a new concept and, as we all know, it was mentioned in the early 1990s by WOO Chia-wei, former President of The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology. However, times were different back then, when Hong Kong was the leading city among even those currently included in the Greater Bay Area, and China had not yet developed technology, that is, Shenzhen had not been positioned as a technology hub. Maybe at that time it was still possible to consider implementing the concept of the "Greater Bay Area of San Francisco" under the impression that Hong Kong could be a leading city to drive technological advancement, but now it certainly cannot work out. How would it? At present, we still come up short in terms of both capacity and capability.

However, we must firmly safeguard the conditions that we most deserve. Why are so many Mainlanders also Hongkongers? They include children of high officials and even "Princess Huawei". As we all understand, it is because Hong Kong still has the rule of law, diminished democracy, freedom and access to other places, which are not available in the Mainland. If we do not preserve our advantages, but talk about the Greater Bay Area every day instead, we are taking backward steps and putting ourselves in harm's way. That is why when we heard that the Chief Executive had degenerated into … there was a title for her, which turned out to be the "sales representative of the Greater Bay Area". This is indeed quite similar to The Emperor's New Clothes in the sense that despite knowing it is unfeasible, all the cheerleaders come out to overpraise the Greater Bay Area. I will not feel sorry for her, because she has to take the rough with the smooth. Being a sales representative is a choice made by "Carrie LAM 777", but please do not force Hong Kong people to do the same, because going farther and deeper will put us in misery. Now it is not just a matter of economy, but rather Hong Kong's loss of its own position in the future. Hong Kong people will no longer be Hong Kong people, but the people of the Greater Bay Area, as described in the meaningless drivel of a member of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7637

In addition, while talking about sharing Hong Kong's health care services with the Greater Bay Area as well, some political entities have proposed to set up a "Greater Bay Area Fund" for investment of Hong Kong capital in Guangdong; to allow high-level Central Government officials to intervene directly in Hong Kong's planning; to build public housing in Zhuhai so that the "low-end population" can be expelled to the Mainland; to move Hong Kong's container terminals to Zhuhai; to grant free access to Hong Kong for the yachts of wealthy Mainland families; to develop enclave economies, and so on. These ideas are not really helping Hong Kong, because getting them done amid shrinking and diminishing economic opportunities will only lead to further marginalization of Hong Kong.

In fact, things have already come to a head now. We all know that one of the major conditions Hong Kong relies on for survival is the status as a separate customs territory, and it is also because of the recognition by foreign countries of the slight difference between Hong Kong and the Mainland that continuous protection of Hong Kong's unique status is possible. Nevertheless, we have also seen that many regions having trade relations with Hong Kong also consider the situation in Hong Kong deteriorating, as evident from the legislation for extradition of fugitives, the "disqualification incident" under discussion, the "Victor MALLET incident" and so on. In the end, when Hong Kong is deprived of the status as a separate customs territory, we will be doomed. When the time comes, we will have no alternative but to stay in the Greater Bay Area together and thus be part of it, putting paid to any hope of taking a single step outside the Greater Bay Area. Not on any account should we do so, because this will only lead generations after generations―not just the present generation―of young people to a dead end. The body tells no lies. It is a downright despicable act for the powerful and privileged among us to call on young people to go to the Greater Bay Area while they send their children to the United Kingdom for further studies. I so submit.

MR HO KAI-MING (in Cantonese): President, I have just heard Members speak like a bitter woman or a whiner who constantly holds grudges against everything. This will do no good to Hong Kong as far as policy formulation is concerned. Whining all day long and seeing only the negative side of everything will only make one a narrow-minded person who turns out to be overly conceited. This kind of mentality is indeed objectionable. Yet, it is true that our original intents will gradually wear away because of certain trifles.

7638 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

It has been 20 years since Hong Kong reunited with its Motherland. Such reunion should not be confined to the regime; more importantly, the local people should give their hearty support to the State. However, the present situation regarding the relation between Hong Kong and Mainland China is similar to that of a pair of lovers who originally fell in love with each other. It was only after they got married officially that their relationship turned sour day by day as a result of the emergence of more and more disputes over everyday life trivia. Obviously, both the Hong Kong Government and the Mainland Government have to face a lot of trifles haunting the people of the two places right now. These trifles have made it impossible for people of the two places to live happily in the same bay area as expected. This is an issue that the policy-makers must tackle. After all, to minimize conflicts caused by such trifles is the only way that helps restore our original intent.

The Outline Development Plan for the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area ("the Plan") aims precisely to deal with this issue, where the entire plan is relevant to Hong Kong's development prospects. In fact, some promotion campaigns are already under way. They include the TV programmes of Maria Cordero, an artist/entertainer, who repeatedly called upon us to buy homes or dine and drink in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area ("the Greater Bay Area") in a bid to promote the benefits of living there. Such campaigns allow Hong Kong people to become aware of the more comfortable life one can enjoy in the Great Bay Area as well as on the Mainland, and so they need not be confined in nowhere else except Hong Kong. Nevertheless, many Hong Kong people still opine that Guangzhou is Guangzhou, Shenzhen is Shenzhen, and it is necessary to travel by sea at first and then by land if one wants to go to Zhongshan, as if one were taking a trip to a backward village in the countryside of the Mainland. In the end, however, it is a must that the "nine plus two" project makes us feel like home in order to achieve integration of Hong Kong with the Great Bay Area as laid out in the entire Plan, where Hone Kong eventually becomes genuinely integrated into the Greater Bay Area.

President, we do hope that the Mainland authorities will streamline the cumbersome immigration procedures. We expect that life will basically remain the same without drastic changes if we move to live in the Greater Bay Area, where we live our everyday life as if we were in Hong Kong while we are living on the Mainland. Actually, there exist certain boundaries and barriers between China and Hong Kong. Hence, I put forth in my amendment many practical LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7639 recommendations that reflect public opinion because it is a must that efforts be made to facilitate the general public before we can proceed to grasp the opportunities available for the development of various industries.

President, my amendment reflects also the views of The Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions on the planning for the Greater Bay Area, to which I hope the Government will give some thought. In particular, President, I wish to make a few additional points in respect of my amendment. First of all, it is about mutual recognition of occupational qualifications. In fact, trade unions of different trades have sought from me an understanding of the entire operational procedures of mutual recognition of qualifications. Some staff of our Mainland consultation centres have gone through similar procedures and the relevant information has been communicated among relevant stakeholders. Mutual recognition of qualifications mostly involves practitioners with professional talents, but the professional qualifications of quite a large number of trained workers with specialized skills are not yet recognized on the Mainland although they are already experts in their respective fields. Therefore, these people are in need of professional certification by the State, and matters in this regard will be discussed in greater detail later by other Members.

Another point which I really want to bring up is the relaxation of immigration arrangements, such as incorporating the Home Visit Permits of Hong Kong people into the Mainland's digital certification system and allowing Hong Kong people to renew or replace their Home Visit Permits directly on the Mainland. As I had mentioned previously during the debate on the motion moved by Mr Jeffrey LAM, one has to undergo the process of online balloting before one can actually buy tickets to enjoy shows to be staged on the Mainland. The show performances of Gloria TANG (G.E.M.) on the Mainland are such an example. However, all Hong Kong people will be shut out if registration with Mainland identity card is required for online ticket purchase. How can this barrier be broken so that we can travel freely to and from Guangzhou or the "nine plus two" cities to enjoy different cultural events? So far, no solution has come up yet.

Next, it comes to the limits on the permitted amount of cash carried across the border and the permitted amount of remittance to the Mainland. At present, each Hong Kong citizen can only carry RMB20,000 across the border every day. We find the amount too small and thus propose that the limit be relaxed to allow a daily cap of $50,000 to facilitate the conduct of transactions. Under the existing 7640 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 legislation, the maximum permitted amount of cross-border remittance is set at US$50,000 per year for the Greater Bay Area and other Mainland cities. Such a requirement is actually unconducive to the economic development of the Greater Bay Area. It is because people may need to remit large sums of money into the Mainland under numerous circumstances, but such a requirement has prompted a lot of unscrupulous merchants and money exchange stores operated by dishonest traders to set up traps to deceive people for money. Even today, I have to deal with a case involving unscrupulous shops. During this morning's Chief Executive's Question and Answer Session, I went over to help a member of the public make a report to the Hong Kong Customs and Excise Department. He approached a foreign currency exchange store for cross-border remittance service as he really needed to remit a certain sum to the Mainland. However, the sum was consequently misappropriated by the money exchange store and it is impossible to track the whereabouts of the money in question. Given the actual needs of the public, how should the authorities plug the loophole so as to better safeguard the public's interest? I believe the Government should keep communicating with the Mainland and fight for the relaxation of the relevant limits to cater for people's actual needs.

Furthermore, under the customs duties requirement that came into force in the 1990s, import tariffs must be collected for certain household electrical appliances such as television sets, air-conditioners and refrigerators. In our opinion, it is imperative that this requirement be reviewed, particularly with regard to the fact that Hong Kong people may buy their homes on the Mainland and bring some household electrical appliances there. The collection of import tariffs will unduly cause inconveniences to these people. Thus, I hope the Government will review the requirement of collecting customs duties, import tax and consumption tax, and value-added tax levied on different commodities to facilitate Hong Kong people going back to the Mainland and settling there.

In fact, the "one-hour living circle" concerns not only the commute time. It involves whether one can integrate into the local daily life on the Mainland when they live there. Previously, I have been to the Mainland to look at the property there but I cannot afford to buy any. Actually, it only takes 15 minutes to travel from the Shenzhen North Station to the West Kowloon Station and only half an hour to the Legislative Council, which is possibly faster than travelling from Mong Kok to this Council. Even so, however, it will still be a problem if one cannot integrate into the daily life on the Mainland. And as incumbent Members of this Council, we are definitely subject to the annual absence limit, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7641 and this is also a problem. Given the above, is it really that easy for Hong Kong people to decide settling on the Mainland, in particular in places along the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link? I think there are still certain details to ponder before one can come up with a decision.

Lastly, I want to say something about electronic payment ("e-payment") and hope that the Government will speed up the implementation of corresponding measures to support the development of the local e-payment system. Not only do we expect the Mainland's e-payment system to enter the Hong Kong market so that we can use it, we also hope that Hong Kong's e-payment system will be extensively applied on the Mainland. At present, some payment systems of the Mainland can be connected to our Hong Kong dollar accounts and RMB accounts but this is limited to those large enterprises only. Currently, it is not viable to pay taxi fare by crediting the taxi-driver's account or to pay the vegetable vendor for the purchases at the market directly through e-payment system as the system does not accept payments made in Hong Kong currency. Given this fact, it is meaningless even if we hold such Mainland accounts or have installed e-payment function in our mobile phones. Well, what should we do then? Previously, during an oral question session, I enquired the Chief Executive on this issue and she replied that it would be followed up. If the Government really means to take corresponding action, I do expect it to do its utmost to facilitate our needs and work it out to facilitate online shopping on the Mainland.

As a matter of fact, it is not the case that many young people do not identify with the Greater Bay Area. They do use facilities of the Greater Bay Area, such as online shopping which, I believe, is also used by many colleagues in this Council. Since delivery of goods by couriers frequently takes place here, I am quite certain that some people must be using online shopping. However, I do not know whether the Secretary has noticed that in most cases, the charges for delivery of goods bought through online shopping within the Mainland section can be waived, but high courier charges will be imposed for the Hong Kong section. I have been buying English books for my son recently. Although the charges for the Mainland section are waived, I still need to pay a hundred dollars or so every time for the delivery of books from the Mainland to Hong Kong. This shows that there is actually a real difference between Hong Kong and the Mainland and invisible barriers do exist. How can we break the barriers so that our younger generations can genuinely experience what the integration of the "nine plus two" in the Greater Bay Area actually feels like? I hope that the Secretary can work it out to foster the flow of people, goods, capital and 7642 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 information between Hong Kong and other cities in the Greater Bay Area so that people's actual needs can really be catered for, thereby prompting society as a whole to recognize the development of the Greater Bay Area. It is the sense of gain and the sense of identity mentioned by President XI that the Hong Kong people expect to have and the development of the Greater Bay Area should aim to achieve. I hope the Government will respond to my speech.

I so submit, President.

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): President, first of all, I would like to thank Mr WONG Ting-kwong for moving today's motion which offers us the opportunity to discuss in this Chamber how to expand the development opportunities in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area ("the Greater Bay Area"). Meanwhile, eight members have proposed amendments to today's motion and this tells us that Members are very concerned about the development of the Greater Bay Area.

The development of the Greater Bay Area is a key development strategy under the State's "reform and opening up" policy to achieve the objectives of promoting coordinated economic development in the Greater Bay Area, leveraging the complementary advantages of the three places, and developing an international first-class bay area for living, working and travelling through further deepening cooperation amongst Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macao.

As Mr Martin LIAO has mentioned just now, the discussion on today's motion is timely because the Outline Development Plan for the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area ("the Plan") was just officially promulgated by the Central Government on 18 February 2019. The Plan is an important outline document which guides the development of the Greater Bay Area and sets out numerous policy directions. After the announcement of the Plan, it is necessary to take the next step of giving effect to its detailed implementation through mutually beneficial cooperation and policy innovation. I believe Members may have noticed that with the support of the Central Authorities, the governments of Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macao had actually introduced a number of measures over the past 20 months or so in various areas, including the development of innovative technologies and the facilitating of the enhancement of the convenient flow of people and goods within the Greater Bay Area. Among these are measures related to the taxation policy that Members LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7643 representing the business sector and other professional sectors are concerned about, proposed and have been seeking to implement for years, including the Residence Permit for Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan Residents ("the Residence Permit") introduced by the Central Authorities in September of last year to provide convenience to those having resided on the Mainland for over six months. They may apply for the Residence Permits in order to be entitled to relevant rights, convenience and public services on the Mainland. Mr HO Kai-ming has also mentioned just now about how the Home Visit Permit can be used in a more convenient manner. Actually, among the eight measures announced by the Chief Executive after the second plenary meeting of the Leading Group for the Development of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area ("the Leading Group") held on 1 March, one is exactly about facilitating the use of Home Visit Permit to make applications and use services on the Internet by individuals in a more convenient manner.

The SAR Government will actively act as a "facilitator" in a positive manner in hopes of facilitating the development of the Greater Bay Area through some established mechanisms, including the Leading Group as a top-tier body set up by the Central Government and led by Vice Premier HAN Zheng, with the participation of the Chief Executive as a member. In addition, the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau will set up a Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area Development Office ("the Development Office") and appoint a Commissioner for the Development of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area to enhance internal as well as external cooperation while fostering closer cooperation with Central Ministries, the Guangdong Provincial Government and the Macao SAR Government for implementing more specific measures. The proposal on the setting up of the Development Office was submitted to the Panel on Commerce and Industry of the Legislative Council ("the Panel") yesterday and we are very pleased indeed to have the support of the Panel.

We used to say that the Government has to promote policy innovation and break through the current policy barriers in taking forward the development of the Greater Bay Area, but relying solely on the Government's efforts is not enough. The participation by all sectors in our community and their interaction with the Government are also very important. Therefore, today's motion debate will offer a very good opportunity for Members to have an in-depth discussion on areas of their own concern.

7644 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

For today's motion debate, apart from the original motion moved by Mr WONG Ting-kwong, there are also the amendments proposed by a number of Members in which a lot of specific recommendations on the development of the Greater Bay Area are put forth. Yet, misunderstanding or misconception of the subject is also found in the amendments. I will listen carefully to Members' speeches and respond accordingly later.

Thank you, President.

MR CHAN CHUN-YING (in Cantonese): President, on 18 February 2019, the Outline Development Plan for the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area ("the Plan") was formally promulgated, setting out clearly the strategic positioning in a few aspects, namely a vibrant world-class city cluster, a globally influential international innovation and technology hub, an important support pillar for the Belt and Road Initiative, a showcase for in-depth cooperation between the Mainland and Hong Kong and Macao, and a quality living circle for living, working and travelling. In fact, in the development of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area ("the Greater Bay Area") and in our country's attempt to break new ground in pursuing opening up on all fronts, Hong Kong should be able to play an irreplaceable and proactive role. During the process, Hong Kong can also take this opportunity to identify new room for economic growth.

I thank Mr WONG Ting-kwong for moving this motion on "Proactively expanding development opportunities in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area" today so that Members of this Council can take this once-in-a-century opportunity to work together for the betterment of Hong Kong's future.

In the development of the Greater Bay Area, the edges of Hong Kong arising from "one country, two systems", and its economic system of being totally market-driven and in line with international standards are able to help the Greater Bay Area in better capitalizing on its comprehensive advantages in relation to the experience with the early and pilot implementation of the industry system during reform and opening-up of the Mainland, the experience with high concentration of key factors of innovation, and its relatively high degree of economic marketization and internationalization. Our edges can thus provide some new support to the national development of a modern and open economic system which dovetails with the international arena. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7645

The professional service industries of Hong Kong are highly mature. We enjoy the status as an international financial centre, maritime centre, trade centre and aviation hub, and our status as an international financial centre has demonstrated Hong Kong's core competitiveness in its development of service industries. I believe that the financial industry of Hong Kong should be able to play a leading role in promoting the coordinated development of the Greater Bay Area.

The Greater Bay Area has a very solid foundation in cross-boundary finance. At present, the banking sector in Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macao has an aggregate asset value of more than RMB42,700 billion with total bank deposits amounting to US$4,700 billion, and both levels are higher than those of New York Bay Area, San Francisco Bay Area and Tokyo Bay Area. Besides, 12 Hong Kong-funded banks have opened more than 180 branches in Guangdong, while Guangdong-funded banks have over 80 places of business in Hong Kong. The number of Guangdong-funded enterprises listed in Hong Kong market is more than 200, ranking first among the provinces and cities in the Mainland.

While the development of the Greater Bay Area will promote economic and trade exchanges between Guangdong and Hong Kong as well as cross-boundary economic activities, the demand for cross-boundary financial services from the enterprises and residents in the Greater Bay Area is anticipated to rise rapidly. When the hinterland of the traditional services of Hong Kong's financial industry can be extended to the city cluster of the Greater Bay Area, a constant flow of business development opportunities will be generated, including those related to bank loans, issuance of bonds, insurance, capital financing for listing purpose and financial management business.

Under the city cluster development planning framework of the Greater Bay Area, the banks in the Greater Bay Area can provide Hong Kong with a series of convenience services like account opening, payment, foreign exchange and financial management, as well as banking cards and cross-boundary payment service. The scope of banking services in the Greater Bay Area can cover diversified places of consumption for clothing, food, housing and transport, so that the residents in the Greater Bay Area can pay cross-boundary livelihood bills like water bills, education fees, property management fees, health care bills, etc. with ease.

7646 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

Nevertheless, despite certain successful experience in enhancing connectivity between the financial markets of Hong Kong and the Mainland, compared with New York Bay Area, San Francisco Bay Area and Tokyo Bay Area, the inter-connectivity of markets, cross-boundary flows of key resources like capital and personnel in our Greater Bay Area, under the premises of "one country, two systems", three customs territories and three currencies, have to be fostered with joint efforts of the whole region in pursuit of breakthroughs in some central policies.

Cross-boundary Renminbi ("RMB") business is after all the key area of financial collaboration and will become the core in the financial market development of the Greater Bay Area. As at the end of 2017, the cumulative amount of cross-boundary RMB trade settlements in Guangdong was $13,870 billion, while the total amount of cross-boundary RMB trade settlements in Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macao amounted to $9,930 billion, accounting for a rather high percentage of 71.6% of the cumulative amount of cross-boundary RMB trade settlements in Guangdong. Off-shore RMB business is one of the core advantages of Hong Kong's financial market. We should take this opportunity to consolidate our development in this aspect so that we can serve the Belt and Road financial needs. Therefore, the Government should promote the coordinated development of RMB business in the Greater Bay Area.

In the following, I would like to respond to the comments made by some Members earlier on the financial development for the convenience and benefit of the public. Mr HO Kai-ming just mentioned e-wallets. In order to use e-wallets in the Mainland, the main difficulties lie in the need to open a Mainland bank account and have a Mainland mobile telephone number. However, a local bank has lately announced the introduction of related services on a pilot basis. The public can open Mainland bank accounts in Hong Kong and can also use the convenience services provided by certain telecommunication companies. I believe that through this new service, together with the gradual expansion of applicability of e-wallets in Hong Kong as well as connectivity of e-wallets between Hong Kong and the Mainland, the public can enjoy great convenience in travelling and consumption. In the discussion of the Plan yesterday, I also mentioned the financial measures concerning cross-boundary financial management and cross-boundary mortgages, and Secretary James LAU of the Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau undertook to take the initiatives forward. I believe that very soon, we can see the implementation of more cross-boundary facilitation measures.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7647

President, since the Plan is only a framework, collective wisdom within the Greater Bay Area is needed to fine-tune some measures before implementation. Hence today, I will support the original motion and the amendments that set out positive suggestions but will be strongly against those amendments which are not based on facts.

President, I so submit.

MR JEFFREY LAM (in Cantonese): President, I went to Beijing early this month to attend a meeting of the National People's Congress and another of the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference. During the meetings, I was deeply touched by the State's determination in and support for the development of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area ("the Greater Bay Area"). For three consecutive years, Premier LI Keqiang has mentioned in the Government Work Report the concrete measures to realize the development of the Greater Bay Area, which can be expected to advance at full speed in the coming year.

The development of the Greater Bay Area is a once-in-a-century opportunity to provide long-term impetus for further integrated development of Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macao, with a view to achieving mutual complementarity and differential development. After the promulgation of the Outline Development Plan for the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area ("the Plan"), many friends of mine in the industrial and commercial sectors and I have carefully read it to explore how it may help in the development of Hong Kong. Some people have already rolled up their sleeves and hit the ground running by going to the Greater Bay Area in person for first-hand understanding. Some hope to identify good opportunities to invest in different places of the Greater Bay Area. We are also glad that the Chief Executive has reflected our views, and announced eight new measures immediately after a meeting of the leading group. In particular, the measures related to the 183-day taxation threshold and the relief on individual income tax, which are of great concern to the people of Hong Kong, make it much easier for Hong Kong people to work in the Greater Bay Area. They have responded to our long-standing advocacy.

I hope that people from all sectors of Hong Kong, especially young people, pay more frequent visits to the Greater Bay Area in person. Now that the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link and the Hong 7648 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge are operational, it is very convenient for us to go anywhere in the Greater Bay Area. For example, we can go to Shenzhen to feel the pace of development of this innovative city and see how innovative technology is applied to the residents' lives. We can also go a little farther, to Guangzhou and Foshan, to see their urban development, as well as the increasingly attractive entrepreneurial environment. In addition, Zhongshan has in recent years put great efforts in the development of environmental protection to foster a comfortable living environment. The future Shenzhen-Zhongshan Bridge will also help usher in more opportunities.

President, a small number of people in the community, including some Legislative Council Members, often say that Hong Kong is "being planned" and even "being assimilated". They are also worried that Hong Kong will lose its current status because of the development of the Greater Bay Area. I find these claims groundless. The release of the Plan precisely indicates that various places should give full play to their local advantages and develop on the strength of their own characteristics, because there is plenty of room to create a multiple-win rather than trade-off situation across the Greater Bay Area. I believe that as long as constant observations are made and views are put forward to keep improving the policies and measures in the region so as to offer a better life for all, the general public will find themselves benefited by the development of the Greater Bay Area. For young people who aspire to start a business, the Greater Bay Area is a vast world.

President, of course, we also have some opinions about the policy arrangements relating to life. I would also like to make several recommendations here: first, full implementation of "Hong Kong taxation for Hong Kong people". It is good that the eight measures include provision of tax relief to high-end talents of Hong Kong and Macao, but the young people and some middle-class people in Hong Kong may not fulfil the requirements of high-end talents even if they want to work in the Greater Bay Area. There are still barriers in the existing tax regime. Can further improvement be made?

Secondly, initiatives should be taken to facilitate Hong Kong professionals' development in the Greater Bay Area. I understand that mutual recognition of professional qualifications involves many issues. The professional standards vary between Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macao, but some professional sectors of Hong Kong hold an international leading position, so I think giving priority to relaxing restrictions for some professionals to work in the Mainland will be of great benefit to the development of the Greater Bay Area as a whole. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7649

Thirdly, the coverage of Hong Kong's health care vouchers should be expanded. The health care system of Hong Kong is under enormous pressure, partly because of the shortage of space and manpower. Compared with Hong Kong, the Greater Bay Area has a vast amount of land, which is a good condition for elderly and convalescent care. The Guangdong Scheme also proves that quite a number of elderly people have chosen to live in their hometown. I propose to expand the use of Hong Kong's health care vouchers so that Hong Kong's elderly people can seek Chinese or Western medical consultations or undergo various examinations at eligible medical institutions in the Greater Bay Area. This will be helpful to both the elderly and the health care system of Hong Kong.

Fourthly, the eligibility criteria for Hong Kong people to buy property in the Greater Bay Area should be unified. At present, different cities in the Greater Bay Area impose different requirements on the purchase of property by Hong Kong people. I propose to unify the eligibility criteria and set up a unified system to enhance transparency and provide greater protection to buyers. In addition, studies can be conducted on mortgage plans for property purchase in the Greater Bay Area, and even an increase of the loan-to-value ratio, so that Hong Kong people can afford the down payment for a self-occupied property. All these recommendations warrant that the Chief Executive and SAR Government relay them to and seek approval from the Central Authorities.

President, the Greater Bay Area is a key national strategy, which will bring dramatic changes to the entire region. However, it takes a good blacksmith to make steel. If we just sit on our hands, opportunities will not fall from the sky. When the ministries and commissions under the State Council, as well as other municipalities, are stepping up their pace, we in the SAR cannot lag behind them. We must first seize the great opportunity that Hong Kong enjoys in the planning of the Greater Bay Area to strive for perfection of various measures, and open-mindedly listen to the views of various quarters, with a view to achieving a smooth flow of people, goods, capital and information within the Greater Bay Area.

President, I so submit.

MR SHIU KA-CHUN (in Cantonese): President, first of all I wish to thank Mr WONG Ting-kwong for moving the motion on "Proactively expanding development opportunities in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area". 7650 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

Opportunity is a rhetorical term in management studies. When talking about strategic management, I have to mention a term: SWOT analysis and its basic concepts. "S" stands for Strength, "W" stands for Weakness, "O" stands for Opportunity, and "T" stands for Threat. They are about strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. For that reason, when Members are talking about opportunities in their amendments, perhaps we should also think about the threats and ponder on the potential problems. Members should try not to point fingers at anybody or criticize others for harbouring grievances, being disgruntled, or being parochial and arrogant and so on. In fact, when we are discussing how we should expand development opportunities in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area, it is inevitable for us to first understand or consider the undercurrents.

The State Council published the Outline Development Plan for the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area ("the Plan") on 18 February and requested relevant authorities in the municipalities concerned to seriously implement the initiatives of the Plan. There is one sentence about social work and there are five sentences about social services in the Plan. The sentence about social work could be found on page 40: "To encourage enhanced cooperation among the social welfare sectors of Hong Kong, Macao and the Mainland, take forward the mutual recognition of social work professional qualifications, and strengthen professional training and exchange of social workers from Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macao". The sentence about social services can also be found on the same page: "To deepen collaboration in elderly services, support Hong Kong and Macao investors in establishing social service institutions, for example elderly care institutions, through sole proprietorship, joint-venture, cooperation, etc. in the nine PRD municipalities in accordance with regulations, and create an environment favourable for Hong Kong and Macao residents to retire in Guangdong." I am not going to read out the other sentences concerning social welfare.

Regarding the sentence about social worker, it mentions that mutual recognition of professional qualifications for social workers should be taken forward, and it has caused strong reactions from the social work profession. In today's Chief Executive Question and Answer Session, I asked the Chief Executive this question and she gave an unequivocal answer. She clarified that it had nothing to do with mutual recognition; it was simply northward looking or northward bound, and that the Government had no intention to amend the Social Workers Registration Ordinance. We welcome the Chief Executive's response.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7651

However, with regards to today's topic for debate, I note that Mr HO Kai-ming has also mentioned in his amendment: "Promoting exchange and cooperation on social services among the Governments of Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macao, including enhancing the portability of welfare measures and perfecting the elderly care policy and social services in the Greater Bay Area, so as to provide convenience for Hong Kong people residing in the Greater Bay Area". Moreover, according to Wen Wei Po's report on 21 February, LAM Shuk-yee of the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions made an unequivocal statement of taking forward the mutual recognition of social work professional qualifications, and strengthening professional training and the exchange of social workers from Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macao.

Since one of our Members or an organization has raised this point, I also need to convey the views of the social work profession. Mainland and Macao have been seeking mutual recognition of professional qualifications with Hong Kong's Social Workers Registration Board, but it has not been materialized up till now. The major reason is that there is great disparity in the standards of social work development in the three places, and that Mainland's social work training has not placed emphasis on both theoretical and practical aspects, even though the State Council published in 2010 the National Outline for Medium- and Long-Term Talent Development (2010-2020) stating that China aims to have 3 million social workers by 2020. Nevertheless, the relevant training was considered a sheer imitation of western theories without localization that allows the profession to take root in China. The social work training which has just commenced on the Mainland in the recent decade cannot be considered on par with Hong Kong's systematic social work development which has a history of 70 years. This shows that there is no common basis for the mutual recognition of social work professional qualifications among the three places, namely Hong Kong, Mainland and Macao.

On the other hand, the social work profession in Hong Kong has all along been adhering to the core value of social justice and positioning the profession on the side of "the vulnerable". I am afraid that there is a great disparity between these values and the laws and political culture on the Mainland or in Macao. Let us take Macao as an example. The social worker registration system which went through a brewing process since 2009 was eventually passed yesterday. During the preparation, the Macanese social work profession had been wrangling over whether the term "social justice" should be incorporated into the Code of Practice.

7652 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

As to the Mainland, everyone knows that anyone engaging in human rights advocacy affairs will be charged with the offence of picking quarrels and provoking troubles. A prominent example was lawyer ZHAO Lianhai, who helped parents of babies suffering from kidney stones as a result of consuming Sanlu milk powder to seek compensation. This shows that the cultures of the two places are mutually exclusive.

President, at present, Hong Kong social workers have not met any qualification problem when they participate in social services on the Mainland. Besides, Hong Kong social workers have no intents to acquire the Mainland social work professional qualifications. The mutual recognition of social work professional qualifications was proposed in the Plan. To put it plainly, it intends to make use of Hong Kong's social work development to aid Mainland's immature or undeveloped social work development. I oppose the idea of using the mutual recognition of social work professional qualifications as a pretext to adjust the code of practice and the guiding principle of Hong Kong's social work registration system. At the same time, I also oppose the amendment of the Social Workers Registration Ordinance to take forward mutual recognition of professional qualifications for social work. At present, the social welfare sector has not had much discussion on the issue concerning mutual recognition of professional qualifications for social work, nor has it come to any consensus. As such, the Government should not push through the relevant proposal.

President, in the final analysis, Hong Kong's social welfare sector has all along been conducting positive interactions with the Mainland on exchanges, training, learning and service initiatives. I welcome these interactions. Nevertheless, to change the interactions into mutual recognition of professional qualifications will only bring threats or even mishaps to Hong Kong.

President, if we consider it a marriage, I am concerned that this forced or prearranged case will end up in an unhappy marriage.

MR LUK CHUNG-HUNG (in Cantonese): President, first I wish to thank Mr WONG Ting-kwong for proposing this motion. In the Outline Development Plan for the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area ("the Plan") published by the Central Government, Hong Kong is one of the four major municipalities. Hong Kong is positioned the first in the Plan and takes up the largest part of discussion. From this, we can see the importance of Hong Kong's LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7653 position. The total economic capacity of the Greater Bay Area has reached US$1,600 billion, which is tantamount to the total capacity of Korea. To people who aim to expand their businesses, they may reach a broader arena by jumping on this high-speed bandwagon.

Unfortunately, once again we can see that the opposition is looking at the Plan with tinted glasses. Their ultimate goal is to scare away Hong Kong people to the extent that they may even fear to cross the Shenzhen River. A lot of people have lost this good opportunity. Therefore, I need to make it clear here that under the Plan, not only will the role of Hong Kong be enhanced as an international financial centre, it can also help us to promote trade and commerce, logistic flow and professional services to move towards a high-end and valued-added direction and establish Hong Kong as Asian Pacific's legal and arbitration centre. The advantage of Hong Kong's "one country, two systems" and convergence with international standards can then be brought into full play. In particular, we need to give a big push to innovation and technology and to nurture emerging industries with a view to breaking through the longstanding issues such as the much criticized homogeneous mode of industries and the speculation-based economy.

Nevertheless, the Opposition has been criticizing that Hong Kong is being "planned" as they are concerned that the "one country, two systems" framework would be undermined, and Hong Kong people might embark on a hopeless adventure. Anyway, the ones who give the most alarmist talk and disapprove the proposal are the Opposition. They are the people who give politics the highest priority. The Opposition turn a blind eye to the positive participation of the SAR Government and all walks of life under the Plan, which has enabled Hong Kong to enjoy such a prominent and important position and brought our edges into full play. There is no question of "being planned". But the Opposition have all along been saying that it concerns very much about "being planned". Should they do any self-reflection, what have they done or proposed and how many of them have actively communicated with the Mainland in the entire process? I have not seen any action. Are the Opposition really thinking that to be totally isolated and excluded from the planning of the Greater Bay Area is in the best interest for Hong Kong?

In fact, the in-depth integration between Hong Kong and the Mainland has already become the general trend. Many Hong Kong people are working, going to school or even residing on the Mainland. For this reason, the Hong Kong 7654 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

Federation of Trade Unions ("FTU") has set up Mainland Consultation Services Centres many years ago to provide support services to Hong Kong people residing on the Mainland. We provide services relating to their living, work, business investment, legal matters and all sort of needs in their daily life. Not only in the Legislative Council of Hong Kong, Members and FTU's Hong Kong Deputies to the National People's Congress ("NPC") and delegates of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference ("CPPCC") have also proposed motions in the NPC and CPPCC meetings to facilitate the convenience of the daily life of Hong Kong people residing in Greater Bay Area. The recommendations include allowing Hong Kong people to take out social insurance and medical insurance on the Mainland, and extending the applications of the health care vouchers to allow Hong Kong people to be admitted to Mainland's first-class and key hospitals. Moreover, we also hope that the Mainland Travel Permit for Hong Kong and Macau Residents (the Home Visit Permit) will be included into Mainland's electronic authentication system and so on, so as to facilitate the lives of northward bound Hong Kong residents in the Greater Bay Area.

Another major proposal is urging the Government to take forward the mutual recognition of professional qualifications in the Greater Bay Area, which mainly involves some front-line work types that require skills, to facilitate Hong Kong residents to work on the Mainland. Under the original Mainland and Hong Kong Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement ("CEPA"), professionals of the two places, such as architects, structural engineers, lawyers, doctors and so on, already enjoy mutual recognition of professional qualifications. These Hong Kong professionals may work on the Mainland through the mutual recognition arrangement under CEPA. However, ordinary employees, including the white-collars, people in the service industry and the blue-collars that I have mentioned earlier, are not included under the arrangement of CEPA. Therefore, for some work types which are subject to an authentication system, Hong Kong people may find it hard to make big strides on the Mainland even though they possess the necessary skills.

In particular, there are as many as 22 000 or more cross-boundary marriages every year. A family member wishing to reunite with other family members on the Mainland needs to secure a job first. President, if we can facilitate a Hong Kong resident to acquire the professional qualification on the Mainland, he or she will have a peace of mind to work or live there. At present, there are about 140 nationally recognized vocational qualifications on the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7655

Mainland. 59 of them are classified as professional qualifications and 81 are classified as skilled technicians. To help Hong Kong residents seek employment on the Mainland, FTU has been hosting the "National Vocational Qualification Assessment" ("NVQA") in Hong Kong since 2004. Over the past 15 years, we have organized a total of 22 categories of NVQA, including corporate trainers, property managers, public health dieticians, Chinese baker, Western cook, health massage practitioners, beauticians, tea artists and so on. We have helped more than 6 000 people apply for the examinations, among whom 2 700 were retrainees.

President, from FTU's Mainland Consultation Services Centres and the NVQAs organized by us, we can see Hong Kong people's development prospect on the Mainland and their needs. For that reason, we are willing to do practical and realistic things for Hong Kong people and to fight for all sorts of measures for the convenience and benefit of Hong Kong people to reside in the Greater Bay Area.

Everyone has his destiny, and a city has its own track of development. Some will consider that our predecessors have set a solid foundation for Hong Kong, and the Government is in possession of a trillion dollars of fiscal reserve, therefore we may enjoy a blissful life in a relaxed and carefree manner. However, I wish to tell members of the public that every development has its pattern. We are just like rowing a boat upstream―you will fall back if you stop moving forward. Moreover, we are living in a historical moment when our country is not a small one with few people; nor are we situated at a remoted site. We are destined to meet a big opportunity and a huge challenge. In this historical crossroad, we may opt to shut the door and keep watching the good chance passing by to let Hong Kong end up as a third-tier city someday with the "one country, two systems" framework losing its vitality. Otherwise, as the theme song of the Greater Bay Area goes: "Open the windows of your soul to see the bigger world and embrace all the scenes in front of you", I do hope that Hong Kong people can scale new heights. Thank you, President.

MR ALVIN YEUNG (in Cantonese): President, the Outline Development Plan for the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area ("the Plan") has been rolled out for a month, and the key words we keep coming across throughout this month are sort of "opportunities in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area ('the Greater Bay Area')", such as "go to the Greater Bay Area to buy 7656 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 homes", "go to the Greater Bay Area to seek jobs, to teach … to open clinics" and so on. Hearing this for the first time, you may find it very nice indeed to be offered a "new stage" with an additional 50 000 sq km or so for Hong Kong people to pursue career/business development and engage in "gold-digging" there, especially when Hong Kong is facing the problem of insufficient supply of housing units and its economic prospect is full of uncertainties. And perhaps, as Members of this Council have said, the Greater Bay Area really excites many Hong Kong people and may have aroused their interest as well.

However, when it comes to "gold-digging", President, another Bay Area naturally crossed my mind, namely the Bay Area in San Francisco. Upon the discovery of gold in that area back in 1848 of the 19th century, tens of thousands of Chinese headed there in a gold rush. Some became rich and returned to their hometowns to acquire land to build houses, but many more were grossly exploited and even died in a strange land as a result, instead of getting wealthy although gold was found. And how did the Cantonese people described this period of human misery in history? President, they called it "coolie trade".

The Greater Bay Area sounds as if it may offer ample opportunities or even solutions to the many problems facing Hong Kong. However, I still hope that Members of the Legislative Council and the community as a whole in Hong Kong will not lose sight of another crisis facing Hong Kong: The distinction between the "two systems" under "one country" is increasingly getting blurred. Will Hong Kong's gradual integration with the Mainland do us good or harm after all? When DENG Xiaoping put forward the principle of "one country, two systems" back then, his ultimate purpose was to put everyone's mind at ease, reassuring both the people of Hong Kong and the international community that Hong Kong and Mainland were two very different places. Of course, he also aimed to warn those future leaders of both the Central Government and Hong Kong Government not to blur the distinction between the two places indiscriminately. Regrettably, in recent years, we have repeatedly witnessed Hong Kong being influenced and even assimilated by the Mainland in various aspects, ranging from the governance philosophy of the SAR Government and the population policy, which will be discussed later, to the various infrastructural projects that affect people's daily life, and even the simplified Chinese characters and utterances from Mandarin speakers that can be seen or heard in the streets. We can sense the Mainland's impacts in many different ways.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7657

Given that society inevitably has doubts and complaints about China-Hong Kong integration under the prevailing problems and crises induced by such impacts, will the Hong Kong people agree to take forward such a mega project of China-Hong Kong integration in the Greater Bay Area at this very moment? Putting aside first the issue of whether the Central Government will bear the sole responsibility of implementing such a mentality in a top-down manner, has the SAR Government ever consulted us the Hong Kong people on the relevant planning matters? Some may say that many young people in Hong Kong will also visit Shenzhen to seek pleasure during the holidays and they are actually very accustomed to the Mainland's lifestyle. But what I want to point out here is, President, that the emergence of this particular consumption trend is precisely due to the "one country, two systems". Only under this guarantee can they have the advantage of working in Hong Kong to make earnings for spending on the Mainland. Simply holding their Home Visit Cards in hand, they can go to the Mainland and spend a day or half a day there and then cross the border again to return to Hong Kong after having fun. Actually, this is not a sort of lifestyle but a way of holidaymaking, and what they have become accustomed to is not the Mainland style of living but the lifestyle made possible under the "one country, two systems". If the people of Hong Kong have to become inhabitants of the Greater Bay Area who are supposed to work, start up a business and live in the cities in the Greater Bay Area within the Mainland's legal, taxation, monetary, social and medical system frameworks, will they (in particular the young ones) manifest the same eagerness to do so in the same way as they wait in line to buy milk tea with tapioca pearls? I have reservations about this.

What is more, what we are now talking about is investment. Manufacturers of the older generations or those Members of the Legislative Council who had once run factories on the Mainland should have first-hand experience about the Mainland's ever-changing laws. For example, what is permitted by law today may become illegal or unauthorized a few months later. Worse still, compulsory shutdown of factories and surrender of land may take place, or the entire factory may be seized directly upon their learning that it makes profit. These will definitely not happen in a place governed by law, and we certainly do not want these to happen in the Greater Bay Area in future. Yet, neither the Central Government, the SAR Government nor those Members who banged the drum for the Greater Bay Area shall ever blame the Hong Kong people who were "once bitten" to be biased against the Greater Bay Area.

7658 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

President, as the relation between the State and the international community is becoming increasingly subtle at the moment or under the general situation where the global social landscape has become rather intricate, the Plan as a whole or the idea of developing the Greater Bay Area has become even more thought-provoking in fact. At this critical juncture when attempts are made to protect Hong Kong in order to show the international community that Hong Kong is so unique and is no ordinary Mainland city under "one country, two systems", what we see is, quite the contrary, that both the SAR Government and the pro-establishment Members have been banging the drum for and muttering all day long the things about the Greater Bay Area. In the days ahead, what stance should we take in our attempt to convince the international community that Hong Kong is different from the Mainland while the principle of "one country, two systems" is still operating effectively? How can we convince people of other countries that the Greater Bay Area and Hong Kong are two different concepts? How on earth is such an "extraordinary mission" supposed to be carried out? I cannot see this through, but only feel so confused. I have no idea where we will end up in the international arena in the future once Hong Kong loses its status as an independent city in consequence of our speaking highly of the "Greater Bay Area" while having forgotten about Hong Kong. How are we supposed to establish a foothold then? I see nothing ahead but a path beset with difficulties.

I just hope that when chanting those slogans which sound so wonderful and illusively comforting to promote the Greater Bay Area, the SAR Government will not forget about the lesson learned from the "coolie trade" in those days: A beautiful picture will be presented in order to convince you of a bright future, but you will end up in great disappointment at last. Back then, the Chinese labourers had to, apart from leaving their families and homes behind, pay US$200 or US$300 to the "snakeheads" (human traffickers), but after they had arrived there to work at the mines, they were paid only US$1 or US$2 a day, from which a "head tax" would be deducted. Therefore, President, I hope Members will bear in mind the lesson about the "coolie trade" that our predecessors had learnt and should think twice in making whatever decisions. Never blindly follow suit to embrace the so-called opportunities even if you do see someone get rich as a result of doing something. Of course, we will not rule out the possibility that in future, the Chief Executive may tell us that, just like one of her predecessors said when talking about the the target of providing 85 000 flats a year, "the Greater Bay Area no longer exists". We do not wish to see this come true all because what we have expended today is the resources and time of the general public.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7659

We only hope that the SAR Government will bear in mind one thing, that is, we should never allow Hong Kong to lose its unique status while taking forward the development of the Greater Bay Area.

I so submit.

MR FRANKIE YICK (in Cantonese): President, I do not know what Mr YEUNG was talking about just now. He has digressed from the subject.

The State promulgated last month the Outline Development Plan for the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area ("the Plan"); and the State Council Premier LI Keqiang also pointed out in the Report on the Work of the Government the need to promote the deepening of cooperation between the Mainland and the Hong Kong SAR and Macao SAR, and to explore the formulation of a development plan for the city clusters in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area ("the Greater Bay Area") to leverage the unique advantages of Hong Kong and Macao, so as to enhance the status and function of the Greater Bay Area in the country's economic development and opening up, and create an international first-class bay area for living, working and travelling. The Liberal Party holds that Hong Kong should grasp this opportunity to connect itself externally to the places along the Belt and Road, so as to trigger further development of Hong Kong and our neighbouring areas.

As stated in the Plan, the State explicitly supports Hong Kong to consolidate and enhance our status as international financial, transportation and trade centres as well as an international aviation hub; to promote the development of high-end and high value-added financial, commercial and trading, logistics and professional services, etc., and to establish Hong Kong as the centre for international legal and dispute resolution services in the Asia-Pacific region. The State has set a clear direction forward for Hong Kong.

To achieve the vision of the Greater Bay Area, the Liberal Party holds that the Hong Kong SAR Government must actively tender practical proposals to the Central Government and fight for facilitation measures concerned. It should also implement the joint development concepts of coordinated development and complementarity under the coordination of the Central Government, so as to turn Hong Kong and the Greater Bay Area into an international metropolis with better competitiveness.

7660 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

Although the 11 regions and cities in the Greater Bay Area have different tasks, the port clusters and airport clusters in the area will inevitably have some sort of competition. Take Hong Kong, Shenzhen and Guangzhou as an example. Their port businesses are of a similar nature. Vicious competition, which already exists among them, has led to a waste of resources. This is not beneficial to all kinds of investments. Hence, the Hong Kong SAR Government must coordinate with, among others, Shenzhen and Guangzhou to formulate a plan on division of labour and cooperation. For example, the ports in Hong Kong can continue to serve the important function of an entrepot in Southern China, with re-exports and imports as its major line of business, supplemented by exports. The port of Shenzhen is closer to the manufacturing sources, so it can have exports as its major line of business which is supplemented by imports. The ports in Guangzhou can mainly serve domestic trade, which can be supplemented by imports and exports. And other small ports can support other large ports. By each port performing their respective duties, they can generate synergy under complementarity and expand the market, and thus achieve a win-win outcome.

Due to the uncertainties cast by the trade war between China and the United States in the past year, the freight transport trade performed poorly. Both marine and road freight dropped, but air freight rose. The total air freight volume in 2018 broke the record of 5 million tonnes and the demand for air freight services is expected to remain high. To seize the development opportunities of future air freight businesses, the Guangzhou Baiyun Airport and Shenzhen Huangtian Airport in the region are actively working on an expansion. Hence, the Liberal Party hopes the three runway system of our airport can be completed soon, so as to enhance our air traffic movements. Moreover, given that the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge can substantially reduce the travelling time between the Hong Kong International Airport and Zhuhai to 45 minutes, the Liberal Party holds that the Hong Kong airport should strengthen cooperation with the Zhuhai airport. The Hong Kong International Airport can mainly serve international flight route operations, and be supplemented by the inland flight routes of the Zhuhai airport. With mutual support of relative advantages, resources can be better utilized and the flight route network can be expanded as well.

President, the Liberal Party supports a Member's proposal to further fine-tune the arrangements for customs clearance of goods between Hong Kong and the Mainland and strive for the opening up of more boundary control points to implement 24-hour clearance operation. With the commissioning of the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7661

Liantang/Heung Yuen Wai boundary control point this year, cross-boundary freight transport can reach Zhuhai and Shenzhen West through the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge, and connect with Shenzhen through the Shenzhen Bay Port and the Liantang/Heung Yuen Wai boundary control point. This ties in with the "West in-West out" and "East in-East out" planning by the Mainland. At present, the authorities tend to implement 24-hour clearance at the Shenzhen Bay Port. However, when the Liantang/Heung Yuen Wai boundary control point in the East are closed at night, cargo vehicles will have to loop around to the West. This will be very inconvenient. Hence, in order to facilitate cross-boundary freight transport in the Greater Bay Area, the Government should continue to persuade the Mainland to provide 24-hour clearance at the Liantang/Heung Yuen Wai boundary control point as well.

The development of the Greater Bay Area is a manifestation of the principle of "one country, two systems", but under this principle, Hong Kong people and businessmen are regarded as "foreigners" and "foreign investor". Given that goods vehicle drivers in Hong Kong are regarded as "foreigners" in the Mainland, their qualification as professional driver is not recognized there. They are required to pass a driving test for heavy goods vehicles in the Mainland, but the test is subject to an age limit of 50. We should know that 70% of the goods vehicle drivers in Hong Kong age over 50, meaning that most of them already pass the age limit. This has resulted in a serious shortage of cross-boundary goods vehicle drivers in the freight transport sector. There has to be a sufficient number of cross-boundary drivers in the market to meet the demand on cross-boundary freight transport in the Greater Bay Area. We thus hope that the Government can persuade the Mainland Government to recognize, subject to certain conditions, the goods vehicle driving licence in Hong Kong and allow drivers with a valid goods vehicle driving licence to directly work as cross-boundary goods vehicle driver.

Regarding the additional operating costs of the cross-boundary freight industry due to their status of being "foreign investors", including the costs for vehicle inspection and insurance coverage and the fees for the licence quota scheme, we hope that the Government can also fight for national treatment for them, so as to lower their operating costs and further enhance the competitiveness of the freight transport industry.

With these remarks, President, I support the motion.

7662 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

DR CHENG CHUNG-TAI (in Cantonese): With regards to the development opportunity of the Greater Bay Area, about one month ago, China published the Outline Development Plan for the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area. If we turn the clock back to some time ago, actually more than half years ago, most of the headlines of major news media were almost identical. For example, the headline of Oriental Daily on 24 August 2018 reads: "Trade war between China and USA escalates Hong Kong businessmen are concerned that half of the factories in Guangdong may close down". However, the current situation is so weird that within one short month. Although Hong Kong and China are facing global economic uncertainties and the trade war between China and the United States―it is actually just a month's time―prosperity has abruptly returned to Hong Kong and everybody is talking about economic opportunities―the Greater Bay Area development―as well as the bright future Hong Kong will have under the Belt and Road Initiatives. It seems that all the changes have taken place just in one month's time. Nevertheless, I believe economic figures will not deceive us. We can actually see how many factories in Guangdong have closed down as a result of the measures made by the Mainland China Government. For example, China abruptly enacted the Foreign Investment Law in March, which shows us how China fears the departure of foreign, Hong Kong and Taiwanese businessmen. We are now looking back at the background of the Greater Bay Area in the past few months.

Let us not go too far. Another problem has already popped up. Just now many pro-establishment Members have mentioned that the Greater Bay Area is a big opportunity that Hong Kong should not miss. As Carrie LAM says, it is "a chance of a lifetime that should not be missed". Nevertheless, the world economy tells us that at present, all factory owners and investors can see that China's economy is obviously hard-landing and the ship is going to collide with the iceberg. When everyone is preparing to jump overboard, I cannot understand why these people can turn a blind eye to the specific and objective economic figures by bundling Hong Kong people with this vessel which is bound to collide with the iceberg. Everyone seems to be enjoying the peaceful and beautiful final moment like the scene in which the violin players were playing the finale on the ill-fated Titanic. But, obviously, we still have other options.

I am not making an irresponsible analogy. In fact, the most authoritative person in science and economy, that is, Mr LI Keqiang, Premier of the State Council, told everybody in a press conference few days ago―obviously he was admitting to the world publicly―that China was facing the pressure of a new LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7663 economic downturn. What has he said? In the Government work report published recently, he says that the target economic growth of 2019 has been downward adjusted to 6% to 6.5%. This percentage is among the lowest of all the targets set over past decades during China's economic reform. In the middle of last year, a foreign fund management firm pointed out―or even forecast―that China's economic growth would be adjusted downward to 5% in the next three years. Why is the GDP figure so important? It is, after all, because the only indicator to prevent social instability in China is to sustain a rapid economic growth―a rapid economic growth. Basically, if China fails to maintain a growth above 7%, a percentage on which its economic development relies solely to improve the livelihood of the people. Without this percentage, China will not be able to prevent public criticism which may even pose significant challenge to its governance. Nevertheless, LI Keqiang has already stated that the future economic growth would only be maintained at 6% to 6.5%. In this circumstance, if you people are prepared to die for the cause, then go ahead all by yourselves. Why should the entire Hong Kong die for the cause? This is something I cannot understand at all.

However, the situation is not so simple. I have something to add in this regard. As far as the economic outlook is concerned, why should I say that the indicator raised by LI Keqiang is the most objective one? It is because LI Keqiang had a great invention in 2010, the "LI Keqiang Index". He uses electricity consumption, railway cargo volume and loans disbursed by banks to measure real economic growth, with a view to screening out the overstatement of economic growth in China. For that reason, I consider the forecast on China's economic downturn in the future quite credible. If that is the case, regarding the promotion of the Greater Bay Area development, why should so many pro-establishment Members and public officials turn a blind eye to the impending economic downturn of China and ask the people of Hong Kong to accept the current situation? In the meantime, they say not a word about the fact that we are possibly facing another major economic crisis that would be surpassing those of 1997, 1998, 2008 or 2009. To what extent can we foresee the magnitude of the impact on our economy? All the immeasurable bubbles behind that are largely unknown to us.

On the contrary, if we can rule out the economic considerations, the most concrete consideration is: Why should I think the Greater Bay Area a hidden worry to us? Actually, I have told the Secretary in a panel meeting earlier. Just now a Member from the functional constituencies says that this is a good 7664 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 chance for Hong Kong firms and consortium to return to make investment on the Mainland. Honestly speaking, if someone cheats you once and then cheats you again, and you still fall for the lies, you are a fool for sure. Strictly speaking, you need to check your brain. In 2008, when WANG Yang was the Party Secretary of Guangdong Province, he implemented the policy of "making space in the cage for new birds". At that time, even though many Hong Kong investors had witnessed the entire reform and opening process and toiled tirelessly and therefore accumulated some capitals, how many of them were kicked out of Guangdong just because they were branded "low-end manufacturers"? For example, a manufacturer of incandescent light bulbs would be kicked out after they had stolen your technology; a textile manufacturer would be kicked out after they had stolen your spinning, weaving and embroidery knowhow. It same was true to toy manufacturers. Now they claim that the State needs you talented people and ask you to return. Should Hong Kong businessmen return? Furthermore, can Hong Kong businessmen really be able to return? It is largely unknown to all of us.

In this circumstance, if you ask me about people's concerns over the integration of the entire Hong Kong population with the Mainland, the erosion of our culture, the identity of Hong Kong people, the mutual recognition of professional qualifications and so on, I would raise a question about the reality, and that is, economic benefits are not something that can be achieved as simply as you brag about. Lastly, I have to add that if the benefits are so immense that these people are prepared to die for the cause, why should they fight for "Hong Kong taxation for Hong Kong people"? If it took place before 1997, I could understand it because it was an arrangement before the reunification to attract Hong Kong people and foster public confidence. But 1997 has passed. On what basis, are you―I mean pro-establishment Members―asking for "Hong Kong taxation for Hong Kong people"? This is totally politically incorrect.

I so submit. (The buzzer sounded)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHENG, please stop speaking.

MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Cantonese): Upon its promulgation by the State Council, the Outline Development Plan for the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area ("the Plan") has been embraced by some people in society LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7665 while many others have voiced their concerns at the same time. Their concerns are about whether the future policies of the SAR Government will merely serve to accommodate the Plan at the expense of our development autonomy, and whether the independence of Hong Kong's system will be neglected in the future due to the overemphasis on integration.

The Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area ("the Greater Bay Area") is not only a design that integrates the Mainland, Hong Kong and Macao for further development of regional cooperation, but also an innovative yet complex concept which differentiates such development from that of the other bay areas (i.e. New York, San Francisco and Tokyo). Well, I do not understand why we have to call it "Greater Bay". It is no bay at all but a delta. It is the Pearl River Delta. Actually, nowhere on the map can we see the bay. Anyway, geographically speaking, there are "nine plus two" cities, that is altogether 11 cities, within the Greater Bay Area. As Hong Kong and Macao are the Special Administrative Regions, that means there are three judicial systems, three tax regimes, and three different cultures. However, there is only one large city serving as the core of the entire region in the planning of such bay areas as San Francisco and Tokyo. New York, San Francisco and Tokyo are the cores of three different bay areas, and they all play their roles as the leading cities of their respective areas. But then for the Greater Bay Area, it consists of Hong Kong, Guangzhou and Shenzhen. These three places are comparable with each other in terms of population size, economy scale and availability of talents. We all know too well that these three large cities are in constant competition and try to outdo each other. What is more, they all have the ambition to be the leading city of the area. In the light of such situation, the important issue is how to avoid the overlapping of roles and the emergence of vicious competition among the cities in the area in the course of development. Unfortunately, I can see no solution in the Plan.

Regarding the positioning of various cities in the Greater Bay Area, I think that apart from cooperation, there also exists competition among them, and such competition can be a constructive one. For this reason, we should explore two relatively important issues aside from emphasizing cooperation: first, the uniqueness of Hong Kong; and second, consolidation and expansion of Hong Kong's strength and influence.

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

7666 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

In order to make the Greater Bay Area development a success as envisaged in the Plan, the Greater Bay Area must be a free, open market which offers a level playing field. Many people may think that I am saying something whimsical, but actually, this is so written in the Plan, and this is why I say that a free, open market which offers a level playing field is a relevant prerequisite. It is only essential for all economic activities within the Greater Bay Area to comply with the regulatory and legal requirements, and the business entry thresholds should not be set overly high. The reason is very simple. A free, open market has been the cornerstone of Hong Kong's success for more than a hundred years. Our stance is that any business that complies with the rules and regulations in Hong Kong are welcome here, and it will not be subject to many other rules. If such philosophy of economics or business is not put into practice in the Greater Bay Area, it will only be futile to provide tax concessions or subsidies, irrespective of the amount. The concept of free, open market that offers a level playing field is what underpins Hong Kong's success. It is thus necessary to radiate such fundamental concept to the Greater Bay Area, and ensure that it remains unshaken.

In fact, to bring the elements of freedom and openness into the Greater Bay Area means to achieve the greatest liberalization of the restrictions on shareholding structures of companies or the control over the management of companies. The purpose of doings so is to enable capital from around the world to flow in and out freely for investment. Failure to realize this concept of liberalization of shareholding structures, management and capital flow will make the Greater Bay Area essentially the same as any of those free trade zones―I mean, the dozens or even hundreds of free trade zones like Suzhou and Shenzhen bonded zones―that have sprung up over the years and been experimented for some 30 to 40 years. If there is no comprehensive liberalization of the market, or free inflow and outflow of capital, everything will simply be empty talk.

Among the entire Greater Bay Area cluster of cities, Hong Kong is the most open and most cosmopolitan one. Our legal system, freedom of information and speech, and convergence with international business practices are widely recognized around the world. We must not deviate from and waver over these core values and systems that are protected under "one country, two systems" and the Basic Law, regardless of what regional cooperation framework we are under. If Hong Kong fails to uphold these core values and systems, its role in the entire Greater Bay Area development will be reduced to nothing. Thus, it is a must that these core values are fully safeguarded.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7667

In addition, I also wish to take this opportunity to remind the SAR Government that since … as many Members mentioned just now, the economy of the Mainland is slowing down, and there exist many uncertainties, including the trade war and tech war, so we should not risk everything by committing all our resources to the cooperation plan for the Greater Bay Area. Aside from participating in such plan, we still need to keep on with our internationalization efforts and proactively converge with the economies around the world. We are now competing with other places in the Greater Bay Area for talents, and we need to attract global talents to establish themselves in Hong Kong. Accordingly, we need to have an international outlook and compete with places all over the world. Even in time of tech war, we will still position ourselves as an international technology centre.

Deputy President, I so submit.

MR LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I wish to thank Mr WONG Ting-kwong for proposing this motion on "Proactively expanding development opportunities in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area".

As I listened to Mr Kenneth LEUNG just now, what he expressed in his nearly 7-minute-long speech is the concern that Hong Kong may lose its advantages owing to the need to integrate into the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area ("the Greater Bay Area"), along with many other worries. It is not hard to understand why they have those worries. The reason is that they all have a certain mindset. Whenever it comes to integration into or cooperation with the Mainland, they are worried that they will lose the so-called "two systems" under "one country, two systems". Regarding this point, I believe … Deputy President, early this month, when you and I went to Beijing to attend the two sessions of the National People's Congress and the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, we were arranged to meet with Vice-Premier HAN Zheng. During the meeting, he gave an assurance to Hong Kong people that if Hong Kong can integrate into the Greater Bay Area, it is certain that our unique status under "one country, two systems" will become more prominent, and there will be positive development of "one country, two systems". What he said has clearly indicated why the State mentioned the need for various cities to capitalize on their own edges to complement each other when the concept of Greater Bay Area was first announced.

7668 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

With "one country, two systems" being implemented here in Hong Kong, we remain a separate customs territory and retain our own judicial system and freedom of speech. If the status quo cannot be maintained, I believe the unique advantage that comes with "one country, two systems" will vanish. That being the case, what Mr Kenneth LEUNG stated in his lengthy speech ends up to be self-contradictory. We still have to maintain this unique advantage and so, his worries are simply pointless.

I wish to point out that regarding the Greater Bay Area, what truly matters is that Hong Kong really needs to capitalize on its own advantages. In particular, it must maintain the advantages on these two fronts: talents and capital. Let me explain it with some concrete examples. Yesterday, the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong ("the DAB") held a round-table meeting to discuss the issues about cross-boundary elderly care. Why does the DAB stand as an advocate of this idea? Actually, the key reason is that Hong Kong has its own advantage in this area indeed.

The first advantage is that nearly 80 000 elderly people are currently living in the Greater Bay Area, and most of them are not living at residential care homes but their own places in their hometowns. This is what we refer to as "ageing in place". What makes they willing to live their twilight years in their hometowns? The one decisive factor is that they came from those places, and now, they just want to return there in old age. This is a factor peculiar to Hong Kong.

Then, what should we do to enable some important and more superior industries in Hong Kong to thrive in the Greater Bay Area? How can they get the opportunity for development in the Greater Bay Area? As the Vice-Premier said, the Greater Bay Area is a platform through which young people can create their own careers. Therefore, we propose that Hong Kong should bring its own strengths into the Greater Bay Area to turn the inadequacies of the Greater Bay Area into a great force. At present, Hong Kong is actually short of land. This morning, many Members opposed reclamation, saying that it would result in ecological problems; and they raised objection again when it came to land resumption. All these have placed a lot of constraints on Hong Kong. If there are just too many constraints, we may actually choose to find solutions from other places, or even adopt some more active approaches.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7669

We propose cross-boundary elderly care as it is an important project through which we seek to collaborate with more Mainland cities and thereby enabling the elderly living on the Mainland to get better support. In this connection, we have put forward 15 suggestions about combining elderly care with health care. Perhaps, let me take this opportunity to share with Members a few points raised by us. For example, can cross-boundary use of Elderly Health Care Vouchers be allowed so that the elderly can use the vouchers in the Mainland as they do in Hong Kong? Can Disability Allowance be made available to recipients across the boundary? If all these are made possible, those people will still be able to get support from Hong Kong while living on the Mainland. Of course, these are parts of the suggestions only, and what matters most is how we can bring our talents to the Greater Bay Area to train up the local elderly care personnel and enrich their knowledge to provide services for Hong Kong people. This is something of great importance.

At present, the elderly care services in Hong Kong are better than those in the Mainland, whether in terms of quality or maturity, and the Mainland service providers need to come to Hong Kong to learn from us. In view of this, if these advantages (including gerontechnology and the concept of ageing in place) can be spread to the Greater Bay Area, the relevant industries of ours not only can enjoy continuous growth, but can help those Hong Kong elderly living on the Mainland also. So, this is an idea that means a great deal to Hong Kong.

Moreover, we have proposed that the Government should explore the possibility of building a number of "elderly care towns" in the Greater Bay Area. These "elderly care towns" can offer services that are more suitable for the elderly in an integrated fashion, covering the services provided by medical personnel, social workers, providers of services for ageing in place (i.e. home service personnel). This is something which can hardly be done in Hong Kong but is achievable in the Greater Bay Area. What is more, these "elderly care towns" can serve as the centres where all those willing to return to the Mainland to live their twilight years are gathered together for the provision of better services (The buzzer sounded) … I so submit.

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

7670 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

DR JUNIUS HO (in Cantonese): Deputy President, many thanks to Mr WONG Ting-kwong for proposing this motion.

How should Hong Kong position itself in light of the Outline Development Plan for the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area ("the Plan")? The motion urges Members to ponder over Hong Kong's development direction, target and measures, and also the ways to fulfil its role as a core engine, so as to improve people's livelihood and promote the development of the six major pillar industries and also innovation and technology in Hong Kong.

Hong Kong has nurtured many people. Some are smart, and some are stupid. Those without a proactive mentality who refuse to seize the opportunity and only remain critical are stupid people. Nevertheless, even though they are stupid, they are also quite smart in a way, in the sense that since they are also aware of their stupidity, they will refrain from conceiving any beneficial or constructive recommendations. One reason is that conceiving new ideas is very difficult. In contrast, criticizing others does not cost anything, and one way is to keep saying "No", "This is useless" or "This is a sheer waste of efforts". They utter such words because they do not want to think, or because they lack the wisdom to conceive any good ideas.

What is so good about the Plan anyway? I only wish to share three points with Members. Yesterday, I was still in Luogang attending a district session of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, and it was resumed this morning. While I could not be absent from that session, I must still return to Hong Kong and attend this Council meeting. I began to drive back to Hong Kong at 9:30. When I arrived at the boundary control point in Hong Kong, it was just 11:00. This road journey beginning from Luogang at 9:30 via the Guangshen Coastal Expressway (Provincial Line S3) and ending at the boundary control point in Hong Kong at 11:00 merely lasted one and a half hour. Then, I drove for another half an hour before arriving at the Legislative Council Complex. Transport was very convenient. After the commissioning of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge on 22 October last year, I also drove to Zhuhai to have meals on one occasion and then drove back to Hong Kong. Similarly, the road journey just took me around one hour. The Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area ("the Greater Bay Area") was known as the Pearl River Delta Region in the past. Even though the region is actually located at an estuary, its transport infrastructural facilities have become more and more sophisticated. The mindset of only allowing transport flows and forbidding talent flows is honestly anachronistic. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7671

How should we draw on the ancillary transport facilities which have turned increasingly sophisticated? With express railways, roads and sea transport in place, we simply have no reason to stay in such a cramped place of just 1 100 sq km. Why should people refuse to move to another place with some 60 000 sq km activity space? This is a very simple point. People try to obtain more land by conquests. At present, Hong Kong is allowed to integrate with the Greater Bay Area without having to pay any cost or price. Britain must pay £15 billion every year as a "membership fee" for joining the European Union and in turn getting some benefits. Since British people do not feel quite right upon thorough consideration, they have initiated the Brexit, thereby saving £15 billion (which is equivalent to more than HK$100 billion). Britain has to pay an exorbitant "membership fee" in order to gain access to the European market. But the Central Government has now told us that it will open its market of 60 000 sq km to Hong Kong free of charge―without any rental charges or need to establish connections. Why should Hong Kong people refuse to go there? Let me put aside the mindset marked by political considerations. Those who know economics or how to run a business should understand what I mean.

Not long ago, a friend of mine asked me, "Dr HO, what advantages can the Greater Bay Area bring for us? I honestly fail to see any advantages. In the past, the relationship between Hong Kong and the Pearl River Delta Region was like a 'shophouse'. Hong Kong businessmen could benefit from the cheap labour there and get some advantage from their labour, to say the very least. But these days, its local wage levels have honestly turned quite high, and Hong Kong businessmen are not given any taxation benefits. In that case, what is now so special about that region?" My reply to him at the time was not philosophical. I merely said, "I myself am not quite clear, honestly. But I know that Hong Kong businessmen are in pursuit of market development and market share." Members may come to imagine this. Suppose a person operates a consumption-based business. So, which market he thinks is bigger? A market with 7.3 million people? Or, a market with 60 million people? Suppose I now want to set up 7-Eleven branch stores. I will naturally hope that I can set up branch stores everywhere in Hong Kong if I can. But in a place of 60 000 sq km, I can set up more 7-Eleven branch stores. Chow Tai Fook Jewellery Group Limited has set up over 1 000 branch stores on the Mainland. I have no intention to do any promotion for them, and I am only talking about the facts. Market is very important.

7672 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

Hong Kong people have always been commended for their exceptional smartness. In Hong Kong, land resources are the most precious, and people have often said that young people cannot afford any residential properties. The Central Authorities have now proposed to enable Hong Kong to develop a market territory of 60 000 sq km. But some have nonetheless asserted that this will be useless.

Despite all this, I also agree to some assertions. One example is how Hong Kong should enhance its own strengths (such as rule of law). Deputy President, I think Hong Kong's rule of law is our valuable asset, and it is also one of the most important conditions that can enhance Hong Kong's position. If we can bring our good ideologies into Shenzhen and the Guangdong Province, we will be able to set foot in a wider path and territory with employment and business opportunities. This will be good.

Just now, Dr KWOK Ka-ki asserted that we should reinforce "one country, two systems" and "Hong Kong people administering Hong Kong". Nobody has ever said that Hong Kong will be stripped of "one country, two systems" and "Hong Kong people administering Hong Kong" once it opens up this respect. Instead, we should strive to enhance and coordinate our strengths and give full play to them in the Greater Bay Area, so as to attain more brilliant results. Instead of "dumping our money into the ditch", we must spend money for the development of the Greater Bay Area. Recently, I opposed the funding request for restoring the "Tsui Ping ditch" to "Tsui Ping River" through revitalization. We should never "dump our money into the ditch".

Thank you, Deputy President.

MR HOLDEN CHOW (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I support the original motion on "Proactively expanding development opportunities in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area" moved by Mr WONG Ting-kwong, and thank him for proposing this motion today for us to discuss here. Hong Kong is located in a prime position in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area ("the Greater Bay Area"). It has a sound legal system and a favourable business environment, where professionals from all trades congregate as well. We also have relative advantages in such areas as innovative technology, finance, maritime services and law. In addition, Hong Kong's "one country, two systems" and status as a separate customs territory are LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7673 very important and valuable assets. Hong Kong's participation in the development of the Greater Bay Area will not just give better play to our own advantages, but also help enhance our international standing and global competitiveness. At the same time, it will also provide a wider platform for the future development of Hong Kong, thereby creating more opportunities.

In this past February, the Central Government promulgated the Outline Development Plan for the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area ("the Plan ") to set a clear direction for the future development of the Greater Bay Area. The State considers that the Greater Bay Area lends itself to development as an important financing base and offshore service hub for the Belt and Road Initiative, and that Hong Kong, as an international financial services centre, offshore renminbi business centre, financing centre and international asset management centre, has innate and geographical advantages in assisting the enterprises throughout the Greater Bay Area to go global and supporting the development of the Belt and Road Initiative.

In fact, Hong Kong has been striving for many years to play a role in assisting Mainland enterprises to go global and encouraging overseas enterprises to enter the Mainland for investment. Hence, as one of the core engines in the Greater Bay Area, Hong Kong should also continue to serve as a two-way platform so that while the small and medium enterprises and start-ups of Hong Kong can explore the market of the Greater Bay Area in the Mainland, they can also help the country bring in more foreign capital and attract enterprises, talents and capital from Belt and Road Initiative countries/regions into the Greater Bay Area. Therefore, I believe that Hong Kong will definitely be able to give full play to its unique advantages.

Deputy President, given that the Greater Bay Area will undoubtedly provide new possibilities of breakthrough in the economic development of Hong Kong, we make some recommendations as follows, in the hope that the SAR Government considers and follows up on them in its future work. First, it is about the high value-added maritime services industry. Members should notice that this Plan states explicitly that the State will support Hong Kong's development of high value-added maritime services industry and Hong Kong has also its role to play in such services as ship finance and maritime insurance in the Greater Bay Area. In this regard, Deputy President, as I have been helping to promote the development of high value-added maritime services industry, I have come up with the following views. Apart from the tax relief arrangements 7674 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 currently being planned by the Government, we can also follow the example of London, the United Kingdom, to attract as many organizations related to the high value-added maritime services industry as possible, including those providing dispute resolution services and maritime insurance services, to set up business in Hong Kong, so as to form a cluster of organizations providing relevant services. In the long run, a one-stop service can be provided to truly help the overall development of the industry. London has been quite successful in this respect, and I think it is a worthy reference for the SAR Government.

The second one is about the insurance industry, which has some potential for development in the Greater Bay Area. I have earlier also discussed this point in great depth with some members and organizations of the insurance industry at their invitation. As far as I know, the Plan has highlighted that cross-boundary insurance products will be accepted in the Greater Bay Area in the future. In other words, arrangements may possibly be made in the Greater Bay Area for claims or after-sales services related to Hong Kong's insurance products. Of course, we do not see this as an end, because our friends in the insurance industry may wish that Hong Kong's insurance products were further allowed to be sold directly in the Greater Bay Area. If this comes true, I believe more opportunities will be brought to Hong Kong's insurance practitioners and the whole market. Therefore, we hope that both the SAR Government and the Mainland Government hold more discussions to bring this matter to fruition and provide a timetable as soon as possible so that the insurance industry can have a good grasp of the opportunities.

Deputy President, in addition to the benefits in terms of economic development, more facilitation measures will be provided for Hong Kong people under the current plan of the Greater Bay Area. For example, regarding the support for young people to start their own business, the Government has announced that to support young people and micro, small and medium enterprises from Hong Kong and Macao to realize their development potential on the Mainland, local entrepreneurship subsidies and support in the Greater Bay Area will be extended to cover eligible entrepreneurs from Hong Kong and Macao. I believe that such measures reflect the State's wish to support Hong Kong in creating more opportunities in the Greater Bay Area.

Nevertheless, Deputy President, what is most regrettable to me today is that quite a number of pan-democratic Members are still so obsessed with ideological fights that they blindly refuse to accept any cooperation between the Mainland LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7675 and Hong Kong, nor that between Hong Kong and the Greater Bay Area. Such stubbornness that flies in the face of reality is of no help at all to the future development of Hong Kong. If the pan-democratic colleagues persist in their wrong beliefs, ultimately Hong Kong will only miss a good chance for progress and squander the opportunities for future development. In fact, it is a fait accompli that planning has been done for the Greater Bay Area. We hold the view that the SAR Government should make an opportune decision to actively take part in the development of the Greater Bay Area. It is evident to all that the State's efforts currently put into the Greater Bay Area aim at all-out development, so we hope that Hong Kong takes early advantage of the opportunities, and the SAR Government should take an active part in the development of the Greater Bay Area, with a view to creating a broader platform for the future of our next generation.

Deputy President, I so submit.

MR CHUNG KWOK-PAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, President XI has been taking forward two national policies in recent years, one being "one country, two systems" and the other being the development of the Greater Bay Area.

We discuss the development opportunities of the Greater Bay Area today, but similarly on 28 October 2015, three and a half years ago, we discussed a motion entitled "Seizing the opportunities brought about by 'One Belt One Road' and seeking new directions for Hong Kong's economy". At the time, many Members spoke and very enthusiastically expressed their views. However, today, three and a half years later, I have raised a question on how the SAR Government is following up on the Belt and Road Initiative, but to my surprise, no Member is interested. Anyway, it does not matter, because they have lost their enthusiasm for that subject. Today, our topic of discussion is the Greater Bay Area. If, three and a half years later, some Members raise such issues as the development of the Greater Bay Area and the operation of the Greater Bay Area Office, I do not know whether, likewise, no one will be interested to ask questions then. Of course, it is a good thing that we speak with enthusiasm today.

The Greater Bay Area is nothing new. To be honest, the nine cities in the region are essentially the hometowns of many people, so there is nothing like "coolie trade" as Mr Alvin YEUNG described. People are just going back to their hometowns. How would they fall victim to "coolie trade"? Forty years 7676 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 ago, we went back to build our hometowns. Thirty years ago, we went back to set up factories, invest and develop in the Pearl River Delta. In fact, we were very successful, and I am one example. What was the Greater Bay Area in my personal impression 28 years ago? It was the place where I would go every week, so it would not be anything strange at all.

Fast-forward to today and the Central Government has made such planning. Where should we start to know and understand this new plan drawn up by the State? On 28 February, when the SAR Government met with the governments of Macao, Guangzhou and Shenzhen in Hong Kong to discuss the Outline Development Plan for the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area ("the Plan"), what concerned us most was, of course, how Hong Kong would be positioned. The Plan has mentioned four centres/hubs, which are exactly what the Central Government expects us to be. The first one is, of course, an international financial and trade centre, and unquestionably we have been making successful efforts to maintain this status. The second one is an international maritime and aviation hub, which no one would disagree is also a position that Hong Kong has been holding with equal success.

The third one is a centre for international legal and dispute resolution services. This new vision is a novelty for us. It is also our long standing belief that we will succeed in becoming an international arbitration centre, especially by acting on the directions of the Central Government. Just think, why did the Central Authorities designate us to do it? I believe it is precisely because the Central Government also agrees that our judicial system is sound and secure, and that we enjoy international recognition in respect to dispute resolution and arbitration. This illustrates that Hong Kong's judicial system is a precious cornerstone under "one country, two systems", and I believe that the Central Authorities definitely agree with this point. Although Guangzhou covers a larger area than Hong Kong and outperforms us in various aspects, including commercial operation, why was it not chosen for development into an international arbitration centre? Therefore, I can tell Members for sure that the Central Government definitely agree with and has confidence in Hong Kong's "one country, two systems" and particularly our judicial system. What will the situation be in the future? Assuming that we do business in the Greater Bay Area and hence attract Belt and Road Initiative countries to invest in Hong Kong, the legal documents involved should ultimately be based on the laws of Hong Kong, thus helping Hong Kong become a judicial and arbitration centre or coordination centre. This is something that deserves our attention.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7677

For good measure, there is an international innovation and technology hub, which is also a novelty. Hong Kong has begun to develop innovation and technology only in the last few years. When it comes to innovation and technology, Shenzhen has surpassed us with more financial resources, broader space, more talents, and better development of science and technology, but why is the international innovation and technology hub not to be set up in Shenzhen, but in Hong Kong instead? This involves considerations of intellectual property protection. From another point of view, this shows that Hong Kong has done a good job in the past in protecting intellectual property rights. A look at the recent Sino-US trade war reveals that the United States is precisely homing in on China's weakness of insufficient protection of intellectual property rights. Since Hong Kong has been doing so well in its efforts to protect intellectual property rights, the whole world has confidence in Hong Kong, and this is another value unique to Hong Kong. Certainly, one of the main features of intellectual property rights is the underlying protection by the rule of law, for which we enjoy an extremely high degree of recognition around the world. Therefore, I would like to ask Members to think twice. The Central Government is well aware of the value of Hong Kong. Unlike what pan-democratic Members often say, Hong Kong will not be encroached on during the integration process.

Moreover, in fact, every time there is a discussion on any project, Members also talk about the issue of who is the "headman" or leader. From the standpoint of the Government, it is certainly embarrassing to say it straight out, but I can tell why the Plan was promulgated in Hong Kong rather than Shenzhen, Guangzhou or Macao on that day. The Governor of Guangdong Province had to come to Hong Kong. The Chief Executive of Macao had to come to Hong Kong. What does it mean? The Central Government's arrangement for Hong Kong to be the leader proves that it has confirmed the importance of Hong Kong and placed us in position accordingly. This point is very important.

The last point is that there are no contents or details at all in the so-called "framework" under discussion. This is because the Central Government wants different industries to think for themselves and decide how to fill in the contents. In other words, the Central Government has not set a boundary for us. Therefore, we should actively involve ourselves in this matter.

I so submit. Thank you, Deputy President.

7678 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, "Proactively expanding development opportunities in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area" is like this picture, which many people might have seen when they were small, I believe. Well, what do you see, a pretty girl or a witch? In fact, it all depends on the mental picture you have formed in your mind. If what lingers in your mind from morning till night is the image of a witch, then even a picture of a pretty girl will become that of a witch. However, if you proactively engage yourself and play a part, then even a witch will be taken as a pretty girl.

Just now I have just listened to Members' speeches, in particular Dr KWOK Ka-ki's. He scornfully remarked: "Greater Bay Area people, we will become Greater Bay Area people in future." I just could not bear it and tried to find out this picture at once. Actually, what do Hong Kong and the Mainland look like in his mind? Does he always consider everything to be so ugly?

I myself went to Beijing in 1987 as it has been my belief, and that of those proactively aggressive people in particular, "He that travels far knows much". Take a look at Shenzhen's overall development over the past 30 years and I dare say that we have made contributions to some areas of its development, including its codified laws such as Securities Law, Company Law and Real Estate Law. Shenzhen was lagging far behind us back in the 1980s and people would have the impression that going to study on the Mainland was tantamount to staying in a backward village. But one should never be confined to tunnel vision! Do take a look at today's Shenzhen and bear in mind that Hong Kong has actually played a part in the transformation of this whole city. Hong Kong should not self-defeat in the first place. Who has said that the situation must be Hong Kong people inevitably become Greater Bay Area people rather than Hong Kong being in a better position to bring our competitive edges into play under the "nine plus two" project, thereby exerting influence on all other cities within the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area ("the Greater Bay Area") to the effect that they tend to pursue their own development on our institutional strengths? In my opinion, the future development in general hinges entirely on Hong Kong's resolution for achievements.

Earlier on, I heard some Members of the opposition camp remark that Hong Kong has not engaged in the overall planning for the Greater Bay Area and that no consultation has been conducted. Is it really true that no consultation of any form has ever been carried out? Please ask yourselves for the answer. The Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region invited you for a meal together but you simply turned LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7679 down the invitation. How are they supposed to listen to your views when you are reluctant to make the very first step to establish communication? It is utterly impossible for both sides to exchange views when everything is exaggerated out of proportion and considered politically. Hence, I think the first thing a political figure must learn is to make friends with others. Making new friends is not at all a bad thing and you need not totally agree to the other party's points of view.

Take for instance the development of the Greater Bay Area, which first came out as a neutral project but later deemed unacceptable by you people. Even such a neutral project is deemed something as bad as a witch, although it is actually not true. What you should do in the first place is to review your own mind. Another example lies in this year's Budget. A lot of people, and I in particular, are very pleased to learn that the Government intends to provide funds for the development of a centre for dispute resolution services in the Greater Bay Area with a view to establishing a platform for international dispute resolution services. Why?

First of all, I have to declare that I am the founding Vice-President of the International Academy of the Belt and Road. In as early as 2015, we brought forth to the experts from some 40 countries the idea that Hong Kong had to develop dispute resolution services and become an international centre for legal and dispute resolution services. Two years later, while touching on some finer issues on his visit to Hong Kong, President XI remarked that Hong Kong should become a centre for resolving international disputes. Why did he say so? Well, actually, Members should be mindful of the importance of self-engagement as well as marketing. Nevertheless, you people only keep condemning whatever is laid on the table without making any attempts to "market" your views and ideas as a counterproposal. This being the case, you are doomed to failure even if the most precious opportunity knocked. Eventually, you would possibly divorce yourselves from reality and confine yourself to tunnel vision. We really do not wish to see Hong Kong people, especially our younger generation, suffer from tunnel vision.

The Mainland's standard of living was significantly different from that of Hong Kong in those days, but still, we went back to the Mainland to see if any opportunities were available there. It is really necessary for one to understand what is going on in the real world instead of sitting inside an air-conditioned room blaming others. And so, my Honourable Colleagues, we should learn to open our hearts today. Someone likened the development of the Greater Bay Area to an attempt aimed at ruining the "one country, two systems", which will 7680 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 become "one country, one system" instead. Yet, it is the Central Government that is most reluctant to see Hong Kong's "one country, two systems" turn into "one country, one system". Why do I say do? Well, according to the conclusions drawn at the many seminars which I took part in, one thing is consistent: If capitalism and socialism are both successful in our nation, it will be the best outcome and the greatest national pride for us.

Yet, how can the two be made successful at the same time? Under its capitalist economic system, Hong Kong should now make greater efforts to improve people's livelihood and put an end to the grave disparity between the rich and the poor that emerged in the past. On the other hand, we must also maintain the advantages of Hong Kong's capitalist economic system, such as the low tax policy and a laissez-faire economy. The Mainland has followed Hong Kong's example in this regard to implement marketization. Over the past 30 years, Hong Kong's ascendancy has been held in high regard by the Mainland and a lot of its coastal cities and major cities do follow Hong Kong's practices. I think they admire Hong Kong in three aspects: our civilization, rule of law and management.

On the legal front, we have been to Qianhai to promote our legal system. This place has become really open at present. We are told by the local people that Hong Kong's legal practitioners are allowed to process cases involving people outside the Mainland in accordance with the Common Law. Meanwhile, some of us are invited to take part in the process of delivering verdicts. This is a practical example showing how mutual influence works. You will never be able to exert any influence if you choose to divorce yourself from the real world. The key actually lies in the way you view yourself and it is pointless to mention things like the "Greater Bay Area people" or whatsoever. Since it is inevitable that we will affect one another even under the "nine plus two" project, we must have mutual respect and understanding in the first place to pave the way for mutually beneficial opportunities to emerge. But first and foremost, Hong Kong people must be self-reliant as we should be resolved for success. We have to be smart instead of being ignorant.

At the various seminars held abroad, people from other countries compared the two major projects, namely the Belt and Road Initiative and the development of the Greater Bay Area. They all opined that it would be easier for the latter to kick start, which would generate actual impacts more quickly than the former because they think Hong Kong people are very pragmatic indeed. Besides, being among a participating city of the "nine plus two" project (i.e. the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7681 development of the Greater Bay Area), we can exert positive influence on the project. Therefore, it would be unwise if we do not play a part. Why? It is the rule of the game that Hong Kong must take part in the "nine plus two" project since this will make it possible for others to see at State level how Hong Kong shines as Pearl of the Orient, and that the "one country, two systems" will not become "one country, one system" in the end as some Members have said. If this is the case, why should the State have put forth the plan for the development of the Greater Bay Area then? Members should think deeply about this point. We ought to have an understanding of the State's views and we can certainly make comments, which must be based on reasons.

I so submit, Deputy President.

MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): Why does Hong Kong need to participate in the development of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area ("the Greater Bay Area")? Because Beijing needs Hong Kong. In order to develop the Greater Bay Area, it is necessary to make Hong Kong part of it. Why? Because the prerequisite for developing the Greater Bay Area into another Silicon Valley or a place comparable with it is the confidence of foreigners in your rule of law and various business-related legislation. That is why you have to lean on Hong Kong's rule of law. Well, talking of Silicon Valley, it must be about IT stuff. Is it not true that anywhere like Silicon Valley must have digital technology and all that? But in Mainland China, it is impossible to log on to Facebook without "getting around the firewall", not to mention using WhatsApp. Alright, let us use their WeChat. But then foreigners may be worried that their daily activities will be spied on. So, this is why Hong Kong is valuable to it. Excluding Hong Kong from the Greater Bay Area, the relevant plan is simply not going to work.

In the eyes of foreigners, President XI Jinping is not just the State leader of China. Obviously, he also wants to become a world statesman. So, how can this be achieved? Other countries have their respective bay areas, so China should likewise have a bay area of its own. Then, which place is a desirable choice for the relevant development? Shenzhen has been developing fairly rapidly in recent years. Then, why not combining it with places such as Hong Kong, the Lok Ma Chau Loop, and the Hong Kong Science Park to form a bay area? This is a world trend that there must be digital, online … not only businesses, but also bases.

7682 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

As I said just now, what it needs from Hong Kong are: first, Hong Kong's rule-of-law system; and second, free flow of information in Hong Kong. This is something it cannot deny. It just needs Hong Kong. However, we are troubled by that. To describe that as an exploitation may be a bit of an exaggeration, but that is more or less a kind of deceit. By the way, I was quite happy when I heard what some Members said, because today, besides Mr Gary FAN and me, someone else in the Legislative Council has finally realized that situations where "one country, two systems" has been sabotaged are not confined to the political arena. Economically, we can see that Hong Kong has been inundated with "red capital", and of course, the cultural front is no exception. As said, Putonghua can be heard in every street―frankly, you will get an idea after a walk around the university campus―and simplified Chinese characters can be seen everywhere.

You may wonder what is wrong with turning Hong Kong into one of the many Chinese cities. Is it really something of a shame that Hong Kong is being regarded on the same footing as Shenzhen and Guangzhou? I dare not say so. Really, a small potato like me just does not dare. Anyway, we are neither Guangzhou nor Shenzhen. "One country, two systems" is what we have. If we had all along been one of the cities in China, it would have been unnecessary for us to argue. But why did DENG Xiaoping propose "one country, two systems" back then? It was because he appreciated the fact that Hong Kong was virtually different from Mainland China, whether in terms of lifestyle, values or systems.

Then, you may be curious about why it is a problem for us to be incorporated into the Greater Bay Area. The problem is that we are "being incorporated". I just cannot be bothered to talk about things like "being planned" with you. As early as 20 years ago, I already mentioned the phrase "being planned" when I wrote a news commentary column for Hong Kong Economic Journal. The idea being floated at that time concerned the Pearl River Delta and its surrounding area, but after a while, it just faded to a quiet end. Contrarily, it is for real this time. In March 2016, we "were declared" a part of the Greater Bay Area; in July 2017, we "got signed up" for an agreement which states that we are part of the Greater Bay Area; and in August 2018, our Chief Executive―it is Carrie LAM already and a new administration has taken over―suddenly became a members of the leading group for the development of the Greater Bay Area, representing Hong Kong to attend meetings and things. Why have Hong Kong people never been asked whether this is okay? Why have we never been asked whether it is okay to have such plan? No one has ever LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7683 asked us. It is not just deceitful―it is downright imperious, like a command that is non-negotiable and completely from the top down. Pro-establishment Members enthusiastically welcome―I am not talking about you, well, stay away from me―I mean, they enthusiastically welcome the Greater Bay Area development, embracing it passionately. Anyway, let us make a fortune together and trumpet it as something wonderful.

Is the Greater Bay Area development lucrative? I dare not say it is not. There are definitely business opportunities. Whenever there is something for sale, business opportunities will arise for sure. Having got business to do, one will be able to make some money, no matter what. However, what does the Greater Bay Area concept actually mean? What is it all about? Many people are unable to give a clear answer with explanations offered piecemeal. Browsing the documents of the Government, or directly having a look at Beijing's documents will be enough to give you a shock, because it is perplexing for you to read them, whether the ones in Chinese or in English―this is particularly true for foreign reporters who only read the English version. While reporters would like to cover the relevant news, they did not know what question to ask because of those phrases―the Chinese version is already confusing, whereas the English version is laughable―like "軸帶支撐" (supported by axes), "極點帶動" (driven by poles), "輻射空間布局" (spatial layout with radiating effect). What on earth do they mean? Their meanings are unclear. Anyway, you are told that there are such things for the time being.

That said, the Government does not have a thorough understanding about the Greater Bay Area concept either. When we suggested allowing family reunion to take place in the Greater Bay Area if this is the objective of the One-way Permit system, some government officials replied that we should not forget that Hong Kong had become part of the Greater Bay Area. Oh, that is true, technically speaking, but those documents indicated the reverse by stating that we should encourage young people to go to the Greater Bay Area for career development. In other words, Hong Kong is not within the Greater Bay Area but outside it instead. Does this not reflect an unclear understanding of the concept?

Just now, Dr CHENG Chung-tai made mention of the movie Titanic. So I would end with these words (The buzzer sounded) … "every man for himself".

7684 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms MO, your speaking time is up. Please stop speaking.

MR KENNETH LAU (in Cantonese): Deputy President, first of all, I would like to thank Mr WONG Ting-kwong for moving this motion on "Proactively expanding development opportunities in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area". The Central Authorities have promulgated the Outline Development Plan for the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area ("the Plan"), in which Hong Kong is positioned as one of the four major cities tasked to perform the role of a core engine for regional development in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area ("the Greater Bay Area").

Innovation and technology are the most important aspects for future development in the Greater Bay Area. According to estimation, at least 16 000 founders and 136 000 engineers of high calibre are needed to develop the Greater Bay Area into an an international innovation and technology hub. There should be collaboration among the education departments in Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macao to proactively enhance educational planning in the three places and bridge the talent gap. The future trend of scientific and technological development has made it an inevitable approach to promote cross-subject and cross-disciplinary researches, and plan towards the development surrounding such emerging industries as new generation information technology, high-end manufacturing, green and low-carbon technology, biomedicine, etc.

The Governments of the three places should examine the feasibility of jointly establishing a modern university of innovation and technology, with a view to training talents in this discipline by running appropriate programmes tailor-made for coping with the long-term development needs of the Greater Bay Area. In this connection, the Lok Ma Chau Loop is definitely a potential area to be developed into an academic and experimental platform for training talents in scientific research and promoting international exchanges on technological innovation. It will become a cradle for nurturing talents in innovation and technology.

The promotion of mutual recognition of professional qualifications in the Greater Bay Area will also help to facilitate the flow of talents among the three places. Measures in this respect include providing channels for Hong Kong residents to take examinations on professional qualifications in the Mainland, or awarding professional qualifications to Hong Kong professionals so that they may practice in the Mainland without having to take any examination, thereby LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7685 facilitating the interflow of talents in such fields as engineering, surveying, accounting, health care services, education and legal studies, and promoting the development of the relevant industries.

Deputy President, people of the new generation have greater aspiration for quality of life. To retain talents in the Greater Bay Area, it is very important to provide them with adequate ancillary facilities in respect of daily necessities and health care services at international standards. Hong Kong's medical services have reached the world-class standard, and the Government should negotiate and cooperate with the municipal governments of Shenzhen and Guangzhou in establishing hospitals for internship training and scientific research institutions in those two places for introducing to our partners Hong Kong's concept and mode of quality management in medical services. This is conducive to promoting exchanges between health care personnel of Hong Kong and the Mainland, enhancing the clinical experience of medical students in both places and training Mainland health care personnel at various levels, thereby better serving people in the Greater Bay Area.

The most pressing task for Hong Kong now is to increase the number of local medical training places. The number of places provided by the two major universities every year should be raised gradually from 470 at present to 600, so as to cope with the demand for health care personnel in the local market first before further extending our services to the Greater Bay Area.

Given that many elderly people in Hong Kong have now chosen to retire in the Mainland, the Government should proactively communicate with the Mainland authorities and examine the portability of elderly welfare benefits. The scope of application of cross-boundary welfare benefits for Hong Kong and Macao residents should be expanded, such as launching pilot cooperation schemes in selected hospitals or clinics in the Mainland to facilitate the use of health care vouchers by elderly people of Hong Kong. The applicability of health care vouchers should also be further extended to cover inpatient and specialist services, so that elderly people living in Shenzhen and the Pearl River Delta Region can retire in the Greater Bay Area with their mind at ease.

Finally, I wish to say a few words about the role of New Territories villages in the Greater Bay Area. As the link between Hong Kong and the Mainland, the Plan has brought development opportunities to the border areas in the New Territories. Since I joined this Council, I have been striving for opening up the closed area of Sha Tau Kok Town to vitalize the economy of the local community through development of a green culture and green tourism. 7686 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

Chung Ying Street of Sha Tau Kok is a place with extraordinary historical background, and a diversity of historical relics have been preserved there, such as the Anglo-Chinese boundary stones and buildings with verandas featuring the Lingnan culture. The geographical location of the place is also highly favourable as it is situated next to Lai Chi Wo.

It is now the time for the Government to consider gradually opening up Sha Tau Kok Town. It will revitalize and transform the border areas and upgrade tourist facilities in the region, thereby developing Sha Tau Kok into a green tourism spot with both historical and cultural characteristics, encouraging exchanges with residents in the Greater Bay Area, establishing a "one-hour quality living sphere" for living, working and travelling, and in turn benefiting the local community in Sha Tau Kok.

Deputy President, the Greater Bay Area is a regional economic platform to be developed under the conditions of "one country, two systems, three customs territories and three currencies", and it will take time for various cities in the area to understand and learn from one another. After promulgation of the Plan, there have been a lot of criticisms in the community accusing the Government of letting Hong Kong "being planned" in the development of the Greater Bay Area, but I do not agree with this viewpoint.

The contents of the Plan have taken on board the views of various sectors of Hong Kong, and different cities will have their own role to play. History has already proved to us that as a small and open economy, Hong Kong has undergone many rounds of economic restructuring in the past. As a result, this city of ours has developed from an entreport to a financial centre, and from an industry-led to a service-led economic entity. The people of Hong Kong know very well how they should follow the trend and seize the development opportunities presented to them in different eras, thereby bringing their own strengths into full play and identifying their own value. In an era when all things on earth are interrelated and the economy is led by technology, the planning of the Greater Bay Area can provide Hong Kong people with one more choice and one more chance to develop themselves. As an individual person, each one of us has the right to take the initiative to choose our own path. On this basis, I support the amendments proposed by Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok and Mr Christopher CHEUNG, but object to Dr KWOK Ka-ki's.

Deputy President, I so submit.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7687

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak? Mr Abraham SHEK.

MR ABRAHAM SHEK (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I am very grateful to Mr WONG Ting-kwong for proposing this motion today. It discusses how the future development of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area ("the Greater Bay Area") can bring about a different development direction for Hong Kong.

Let me first give a brief reply to Ms Claudia MO. Just now, she told us that after entering the Greater Bay Area, she could not use WhatsApp, and she could use WeChat only. WhatsApp and WeChat are just the same. If she thinks that some in Mainland China will spy on her messages when she uses WeChat, then I can tell her that when she uses WhatsApp, CIA (the Central Intelligence Agency) will also spy on her messages. Deputy President, if our messages are alright, then it does not matter who sees them. To me, this is not a problem.

Just now, Ms MO also argued that the country must rely on Hong Kong. She said that the country must rely on the support of Hong Kong; or else they would lose a window to the world. China has honestly relied on Hong Kong over the past 30 years. Without Hong Kong during the opening up of China, we will not see the China today. But the China today needs not rely on Hong Kong. Its world status already commands recognition, and it has even aroused the jealousy of her friend, the United States. From this, we can see that the country is actually developing in a very good direction. This is something good.

But this is not the issue we should discuss in this motion debate on the Greater Bay Area. I will not elaborate on how to proceed with economic and technological development in the Greater Bay Area because various Members already discussed all such issues. I will look at the matter from the angle of ordinary Hong Kong people. Deputy President, which provisions in the Basic Law are about Hong Kong after 2047? It only states that Hong Kong will "remain unchanged for 50 years" with "a high degree of autonomy". We are almost halfway through this journey, so we must make preparations for our future. Deputy President―I will have turned 102 years old by 2047, so I need not worry about all this―the Greater Bay Area now serves as a way-out for Hong Kong, a way-out for Hong Kong beyond 2047. It is very important to the development of our economy, technology and any other respects. 7688 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

Members can come to think about this. In the case of a 20-year-old youngster who now wants to buy a flat, a bank will only approve a mortgage term of 25 years to 30 years, so his mortgage repayment period will go beyond 2047. We should make preparations for various possibilities in Hong Kong after 2047, such as our political and economic position by that time. The Greater Bay Area is precisely a way-out for us. If we refuse to accept this glass of wine as a compliment, I am afraid we will not even have the chance to bear the consequence by that time. Reunification is not fearful to us, only that Hong Kong's status today and also its freedom are very important. So, if we do not grasp this opportunity now to dominate the development of the Greater Bay Area with a leading role, our future wish … Deputy President, I am dreaming that the "nine plus two" cities in the Greater Bay Area can practise common law like we do and adopt our existing institutions. That way, Hong Kong can maintain its very survival, education system and rule-of-law system beyond 2047. Deputy President, if we do not tread this path today, it will be utterly impossible for us to achieve any breakthrough under the Basic Law framework.

(THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair)

Despite our opposition and criticisms day after day, the country is honestly very good to us as it has given us this opportunity to develop our economy and various respects and elevate to a higher level with the Hong Kong model under the planning for the "nine plus two" cities in the Greater Bay Area in the remaining 20 years or so ahead. After 2047―I do not know if the Chinese President will still be President XI at that time because there is no limit on the terms of the Chinese Presidency―the Chinese President may say, "Well done! Hong Kong has done a good job in the Greater Bay Area. Why don't we turn the Greater Bay Area into a Special Administrative Region?" Instead of confining itself to its 7 million or 8 million people―even if those 1.5 million people are also counted―Hong Kong should put its attention on the 70 million people in the Greater Bay Area.

Economically, China is already the second largest economy in the world today. In the time to come, it needs to rely on Hong Kong for its cushioning effect in order to go global. With our existing economic and rule-of-law systems, Hong Kong can become a metropolis with 70 million people. The case of New York is the same, and it encompasses six boroughs. This is also the case LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7689 with London. If Hong Kong wants to survive beyond 2047, it cannot possibly put sole reliance on its 7 million population, and it must seek greater growth. And, at this moment, Hong Kong must embark on political, economic and technological development. We should grasp this opportunity which gives Hong Kong the room for survival beyond 2047.

Thank you, President.

MS TANYA CHAN (in Cantonese): President, Mr Abraham SHEK said just now that certain Members had regarded this glass of wine as a punishment rather than a compliment. On my part, my greatest worry is that the wine in the glass is no ordinary wine as such, and people may not only get drunk after drinking it but also die of alcoholic poisoning. It will be disastrous if this should happen.

Why do I say so? If Members have followed this matter over the past few months (since 2019), they will notice that many articles have discussed the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area ("the Greater Bay Area"). Such articles have pointed out that the development of the Greater Bay Area does not solely concern economic development, and Hong Kong's rule of law is also a focus.

My assertion is not based on mere conjecture. If Members have followed this matter, they will notice that in January 2019, LI Lin―Academician of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences ("CASS"), Director of CASS's Institute of Law, and also Vice President of the China Law Society―wrote an article entitled "Legal issues surrounding the development of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area". It may be easier for those who often read Mainland articles or parlance to comprehend the viewpoints in the article. But in case some are unable to understand its contents, they may read an article written by Raymond WAN in February this year. With the use of expressions which are more comprehensible to Hong Kong people, he discusses the proposal of setting up a Special Legal Cooperation Region ("SCR") in the Greater Bay Area put forth in LI's article. As pointed out in WAN's article, one may think positively that the proposal can draw on Hong Kong's rule-of-law system. But upon deeper thoughts, one may realize that this proposal does not seem to be as simple as people would have imagined.

7690 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

LI's article points out that as a preliminary conception, SCR will be founded on the constitutional basis marked by the "one country" principle with a uniform legal system. Obviously, Hong Kong practises common law, as opposed to the Mainland. Which of the nine Mainland cities and the two Special Administrative Regions ("SARs") will be integrated? The answer is very obvious. Apparently, SCR will be modelled on the system of the European Union ("EU"). But how does EU's system work? Voluntary participation among member states. And mind you, its member states all practise democratic elections. LI argues that if SCR is to be set up in the Greater Bay Area … He says that "distant water cannot quench present thirst", and it is no easy task to change the difference within a short time. In Members' views, which of the nine Mainland cities and the two SARs are the most distinguishable? Hong Kong and Macao. The nine Mainland cities are in the majority. So, how can they annex the two SARs?

LI proposes the implementation of short-term legal coping measures within five years. What does this mean? This means that consideration should be given to following the approach of the co-location arrangement. Members may wonder if Ms Tanya CHAN has gone insane as she mentions the co-location arrangement again. President, I am not. WAN's article explains how the co-location arrangement can serve as a model for reference. First, Hong Kong and the various cities in the Guangdong Province should enter into a cooperation agreement. Then, a decision is to be sought from the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress ("NPCSC")―his words are very clear―on its approval and recognition that the cooperation arrangement conforms to the constitution and the Basic Law. Afterwards, HKSAR is to enact local legislation to effect its implementation. This is tantamount to "building an unauthorized structure" above the Legislative Council again.

What is the next step then? As EU's model is adopted as the reference basis, they will certainly begin to set up some mechanisms. LI's article points out clearly that to a certain extent, the nine Mainland cities and the two SARs must "relinquish part of their legislative, enforcement and judicial power, and so on". In other words, not only the Legislative Council but also the judicial and even enforcement departments must relinquish part of their power. President, "to relinquish something" means "to give it up voluntarily". In the case of "involuntariness", the word "snatch' or "concede" should rather be used. Will our certain power be castrated during the second step? LI proposes to set up certain mechanisms in the Greater Bay Area with the participation of representatives from the nine Mainland cities and the two SARs, and to entrust LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7691 these representatives with law enactment based on cardinal policies―the cardinal policies of the country. The so-called "laws" will then engulf Hong Kong like evil clutches or a gigantic doom.

LI's article mentions various respects, including economic development, financial services, talents, and also technological innovation. Upon hearing this, one may think the impact will not be significant. But the most important respect is financial services. President, it can be said that the financial industry is Hong Kong's lifeline. What will be the outcome if even the financial sector must also follow SCR's arrangement and the Legislative Council in Hong Kong must even enact laws as instructed?

LI expressly points out right at the beginning that a handful of people may pose hindrance. So what magic can be used to remove the hindrance? Perhaps drawing reference from the "Three-step Process" adopted for the co-location arrangement: the formulation of administrative measures as a start, followed by the seeking of NPCSC's approval. Members should bear in mind that the "Three-step Process" as it is so called will actually deprive this Council of its legislative power because Hong Kong must enact laws afterwards without any choices, and our enforcement and judicial power will also be taken away. Will Hong Kong be required to follow their judicial system, court system or adjudication system, as in the case of EU?

Even though it appears that the Greater Bay Area will benefit our economic development like a glass of sweet wine for our savouring, I am afraid that Hong Kong is too weak to withstand its strength, and it may suffer alcoholic poisoning in the end and perish forever.

I so submit.

DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): President, I am honestly amazed by Ms Tanya CHAN's talks about her make-believe world and fantasy.

We will only base on objective facts. My advice to opposition Members is that they must find out the thoughts of the community (or the people). We have no intention to require all Hong Kong people to move to the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area ("the Greater Bay Area") after it has been developed. Actually, they may choose not to move there, and nobody will force them to do so. We only try to explain to Members that 7692 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 following market liberalization, they will issue residence permits to those who intend to move to the Greater Bay Area, and they also welcome those who want to run business there. Which place on earth will give such preferential treatment to others? All actually boils down to the personal dislike of opposition Members.

When we visit local communities, we have come to know that many elderly people already plan to move to the Greater Bay Area, one example being Huizhou. They plan to buy a small house by the lake, so that they can take a stroll by the lakeside every morning and enjoy the beautiful environment. Afterwards, they may go to Chinese medicine clinics for check-ups. This is quite nice, right? So, what are they going to do with their properties in Hong Kong? They intend to lease their flats at $10,000 or $20,000 a month, and their rental incomes already suffice to cover their daily expenses. Nevertheless, they have also expressed the hope that the Government can provide some welfare benefits, such as allowing them to use medical vouchers in the Greater Bay Area. This can spare them the trouble to go back to Hong Kong once a month and find a temporary place to stay. Secretary, do you hear me? This is how people think.

As for young people, they have long since assimilated into the Greater Bay Area. Every Friday night, they will go to the Greater Bay Area for leisure and entertainment. When they do online shopping, they all use Taobao and make payments via Alipay. And, they also have hotpot at Haidilao Hot Pot. All these are from the Mainland. Speaking of serial dramas, they are now following Story of Yanxi Palace, and they watch video clips on TikTok. Actually, young people have long since assimilated into the Greater Bay Area. Only because people like us who are not quite so old or quite so young seldom go to the Mainland, we are concerned that Hong Kong may lose its autonomy. How can the development of the Greater Bay Area be related to "one country, two systems" in any way? No, it cannot. I only wish to tell opposition Members to step aside, so as to avoid "slowing down the rotation of Earth".

I remember that during the late 1990s, various factories moved to the Mainland one after another because we were unable to recruit enough workers in Hong Kong. We placed newspaper advertisements every day. As I remember, Oriental Daily was the press organization which I paid most for placing job advertisements. I placed job advertisements for my factory in the Tai Po Industrial Estate every day for prolonged periods. But I was unable to recruit any workers.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7693

Back then, we asked a government representative―that was the first time I had had dealings with the government bureaucracy, and I did not know how the Government operated―whether we could be allowed to recruit more workers from the Mainland because of our difficulties in recruiting manpower in Hong Kong. We also produced some receipts to him. But the government representative replied in the negative, saying that some in the opposition camp objected the idea. Afterwards, I went after him, asking why they raised objection, and whether it had ever occurred to him that if we were unable to recruit sufficient manpower, we would have to relocate our factories away from Hong Kong, and many workers would therefore lose their jobs by that time. The government representative replied that they would give further thoughts to the idea. In the end, we approached several Members from the business sector. They also agreed that manufacturers were facing recruitment difficulties. Therefore, the authorities formulated a policy on labour importation. But soon after the implementation of the policy, we discovered that the cost so incurred was much higher than the cost of employing a Hong Kong worker, as the monthly salary for a normal skilled worker from the Mainland was as much as $18,000, and we must also provide accommodation for him. This was the situation a couple of decades ago. And, this could not be a solution.

At the time, Hong Kong's reunification with China was fast approaching, so we proposed to allow manufacturers to set up factories in the frontier area, and to open the "back door" and also the "front door" respectively to Shenzhen workers and Hong Kong workers, so that they could enter the frontier area. We wondered if this was feasible. That way, Shenzhen workers might return to the Mainland immediately after work without entering Hong Kong's territory. But the opposition camp raised objection again, arguing that this was not feasible and would not work. As a result, factories moved out of Hong Kong one after another, and they all moved out of Hong Kong in the end. This is why Hong Kong's economy has degenerated into such a deplorable state. The impossibility of prosperous industrial or technological development in Hong Kong or their protracted development is very often a result of the political atmosphere.

Speaking of the development of the Greater Bay Area now under discussion, I heard some Members say that the concept of "nine Mainland cities plus two Special Administrative Regions" had long since existed. But the case in the past was different. I was among the first to make investment and set up factories in the Guangdong Province. At the time, I noticed that operating factories there could bring about an abundance of business opportunities, and the 7694 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 possibility of living there even occurred to me at one time. But due to inconvenience in daily life―perhaps because I was used to the way of life in Hong Kong, and things available in Hong Kong might not be available on the Mainland―I did not make up my mind to live on the Mainland in the end. But this was only my personal case, and the reason was that I still had a lot of work to do in Hong Kong. That said, many retirees and young people have moved to the Mainland indeed.

President, you must know that the Mainland market is huge. The "opening up of market" as we call it is actually targeted at young people in Hong Kong rather than us. Why should the opposition camp refuse to accept even just this, open their mind, and encourage young people to seek opportunities in the Greater Bay Area? Many Mainland enterprises which have attained huge success over the past few years are founded by young people. Just now, my colleague bought me a drink produced by "HEYTEA". I already threw away the cup after drinking it. "HEYTEA" was initially a store set up by a "post-90s" youngster on the Mainland. Subsequently, he set up branch stores one after another, and his business has become very successful now. Not only "HEYTEA" but also many other brands are set up by young people―some by Hong Kong young people, while some by Mainland youngsters. As long as there is a market for them, it will be at least possible for their any inventions to be used by the 1.3 billion people on the Mainland. There are only a few million people in Hong Kong. What should they do?

Secretary, I hope that the authorities can finalize the policies on the Greater Bay Area as early as possible and also other policies that can bring convenience to people (The buzzer sounded) … Thank you, President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHIANG, please stop speaking.

MR CHAN HAN-PAN (in Cantonese): President, the Outline Development Plan for the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area ("the Plan") was promulgated recently. It has specified the direction of the future development of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area ("the Greater Bay Area"), laid down definite and clear arrangements for the roles and positions to be given to various cities in the Greater Bay Area, and set out some appealing goals for the development of Hong Kong. However, such gestures of goodwill given by the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7695

Central Authorities have soon sparked a lot of speculations and controversies about the assertion that Hong Kong's position was in fact "being planned". Ms Claudia MO is one of those people who kept saying that Hong Kong's position was "being planned", and that Hong Kong was no different from other ordinary cities in the Mainland because its uniqueness was fading away. The remarks made are sharp and forceful, and it seems that the situation described is alarmingly dangerous. People chanting such heartrending slogans are undoubtedly Members of the opposition camp. But can they possibly have a deep understanding of the Plan and the latest development in the Mainland when they dare not attend the spring reception hosted by the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in Hong Kong? Or are they simply suffering from persecution paranoia again as they have tried to maintain their arrogant attitude and stick to their prejudice against the Government and the Central Government?

According to the Plan, the Greater Bay Area consists of nine Guangdong cities (including Guangzhou and Shenzhen) and two Special Administrative Regions, namely Hong Kong and Macao. It is specified in the Plan that the four major cities, Hong Kong, Macao, Guangzhou and Shenzhen, will serve as core engines for development. Among these four major cities, Hong Kong is the one mentioned most in the Plan. It has discussed at great length the positioning of Hong Kong, and highlighted Hong Kong's status as various centres and hubs. Hong Kong is a financial, transportation and trade centre and an international aviation hub. It will develop into a global offshore Renminbi business hub, an international asset management centre, a risk management centre and an international legal and dispute resolution services centre in the Asia-Pacific region. With this status as various centres and hubs in the region, Hong Kong has maintained a unique position which renders the city not readily replaceable. Therefore, Ms Claudia MO must not look down upon Hong Kong and consider that it can only serve as a legal services centre. She should make efforts to enhance her understanding about the contents of the Plan as a whole.

Apart from the general direction at a high level, proposals have also been put forward in the Plan to handle minor livelihood issues, such as medical care, education, starting up businesses, etc. For example, the issues covered in the Plan include mobile roaming service, assisting Hong Kong start-ups to apply for financial assistance in the Mainland, encouraging the setting up of schools for Hong Kong children, allowing Hong Kong people living in the Mainland to sit for the National College Entrance Examination, allowing Hong Kong people to apply for civil service posts in the Mainland, providing Hong Kong students with public 7696 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 transport fare concessions on the Mainland, promoting the use of an "all-purpose" card in the Greater Bay Area, etc. A caring and considerate approach has also been adopted to formulate measures in such respects, and I therefore hope that people of the opposition camp would not totally deny all these efforts with just one allegation about letting Hong Kong "being planned".

As a matter of fact, the development of Hong Kong can never be separated from that of the Mainland. For instance, when the new China was first established, a large number of merchants brought along their capital and came to look for development opportunities in Hong Kong, while the opening up of China attracted a lot of Hong Kong businessmen to go northward and set up factory operations in the Mainland. During the outbreak of Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome in Hong Kong, the Mainland authorities introduced the Individual Visit Scheme to vitalize our economy, and all these are examples to demonstrate that Hong Kong and the Mainland are born of the same root and have been together through thick and thin. As the country is now planning to go global, Hong Kong should seize the opportunity to leverage on its unique advantages. Together with other Mainland cities and Macao, each of us should strive to perform our respective roles and functions, exert our greatest efforts to pursue development and bring our strengths into full play. However, people of the opposition camp are so outrageous as to stubbornly allege that this is nothing but an attempt to have Hong Kong "being planned".

Regrettably, although the whole argument is easily comprehensible to everyone, people of the opposition camp are determined to maintain their usual image of setting themselves against the Central Authorities, to keep themselves away from the Central Authorities and other Mainland cities, and to cling to their position without regards for the views of others. As a result, no matter how beneficial it will be to Hong Kong to adopt the policies formulated, and what generous support this will offer for the development of young people in Hong Kong, they will only drain themselves of their last ounce of energy to make boos and catcalls. In fact, they have all along maintained an attitude of criticizing as loudly as they can to make things sound justified and attract attention. However, it has been over 20 years now since reunification, and in my opinion, it will no longer be reasonable to adopt such an attitude of seeking only to attract public attention, because indeed not many interested viewers are left.

Certainly, people can still be polite when speaking in a loud voice, but the behaviours of people from the opposition camp are really puzzling to me, because after they have screamed frenetically and demonized the Plan, no more action is LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7697 taken to follow up on the matter. Similarly, Ms Tanya CHAN has been ceaselessly criticizing the co-location arrangement, but if she does not know much about the actual implementation of the co-location arrangement, she can ask for more information from Mr Andrew WAN, who is sitting in front of her. He must have gained ample experiences in this area as he has organized a tour to visit the Mainland lately and has had a chance to ride on the high-speed rail. Although he has expressed objection to the co-location arrangement back then, he must have obtained some different experiences by now.

I hope Members of the opposition camp can break out of their narrow vision. It is always easier to destruct than to construct, and how difficult will it be to smear by chanting a slogan? However, astonishing remarks made for the sake of maintaining their image and clinging to their position will, after all, only serve to throw the public into panic. Do they really want all of us in Hong Kong to adopt a conservative attitude and a narrow vision like them, and look with envy upon other cities when they have leveraged on the opportunities presented by the rapid development in the Greater Bay Area? By then, crying over spilt milk can lead us to nowhere.

As rightly pointed out by President XI, "Opportunity knocks but once only." What we need to do now is to pluck up our courage to assume responsibility, and with our confidence in the future prospect and our determination to work for joint development with other Mainland cities, to follow the footsteps of the country and go global, so as to create a better future for the people of Hong Kong. Instead of making boos and catcalls only, people of the opposition camp should put forward concrete suggestions like the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong, which has organized a number of roundtable conferences on the Greater Bay Area and come up with a lot of concrete ideas. If they really want to help, they should do something to offer advice on the development of the Greater Bay Area, and make suggestions that are genuinely helpful to Hong Kong, instead of sticking to an attitude which they have adopted in the past 20-odd years to intimidate Hong Kong people, and keep demonizing the Mainland and all development proposals for Hong Kong.

President, I so submit.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, do you wish to speak?

7698 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): President, before the emergence of the name "Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area" ("the Greater Bay Area"), these nine Mainland cities, Hong Kong and Macao have already been in existence, and there have always been interchange, consumption, tourism, working, investment and entrepreneurship activities in the area. No one has ever tried to prevent people from spending money, travelling, taking up employment, investing and even starting businesses in these places.

Viewpoints raised by many Members of the pro-democracy camp today are good advice, but for those in the pro-establishment camp, good advice needed is certainly the least heeded. We can see how Members of the pro-establishment camp have embraced the development plan of the Greater Bay Area today, and I think it is only understandable that they would embrace the development of the Greater Bay Area and the plan and concept created by our state leaders. However, their enthusiasms have indeed raised eyebrows when they described the whole thing as "a chance that we should all hurry up to seize", or "an opportunity that knocks but once only". The Greater Bay Area is a market and a vast piece of land in their eyes, which can be used for housing construction, providing dwellings for the poor people in Hong Kong and creating job opportunities, and its roles and functions can be summed up by saying that it is our "God of Wealth". They therefore simply do not understand why we people of the pro-democracy camp are still pulling a long face and grumbling when this God is approaching.

Although the viewpoints we raise today are unpleasant to the ears of Members of the pro-establishment camp and the Government, I hope Hong Kong people would find them agreeable. Yet unexpectedly, Members of the pro-establishment camp, including Mr Abraham SHEK whom I very much admire and respect, have made it so nakedly clear today that things are no longer the same now with the rise of a great power, and it is Hong Kong which needs the support of the Greater Bay Area, but not vice versa. Is this really the case? Certainly, for quite some time in the past, Mainland China needed the support of Hong Kong, and the situation today may really be very much different from what it was 10 to 20 years ago. However, the development of the Greater Bay Area is like a concept stock, and I do not consider it justifiable to sell it in the market today without the participation of Hong Kong, a pearl of the region. Therefore, it does not worry me that things would really turn out as some people suggest, and Hong Kong would be pathetically left out when there is only a "nine plus one" arrangement in the development of the Greater Bay Area.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7699

Under section 3 in Chapter Nine of the Outline Development Plan for the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area, it proposes "to leverage the overseas commercial networks and the advantages brought about by the overseas operational experience of Hong Kong and Macao"―meaning that we do have certain advantages―"take forward Greater Bay Area enterprises' joint efforts in 'going global', and play a leading role in the international cooperation on production capacity". It also proposes "to leverage Hong Kong's status as an international financial centre, and provide services such as investment, financing as well as consultation for Mainland enterprises 'going global'". It can thus be seen that in the opinion of the officials who drafted the development plan for the Greater Bay Area, Hong Kong is indeed very important. Hong Kong will lose its genuine advantages and value if it cannot maintain its unique international status. I therefore cannot imagine how Financial Secretary Paul CHAN could have reacted like this when some reporters asked him what would happen if the United States decided to cancel the United States―Hong Kong Policy Act and he answered that it should give no cause for concern. Should this be taken to mean that we can just stick to the "nine plus two" arrangement in the future and be satisfied with our own development in the Greater Bay Area only?

Some Members of the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions asked a question just now: If we do not embrace the development of the Greater Bay Area, are we really going to isolate ourselves? Hong Kong has never isolated itself; it has always been an external-oriented economy connecting to different markets around the world. We should instead beware of focusing too much on the Mainland market after our integration into the Greater Bay Area. Certainly, if importance can be equally attached to both the internal and external markets without prejudice to the characteristics and advantages of Hong Kong, I will be glad to see people going to explore development opportunities in the Greater Bay Area. However, I have always urged the Government to remind these people of the risks involved and the price to be paid, and we should not keep bragging about its good prospect like the "Swindlers Party". When it comes to Hong Kong's unique advantages and role, it is our real concern that they will be fading away, and this is perhaps a risk that Hong Kong has to face even without the planning of the Greater Bay Area.

Hence, I need not worry that Shenzhen will outperform Hong Kong in terms of Gross Domestic Product, because even stock prices may rise or drop. But it will really be worrisome if people in Shenzhen will one day enjoy a higher degree of democracy, freedom and freedom of press than people in Hong Kong. 7700 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

We all know that the Mainland has not been performing to expectations as far as rule of law and democratic development are concerned, and it is in fact understandable that Hong Kong people are afraid that further integration with the Mainland will undermine their existing rights. Some officials have suggested to us that as long as we can share with them all the good things that we have, gradual changes will take place and both parties will be able to improve together. However, this does not seem to be the case.

If the Mainland can develop towards an open and free system like that implemented in Hong Kong, we will be most happy to see that the market and living space of Hong Kong people can be extended without infringing on their human rights, but it seems that this is just a dream. The Secretary for Security has recently proposed to introduce legislative amendments to the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance so that its coverage will be extended to other Mainland cities, and I wonder why not making it applicable to the Greater Bay Area first. However, the proposal has already aroused the concern of the community, especially the business sector, thus proving that the business sector and international enterprises in Hong Kong lack confidence in the legal system of the Mainland.

Therefore, during this process of integration or Hong Kong being integrated, the most important thing is for Hong Kong to maintain its own advantages and avoid the gradual erosion of its core values. We must not get carried away by money and opportunities, and give green lights to all proposals put forward, claiming that we should take them on board as soon as possible, or else we will become the enemy of Hong Kong people. This is absolutely not our objective.

MR AU NOK-HIN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, actually I have all along considered that the core of the motion debate is very simple. When we discuss the opportunities of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area ("the Greater Bay Area"), I think we should not only talk about the opportunities. When we talk about economic integration or the planning of the nine municipalities, I believe Members should understand that each place has its uniqueness. Besides, we should also be vigilant to see whether part of our current systems and interests will be undermined when we embrace opportunities. If they will be undermined, I think we should protect Hong Kong people and the decency of Hong Kong as a municipality. It is actually a simple issue. Just now some Members, including Mr Abraham SHEK, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7701

Mr CHAN Han-pan and so on, have spoken on a common point, and that is: Why should we not embrace the opportunity? The opportunity is quite good and we should embrace it. I am not going to stop you from embracing it, but the price for embracing the opportunity is that we are too optimistic and we will end up in troubles.

Let us talk about the HUAWEI incident first. Why the HUAWEI incident is relevant to Hong Kong? In fact, the HUAWEI incident is sparked off just because of its Hong Kong registered subsidiary which is alleged by the United Stated for doing businesses with some countries banned by the Unites States. Has Hong Kong become the "white gloves" of some red capitalists? That is, they make use of Hong Kong's system by continuously hollowing out Hong Kong's role in international trade, and it is the root of these problems. Therefore, we cannot blame those who say that under the United States-Hong Kong Policy Act, the two issues concerning Hong Kong as a separate customs territory and the transfer of advanced technology should be dealt with separately. If the future integration of Hong Kong with the Greater Bay Area prevents people outside Hong Kong from seeing Hong Kong's uniqueness, in particular its own set of standards concerning intellectual property rights, they will think that Hong Kong is in no way different from other Mainland municipalities.

Hong Kong has its own system for patents and trademarks, and the two places are implementing two different systems. If a famous foreign brand is sued for patent infringement on the Mainland, Members would see many undesirable consequences. At the end of the day, this famous brand cannot protect its own right of intellectual property. Nevertheless, at least I believe that no matter how Hong Kong's judicial system is challenged as at today, Hong Kong can give people more confidence as far as the protection of intellectual property rights is concerned. At the end of the day, if our system is being … you just talk about opportunities, saying that everything should become uniform and everything should be integrated, then problems with the system being undermined will emerge.

Secondly, it is obvious that risks may arise with more frequent economic dealings. Let us take capital as an example. Why can Mainland's Alipay not be used throughout Hong Kong? It is because the Mainland worries that the money of Mainland and that of Hong Kong can flow freely in and out of China. In that case, the others may suspect that money laundry is taking place. Up till today, if you want to open a bank account in Hong Kong, you will find that Hong Kong's banking industry is very prudent about the inflow and outflow of large 7702 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 sum of money as they are very vigilant about Mainland's money laundering activities. You people have been emphasizing the links between the two places and everything should be unified. But you take no heed of this part. Eventually, Hong Kong will be blamed for being others' "white gloves".

With regards to talents, some people suggest that Hong Kong and the Greater Bay Area should implement the European Union model by adopting the mutual recognition of working visa system and so on. You may bring this issue to the professionals, such as doctors, accountants or lawyers. I took my students to visit the Hong Kong Social Workers' General Union recently, and the social work profession was also concerned about practising in the Greater Bay Area. You may talk about the unification of the registration of social workers, but different places will have different understanding about the profession. Now you emphasize unification, but professional sectors of Hong Kong have already developed their uniqueness and decency. Are we mindful enough to give them the corresponding protection?

As a result, the question is very simple. When we say that we should embrace the opportunity of the Greater Bay Area, we should never turn a blind eye to Hong Kong's own system. We cannot ignore issues that may involve the use of social resources, including the concessions to be granted for Hong Kong people to reside in the Greater Bay Area on a temporary basis, which have been mentioned by some Members. If we look at the other side of the same coin, we may ask: Is it possible that Hong Kong's public resources will be used? If the answer is yes, seeing that our public hospitals have gone beyond their capacities today and our education system has been flawed with problems, may I ask if we are prepared for the challenges? At this moment, I cannot see that the Hong Kong Government has shown us the corresponding mindfulness.

A lot of development objectives concerning the financial sector and innovation and technology have been proposed in the recent Budget. The Government has indeed put a lot of emphasis on those areas in order to meet and greet the opportunity of the Greater Bay Area. I think that when we formulate policies, we should understand the differences among various municipalities as well as our own edges, in addition to putting the emphasis on embracing the opportunity.

Mr LEUNG, I so submit.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7703

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

(No Member indicated a wish to speak)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): If not, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, you may now speak on the amendments. The time limit is five minutes.

MR WONG TING-KWONG (in Cantonese): President, I thank the 29 Members for speaking on this motion today, and among them, eight Members have introduced their amendments. I support most of the amendments but have grave reservations about the amendments moved by Mr WU Chi-wai and Dr KWOK Ka-ki.

Mr WU Chi-wai's amendment has deleted certain wording of my original motion, including "to adopt more proactive measures to facilitate the daily living and travel of members of the public in Hong Kong", and added "make a request to the Central Government for reducing interference from the Mainland and safeguarding the 'high degree of autonomy' that is deserved by Hong Kong and undertaken in the Basic Law". His way of making his political declaration and statement is totally unacceptable to me. Therefore, the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong ("DAB") will vote against this amendment.

As regards Dr KWOK Ka-ki's amendment, "the contents of which have taken on board the views of Hong Kong, Macao and the major cities in the Greater Bay Area, setting out the directions for future development of the Greater Bay Area" in the original motion has been changed into "the contents of which have, without seeking the views of Hong Kong people, unilaterally planned with a top-down approach the role of Hong Kong in the Greater Bay Area". Politically speaking, this amendment is in contradiction to DAB's political stance and at odds with the facts. When he spoke earlier, he mentioned the history of the Greater Bay Area. I do not understand why Dr KWOK has been, for his whole life, turning a blind eye to the developments and achievements of China, smearing and viciously attacking China for everything. The Outline Development Plan for the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area ("the Plan") is a draft drawn up together by the National Development and Reform 7704 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

Commission of the Peoples' Republic of China ("NDRC") and the three governments of Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macao, and is a document constantly refined together by the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office of the State Council and the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("SAR"). While NDRC has consulted the three governments of Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macao in respect of the draft Plan for solicitation of opinions, the SAR Government also points out that basically, Hong Kong's views have been taken on board. Hence, there is absolutely no such thing as the role of Hong Kong in the Greater Bay Area being unilaterally planned. DAB will thus vote against Dr KWOK Ka-ki's amendment.

Thank you, President.

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): President, I would like to thank Mr WONG Ting-kwong once again for raising this motion today on "Proactively expanding development opportunities in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area", giving me another chance to listen to the views of the Legislative Council Members on how Hong Kong can participate in the development of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area ("the Greater Bay Area"). Thirty Members spoke just now on a wide range of policy areas and put forth plenty of concrete suggestions. Meanwhile, some Members raised queries on the development of the Greater Bay Area under certain misunderstanding.

First of all, I would like to point out that with regard to Hong Kong, the development of the Greater Bay Area not only fosters the diversified development of its economy and industries, but also improves people's livelihood, expands the living and development space of Hong Kong residents, enlisting the Greater Bay Area as an extensive hinterland of the territory. Some Members, especially Mr WU Chi-wai and Dr KWOK Ka-ki in their amendments, have raised queries and expressed worries that development of the Greater Bay Area will eclipse Hong Kong's uniqueness and positioning. They further held that the development of the Greater Bay Area might weaken "one country, two systems", and so on. I will first provide explanation and clarification to address queries and misunderstanding in this regard.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7705

First, about "one country, two systems". The Outline Development Plan for the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area ("the Plan") lists six basic principles expressly; one of them is "one country, two systems" which is very clearly laid out. The Plan puts it down this way (I quote): "To integrate the adherence to the 'one country' principle and the respect for the differences of the 'two systems', stay committed to the basis of 'one country', and leverage the benefits of 'two systems'. To integrate the upholding of the Central Government's overall jurisdiction and the safeguarding of a high degree of autonomy in the special administrative regions, respect the rule of law, and act strictly in accordance with the Constitution and the Basic Laws. To integrate the needs of the country with the strengths of Hong Kong and Macao, fully leverage the market-driven mechanism, foster complementarity among Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macao, and achieve joint development." Leaders of the Central Authorities have repeatedly reiterated that the principles of "one country, two systems", "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" and "a high degree of autonomy" will be upheld when taking forward the development of the Greater Bay Area. The process will neither lead to a blurred boundary between the two systems as feared by some, nor to the weakening of Hong Kong's status as a separate customs territory, not to mention to the so-called assimilation of Hong Kong into the Mainland. As a matter of fact, the development of the Greater Bay Area stresses mutually beneficial cooperation, complementarity and synergies; the focus is not only on our own development but also on the overall development of the entire region, allowing us to achieve a "one plus one equals more than two" effect.

As the most internationalized city in the entire Greater Bay Area, Hong Kong undoubtedly has a unique role to play. Hence, "one country, two systems" is the greatest strengthen of the Greater Bay Area and an important cornerstone leading to its internationalization. How can we not strictly adhere to "one country, two systems" when playing out the strength and potentials of the Greater Bay Area?

Mr CHAN Chi-chuen made a well-taken comment just now when pointing out the Plan's affirmation of Hong Kong's importance and uniqueness. Precisely because of this, how can we not uphold the principle of "one country, two systems" all the more when developing the Greater Bay Area so as to reap better results? The Special Administrative Region ("SAR") Government thoroughly believes that advancing the development of the Greater Bay Area helps enrich the substance of "one country, two systems" and is conducive to maintaining the long -term prosperity and stability of Hong Kong. 7706 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

Secondly, "Hong Kong is being planned" is the line most frequently quoted by Members, as if "being planned" had become a mantra of those of them who are sceptical of the initiative. I do hope we can look at the development of the Greater Bay Area objectively and open-mindedly. We should not neglect that interactivity is one of the most crucial elements in its development.

In fact, the entire Plan is a product of interactivity among various parties throughout its conception, drafting and finalization processes. The interactions at play include those among the Central Government, the relevant ministries, the National Development and Reform Commission of the People's Republic of China, and the governments of Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macao; the interactions among Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macao; as well as the interactions and discussions between the SAR Government and various community sectors in Hong Kong, including the industrial and commercial sector, the professional sector, community organizations and different political parties. Members of certain political groups, such as the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong and the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions, have brought up very specific recommendations for us to follow up. Some other political parties have raised queries to which we provided clarification subsequently. Hence, we have taken on board views from various social sectors in the interactions and then relayed them to the Central Authorities. As a matter of fact, all the views and comments we made have been accepted and reflected in the Plan.

Therefore, I encourage Members, especially those who are sceptical of the initiative, to read how Hong Kong's role, function and positioning are mentioned in the Plan. Let me quote: "To consolidate and enhance Hong Kong's status as international financial, transportation and trade centres as well as an international aviation hub, strengthen its status as a global offshore Renminbi ("RMB") business hub and its role as an international asset management centre and a risk management centre, promote the development of high-end and high value-added financial, commercial and trading, logistics and professional services, etc., make great efforts to develop the innovation and technology industries, nurture emerging industries, establish itself as the centre for international legal and dispute resolution services in the Asia-Pacific region, and develop into an international metropolis with enhanced competiveness." Are the role, function and positioning of Hong Kong mentioned here not the targets that we have been pursuing for years, the development that we hope Hong Kong can achieve and the improvements beneficial to Hong Kong's overall economy, community and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7707 livelihood? This kind of interactivity will not come to a halt with the promulgation of the Plan. Therefore, we need interactions from various social sectors before implementing the policy measures as a next step: we need comments and suggestions so that we can endeavour to achieve policy breakthrough and policy innovation, thereby ensuring the measures to be implemented are meticulous and targeted.

The so-called "being planned", as in the sense that Hong Kong is to faithfully implement a prepared document given to it, is an impossibility, far away from the reality.

Thirdly, some Members fear that Hong Kong might be exploited and weakened. They wonder if Hong Kong can stay put and opt out of the interaction. I hope we can ponder the objective environment that we are now in. Hong Kong is a highly open economy, we actively participated in the 40 years of reform and opening up of the Country in the past, contributing to the Country's success in reform and opening up and Hong Kong's own substantial development. Hence, regardless of Hong Kong's participation or otherwise, Mainland cities in the Greater Bay Area will continue to grow and the economy of our surrounding area will certainly keep opening up. Given such a reality, should we not go and see the development of Mainland cities in the Greater Bay Area with an open-mind and consider for ourselves our imminent opportunities and forthcoming development? A good example was the duty visit jointly paid by four Legislative Council panels to the Greater Bay Area last April. After coming back, participating Members from different political parties all found the visit rewarding and helpful to our discussion on how Hong Kong can help facilitate the development of the Greater Bay Area. Therefore, given this objective state of affairs, is it not most advantageous for us not to resist cooperation?

Competitiveness is a concern to all of us. If we refuse to participate in the development of the Greater Bay Area, will Hong Kong's competitiveness increase automatically? Hong Kong should consider how to address itself to the development of the entire region. The development plan for the Greater Bay Area has formulated a direction which at the same time is the target we are striving for. Hence, we should work with each other all the more. Hiding behind a closed door is not the way forward; Hong Kong must further widen the space for development.

7708 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

Fourth, about talents. Some Members worry that the development of the Greater Bay Area will empty our talent pool. I find this comment verging on an alarmist remark. We all know that talents flow in both ways, and naturally towards wherever development opportunities exist. We have never said that "we must seek development opportunities in the Greater Bay Area, or else we will miss all opportunities". This is neither the reality nor our message. We just suggest that great development opportunities are presented in the Mainland cities within the Greater Bay Area, or throughout the entire Greater Bay Area. Should we not encourage the young to understand the development there with an open mind and consider independently their own development space in future? Their space can be found in Hong Kong, in the Mainland, or on foreign land.

I really would not like to avoid visiting the Mainland defiantly, like what some Members have been doing, and let myself get stuck in the past and deprived of knowledge about the Country. This actually is unconducive to the future development of Hong Kong. Of course, some Members worry that Mainland may introduce certain policy measures to compete for talents with us. But Hong Kong has all along been the most open economy. We are unafraid of competition which is nothing new to us. What we do need is preserving the strength in our system, in areas such as the rule of law, judicial independence, infrastructure development, land supply, internationalization, international liaison and the standard in services such as health care and education. These are all our advantages attractive to the talents. We should have confidence in Hong Kong and we should work together.

President, Members put forth a lot of comments just now on how to realize the development directions laid down in the Plan, spanning extensively from innovation and technology, financial services, shipping, aviation, innovation and entrepreneurship for the young to the creation of a living circle that is good for living, working and travelling. We are very grateful to the Members for their views and will carefully consider and follow up with these views.

All in all, the SAR Government's forthcoming work focus includes: consolidating and enhancing Hong Kong's status as international financial, shipping, trade and international aviation hub; developing an international innovation and technology centre; expanding the scope of development for sectors in which Hong Kong's strengths lie; enhancing the connectivity among cities in the Greater Bay Area; fostering youth innovation and entrepreneurship; LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7709 fully utilizing Hong Kong's international connections and networks to promote the Greater Bay Area overseas and attract capital and talents as well as advancing the development of the Greater Bay Area into an important support for the Belt and Road Initiative. In implementing these suggestions, we will set up the Greater Bay Area Development Office under the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau with the support of the Steering Committee for the Development of the Greater Bay Area, which is chaired by the Chief Executive, and hopefully with the early approval from the Finance Committee of the Legislative Council. This will help us maintain interactivity with various social sectors, take on board their suggestions and measures, and then contribute all we can in policy formulation as well as policy innovation and breakthroughs, so as to effect progress in our economy, society and people's livelihood under the growth context of the Greater Bay Area and facilitate a better development throughout the Greater Bay Area.

I so submit, Thank you, President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now call upon Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok to move an amendment.

IR DR LO WAI-KWOK (in Cantonese): President, I move that Mr WONG Ting-kwong's motion be amended.

The amendment moved by Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok (See the marked-up version at Annex 1)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok's amendment 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)

7710 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

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

(Members raised their hands)

Mr Gary FAN rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Gary FAN has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for five minutes.

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

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr KWOK Wai-keung, do you intend to vote?

(Mr KWOK Wai-keung cast his 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 Abraham SHEK, 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, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LAU Kwok-fan, Mr Kenneth LAU and Mr Tony TSE voted for the amendment.

Prof Joseph LEE, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr SHIU Ka-chun, Dr Pierre CHAN, Mr LUK Chung-hung and Mr KWONG Chun-yu voted against the amendment.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7711

Mr POON Siu-ping abstained.

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

Geographical Constituencies:

Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Dr Junius HO, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, Mr Vincent CHENG and Ms CHAN Hoi-yan voted for the amendment.

Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Ms Alice MAK, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, 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, Mr Jeremy TAM, Mr Gary FAN and Mr AU Nok-hin voted against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 28 were present, 19 were in favour of the amendment, 7 against it and 1 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 30 were present, 13 were in favour of the amendment and 17 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 amendment was negatived.

MS STARRY LEE (in Cantonese): President, I move that in the event of further divisions being claimed in respect of the motion on "Proactively expanding development opportunities in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area" or any amendments thereto, this Council do proceed to each of such divisions immediately after the division bell has been rung for one minute.

(A number of Members spoke in their seats)

7712 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Members please keep quiet.

I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Ms Starry LEE 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.

(No hands raised)

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

I order that in the event of further divisions being claimed in respect of the motion concerned or any amendments thereto, this Council do proceed to each of such divisions immediately after the division bell has been rung for one minute.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Christopher CHEUNG, you may move your amendment.

MR CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I move that Mr WONG Ting-kwong's motion be amended.

The amendment moved by Mr Christopher CHEUNG (See the marked-up version at Annex 2)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7713

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That Mr Christopher CHEUNG's amendment 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)

Mr Gary FAN rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Gary FAN has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

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 Abraham SHEK, 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 HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Dr Pierre CHAN, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan, Mr Kenneth LAU and Mr Tony TSE voted for the amendment.

7714 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

Mr James TO, Prof Joseph LEE, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr SHIU Ka-chun and Mr KWONG Chun-yu voted against the amendment.

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

Geographical Constituencies:

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

Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, 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, Mr Jeremy TAM, Mr Gary FAN and Mr AU Nok-hin voted against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 29 were present, 23 were in favour of the amendment and 5 against it; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 30 were present, 16 were in favour of the amendment and 14 against it. Since the question was agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Members have already been informed that as Mr Christopher CHEUNG's amendment has been passed, Mr WU Chi-wai and Dr KWOK Ka-ki have withdrawn their amendments.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Tony TSE, as the amendment of Mr Christopher CHEUNG has been passed, you may move your revised amendment.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7715

MR TONY TSE (in Cantonese): President, I move that Mr WONG Ting-kwong's motion be further amended by my revised amendment.

The revised amendment moved by Mr Tony TSE (See the marked-up version at Annex 3)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That Mr Tony TSE's revised amendment 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)

Mr Gary FAN rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Gary FAN has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

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 Abraham SHEK, 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, 7716 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Dr Pierre CHAN, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan, Mr Kenneth LAU and Mr Tony TSE voted for the amendment.

Mr James TO, Prof Joseph LEE, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr SHIU Ka-chun and Mr KWONG Chun-yu voted against the amendment.

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

Geographical Constituencies:

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

Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, 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, Mr Jeremy TAM, Mr Gary FAN and Mr AU Nok-hin voted against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 29 were present, 23 were in favour of the amendment and 5 against it; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 30 were present, 16 were in favour of the amendment and 14 against it. Since the question was agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr YIU Si-wing, as the amendments of Mr Christopher CHEUNG and Mr Tony TSE have been passed, you may move your revised amendment.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7717

MR YIU SI-WING (in Cantonese): President, I move that Mr WONG Ting-kwong's motion be further amended by my revised amendment.

The revised amendment moved by Mr YIU Si-wing (See the marked-up version at Annex 4)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That Mr YIU Si-wing's revised amendment 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)

Mr Gary FAN rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Gary FAN has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

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 Abraham SHEK, 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, 7718 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan, Mr Kenneth LAU and Mr Tony TSE voted for the amendment.

Mr James TO, Prof Joseph LEE, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr SHIU Ka-chun, Dr Pierre CHAN and Mr KWONG Chun-yu voted against the amendment.

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

Geographical Constituencies:

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

Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, 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, Mr Jeremy TAM, Mr Gary FAN and Mr AU Nok-hin voted against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 29 were present, 22 were in favour of the amendment and 6 against it; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 30 were present, 16 were in favour of the amendment and 14 against it. Since the question was agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Martin LIAO, as the amendments of Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Tony TSE and Mr YIU Si-wing have been passed, you may move your revised amendment.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7719

MR MARTIN LIAO (in Cantonese): President, I move that Mr WONG Ting-kwong's motion be further amended by my revised amendment.

The revised amendment moved by Mr Martin LIAO (See the marked-up version at Annex 5)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That Mr Martin LIAO's revised amendment 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)

Mr Gary FAN rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Gary FAN has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

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 Abraham SHEK, 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, 7720 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Dr Pierre CHAN, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan, Mr Kenneth LAU and Mr Tony TSE voted for the amendment.

Mr James TO, Prof Joseph LEE, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr SHIU Ka-chun and Mr KWONG Chun-yu voted against the amendment.

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

Geographical Constituencies:

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

Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, 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, Mr Jeremy TAM, Mr Gary FAN and Mr AU Nok-hin voted against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 29 were present, 23 were in favour of the amendment and 5 against it; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 30 were present, 16 were in favour of the amendment and 14 against it. Since the question was agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HO Kai-ming, as the amendments of Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Tony TSE, Mr YIU Si-wing and Mr Martin LIAO have been passed, you may move your revised amendment.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7721

MR HO KAI-MING (in Cantonese): President, I move that Mr WONG Ting-kwong's motion be further amended by my revised amendment.

The revised amendment moved by Mr HO Kai-ming (See the marked-up version at Annex 6)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That Mr HO Kai-ming's revised amendment 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)

Mr Gary FAN rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Gary FAN has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

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 Abraham SHEK, 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, 7722 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Dr Pierre CHAN, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan, Mr Kenneth LAU and Mr Tony TSE voted for the amendment.

Mr James TO, Prof Joseph LEE, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr SHIU Ka-chun and Mr KWONG Chun-yu voted against the amendment.

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

Geographical Constituencies:

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

Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, 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, Mr Jeremy TAM, Mr Gary FAN and Mr AU Nok-hin voted against the amendment.

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 29 were present, 23 were in favour of the amendment and 5 against it; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 30 were present, 16 were in favour of the amendment and 14 against it. Since the question was agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WONG Ting-kwong, you still have 2 minutes 45 seconds to reply. Then, the debate will come to a close.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7723

MR WONG TING-KWONG (in Cantonese): President, I believe people of all political positions cannot deny the positive effects of the development of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area ("the Greater Bay Area") on the future economic prosperity of Hong Kong. To further enhance our economy and people's livelihood, we must, undoubtedly, jointly explore development with our neighbouring regions and cities. Dr CHENG Chung-tai said just now that the Mainland economy was dipping and Hong Kong should not be dragged down by it. Although its GDP growth rates in recent years have slowed down as compared with those in the past, the Mainland still managed to achieve a 6% growth rate. Which country on earth can achieve this high level of growth? If Hong Kong can tie in with the tempo of the Greater Bay Area and achieve this growth rate, it will be a huge piece of good news to Hong Kong.

President, I urge Members to support my motion.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Mr WONG Ting-kwong, as amended by Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Tony TSE, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr Martin LIAO and Mr HO Kai-ming, 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)

Mr Gary FAN rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Gary FAN has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.

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

7724 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

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 Abraham SHEK, 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 HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan, Mr Kenneth LAU and Mr Tony TSE voted for the motion as amended.

Mr James TO, Prof Joseph LEE, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr SHIU Ka-chun, Dr Pierre CHAN and Mr KWONG Chun-yu voted against the motion as amended.

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

Geographical Constituencies:

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

Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, 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, Mr Jeremy TAM, Mr Gary FAN and Mr AU Nok-hin voted against the motion as amended.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7725

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 29 were present, 22 were in favour of the motion as amended and 6 against it; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 30 were present, 16 were in favour of the motion as amended and 14 against it. Since the question was agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the motion as amended was passed.

SUSPENSION OF MEETING

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now suspend the meeting until 9:00 am tomorrow.

Suspended accordingly at 7:39 pm.

7726 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

Annex 1

The marked-up version of the amendment moved by Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok (Translation)

That in February 2019, the Central Government has promulgated the Outline Development Plan for the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area ('the Plan'), the contents of which have taken on board the views and proposals of Hong Kong, Macao and the major cities in the Greater Bay Area, setting out the directions for future development of the Greater Bay Area, putting forward specific economic development objectives for Hong Kong and proposing a number of measures to facilitate Hong Kong people in living and working and Hong Kong enterprises in operating on the Mainland; in order to enable Hong Kong to properly perform the role of a core engine for regional development, consolidate and upgrade Hong Kong's status as an international financial and trade centre and an international maritime and aviation hub, grasp new opportunities of future development and improve people's livelihood, this Council urges the SAR Government to formulate policies and allocate more resources to develop pillar industries, innovation and technology and other emerging industries, and to adopt more proactive measures to facilitate the daily living and travel of members of the public in Hong Kong, so as to offer appropriate channels of business expansion in the Greater Bay Area to enterprises of different sizes (micro, small, medium and large), create more new development and employment opportunities for Hong Kong people, particularly young people, and provide Hong Kong people with living space of better quality; specific policy measures include:

(1) enhancing the training of innovation and technology talents, formulating more flexible talent admission policies, perfecting the collaboration mechanisms in innovation and technology between Hong Kong and the Mainland, establishing various exchange platforms for corporate and talent partners in innovation and technology, strengthening the integration and matching of production supply chains within the Greater Bay Area and promoting commercialization of research and development results;

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7727

(2) further fine-tuning the arrangements for customs clearance of goods between Hong Kong and the Mainland, and striving for the opening up of more boundary control points to implement 24-hour clearance operation, so as to enhance Hong Kong's status as an international maritime and aviation hub;

(3) continuously conducting negotiations with Mainland government departments to strive for lowering of the thresholds for operating various professional services on the Mainland and perfecting mutual recognition of professional qualifications, and further fine-tuning the arrangements for various corporate and personal taxation (including cross-border taxation), so as to strengthen the financial support for Hong Kong enterprises in the Greater Bay Area; and

(4) perfecting the portability of welfare benefits between Hong Kong and the Mainland, and providing more transport concessions to Hong Kong people who travel frequently between the two places, so as to support them in living and working on the Mainland.

Note: Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok's amendment is marked in bold and italic type or with deletion line.

7728 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

Annex 2

The marked-up version of the amendment moved by Mr Christopher CHEUNG (Translation)

That after prudent planning, the Central Government has promulgated the Outline Development Plan for the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area ('the Plan'), the contents of which have taken on board the views of Hong Kong, Macao and the major cities in the Greater Bay Area, setting out the directions for future development of the Greater Bay Area, putting forward specific economic development objectives for Hong Kong and proposing a number of measures to facilitate Hong Kong people in living and working on the Mainland; in order to enable Hong Kong to properly perform the role of a core engine for regional development, grasp new opportunities of future development and improve people's livelihood, this Council urges the SAR Government to formulate policies and allocate more resources to develop pillar industries, innovation and technology and other emerging industries, and to adopt more proactive measures to facilitate the daily living and travel of members of the public in Hong Kong, so as to offer appropriate channels of business expansion in the Greater Bay Area to enterprises of different sizes (micro, small, medium and large), create more new development and employment opportunities for Hong Kong people, particularly young people, and provide Hong Kong people with living space of better quality; the SAR Government should also proactively take part in promoting the development of the Greater Bay Area to the benefit of the Hong Kong economy, and through various measures, expand the leading advantages of the financial sector in Hong Kong by, among others, accelerating the process of forging connectivity with the financial markets on the Mainland, facilitating healthy competition among the three exchanges under one country and making concerted efforts to take forward the development of a financial innovation zone in the Greater Bay Area, so as to promote 'connectivity among three new domains' featuring connectivity in capital, talents and systems, and hence achieving full connectivity among the financial markets in the Greater Bay Area.

Note: Mr Christopher CHEUNG's amendment is marked in bold and italic type.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7729

Annex 3

The marked-up version of the revised amendment moved by Mr Tony TSE (Translation)

That after prudent planning, the Central Government has promulgated the Outline Development Plan for the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area ('the Plan'), the contents of which have taken on board the views of Hong Kong, Macao and the major cities in the Greater Bay Area, setting out the directions for future development of the Greater Bay Area, putting forward specific economic development objectives for Hong Kong and proposing a number of measures to facilitate Hong Kong people in living and working on the Mainland; in order to enable Hong Kong to properly perform the role of a core engine for regional development, grasp new opportunities of future development and improve people's livelihood, this Council urges the SAR Government to formulate policies and allocate more resources to develop pillar industries, innovation and technology and other emerging industries, and to adopt more proactive measures to facilitate the daily living and travel of members of the public in Hong Kong, so as to offer appropriate channels of business expansion in the Greater Bay Area to enterprises of different sizes (micro, small, medium and large), create more new development and employment opportunities for Hong Kong people, particularly young people, and provide Hong Kong people with living space of better quality; the SAR Government should also proactively take part in promoting the development of the Greater Bay Area to the benefit of the Hong Kong economy, and through various measures, expand the leading advantages of the financial sector in Hong Kong by, among others, accelerating the process of forging connectivity with the financial markets on the Mainland, facilitating healthy competition among the three exchanges under one country and making concerted efforts to take forward the development of a financial innovation zone in the Greater Bay Area, so as to promote 'connectivity among three new domains' featuring connectivity in capital, talents and systems, and hence achieving full connectivity among the financial markets in the Greater Bay Area; other specific measures include:

(1) appealing to the Mainland authorities that the Mainland individual income tax payable by Hong Kong people working in the Greater Bay Area must not be higher than the tax payable by them in Hong Kong; 7730 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

(2) strengthening cooperation with other cities in the Greater Bay Area in operating and managing the existing and soon-to-be-completed cross-boundary transport infrastructure, so as to enhance the overall operational efficiency of the facilities;

(3) capitalizing on the advantages of Hong Kong to promote the formulation of performance standards for the service industry in the Greater Bay Area that are in line with the international standards, and expanding the scope of mutual recognition of professional qualifications among the Mainland, Hong Kong and Macao;

(4) cooperating with various cities in the Greater Bay Area and the relevant enterprises to launch more youth internship programmes targeting the professional sectors and organize more competitions relating to the planning and design of construction projects for young professionals; and

(5) strengthening cooperation with other cities in the Greater Bay Area to increase opportunities for exchanges of and training for civil servants at various levels in Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macao by, among others, organizing more thematic courses and seminars on and field trips to the Greater Bay Area, and to study the exchange of civil servants with Guangzhou and Shenzhen on a pilot basis for short-term attachment training in the relevant corresponding departments, so as to develop empathetic thinking in swapped positions.

Note: Mr Tony TSE's amendment is marked in bold and italic type.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7731

Annex 4

The marked-up version of the revised amendment moved by Mr YIU Si-wing (Translation)

That after prudent planning, the Central Government has promulgated the Outline Development Plan for the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area ('the Plan'), the contents of which have taken on board the views of Hong Kong, Macao and the major cities in the Greater Bay Area, setting out the directions for future development of the Greater Bay Area, putting forward specific economic development objectives for Hong Kong and proposing a number of measures to facilitate Hong Kong people in living and working on the Mainland; in order to enable Hong Kong to properly perform the role of a core engine for regional development, grasp new opportunities of future development and improve people's livelihood, this Council urges the SAR Government to formulate policies and allocate more resources to develop pillar industries, innovation and technology and other emerging industries, and to adopt more proactive measures to facilitate the daily living and travel of members of the public in Hong Kong, so as to offer appropriate channels of business expansion in the Greater Bay Area to enterprises of different sizes (micro, small, medium and large), create more new development and employment opportunities for Hong Kong people, particularly young people, and provide Hong Kong people with living space of better quality; the SAR Government should also proactively take part in promoting the development of the Greater Bay Area to the benefit of the Hong Kong economy, and through various measures, expand the leading advantages of the financial sector in Hong Kong by, among others, accelerating the process of forging connectivity with the financial markets on the Mainland, facilitating healthy competition among the three exchanges under one country and making concerted efforts to take forward the development of a financial innovation zone in the Greater Bay Area, so as to promote 'connectivity among three new domains' featuring connectivity in capital, talents and systems, and hence achieving full connectivity among the financial markets in the Greater Bay Area; other specific measures include:

(1) appealing to the Mainland authorities that the Mainland individual income tax payable by Hong Kong people working in the Greater Bay Area must not be higher than the tax payable by them in Hong Kong; 7732 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

(2) strengthening cooperation with other cities in the Greater Bay Area in operating and managing the existing and soon-to-be-completed cross-boundary transport infrastructure, so as to enhance the overall operational efficiency of the facilities;

(3) capitalizing on the advantages of Hong Kong to promote the formulation of performance standards for the service industry in the Greater Bay Area that are in line with the international standards, and expanding the scope of mutual recognition of professional qualifications among the Mainland, Hong Kong and Macao;

(4) cooperating with various cities in the Greater Bay Area and the relevant enterprises to launch more youth internship programmes targeting the professional sectors and organize more competitions relating to the planning and design of construction projects for young professionals; and

(5) strengthening cooperation with other cities in the Greater Bay Area to increase opportunities for exchanges of and training for civil servants at various levels in Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macao by, among others, organizing more thematic courses and seminars on and field trips to the Greater Bay Area, and to study the exchange of civil servants with Guangzhou and Shenzhen on a pilot basis for short-term attachment training in the relevant corresponding departments, so as to develop empathetic thinking in swapped positions; and

(6) seizing the development opportunities in the Greater Bay Area to promote the development of the tourism industry and attract more overseas visitors to visit Hong Kong on multi-destination itineraries, so as to give play to the role of Hong Kong as a tourism hub.

Note: Mr YIU Si-wing's amendment is marked in bold and italic type.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7733

Annex 5

The marked-up version of the revised amendment moved by Mr Martin LIAO (Translation)

That after prudent planning, the Central Government has promulgated the Outline Development Plan for the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area ('the Plan'), the contents of which have taken on board the views of Hong Kong, Macao and the major cities in the Greater Bay Area, setting out the directions for future development of the Greater Bay Area, putting forward specific economic development objectives for Hong Kong and proposing a number of measures to facilitate Hong Kong people in living and working on the Mainland; in order to enable Hong Kong to properly perform the role of a core engine for regional development, grasp new opportunities of future development and improve people's livelihood, this Council urges the SAR Government to formulate policies and allocate more resources to develop pillar industries, innovation and technology and other emerging industries, and to adopt more proactive measures to facilitate the daily living and travel of members of the public in Hong Kong, so as to offer appropriate channels of business expansion in the Greater Bay Area to enterprises of different sizes (micro, small, medium and large), create more new development and employment opportunities for Hong Kong people, particularly young people, and provide Hong Kong people with living space of better quality; the SAR Government should also proactively take part in promoting the development of the Greater Bay Area to the benefit of the Hong Kong economy, and through various measures, expand the leading advantages of the financial sector in Hong Kong by, among others, accelerating the process of forging connectivity with the financial markets on the Mainland, facilitating healthy competition among the three exchanges under one country and making concerted efforts to take forward the development of a financial innovation zone in the Greater Bay Area, so as to promote 'connectivity among three new domains' featuring connectivity in capital, talents and systems, and hence achieving full connectivity among the financial markets in the Greater Bay Area; other specific measures include:

(1) appealing to the Mainland authorities that the Mainland individual income tax payable by Hong Kong people working in the Greater Bay Area must not be higher than the tax payable by them in Hong Kong; 7734 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

(2) strengthening cooperation with other cities in the Greater Bay Area in operating and managing the existing and soon-to-be-completed cross-boundary transport infrastructure, so as to enhance the overall operational efficiency of the facilities;

(3) capitalizing on the advantages of Hong Kong to promote the formulation of performance standards for the service industry in the Greater Bay Area that are in line with the international standards, and expanding the scope of mutual recognition of professional qualifications among the Mainland, Hong Kong and Macao;

(4) cooperating with various cities in the Greater Bay Area and the relevant enterprises to launch more youth internship programmes targeting the professional sectors and organize more competitions relating to the planning and design of construction projects for young professionals; and

(5) strengthening cooperation with other cities in the Greater Bay Area to increase opportunities for exchanges of and training for civil servants at various levels in Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macao by, among others, organizing more thematic courses and seminars on and field trips to the Greater Bay Area, and to study the exchange of civil servants with Guangzhou and Shenzhen on a pilot basis for short-term attachment training in the relevant corresponding departments, so as to develop empathetic thinking in swapped positions; and

(6) seizing the development opportunities in the Greater Bay Area to promote the development of the tourism industry and attract more overseas visitors to visit Hong Kong on multi-destination itineraries, so as to give play to the role of Hong Kong as a tourism hub;

(7) from the perspective of Hong Kong, categorizing the organized information on the latest developments and opportunities in the Greater Bay Area into areas of policy, service and industry, and disseminating the relevant information in a one-stop and user-friendly manner, particularly putting emphasis on explaining and publicizing the new thinking, new institutions and new concepts therein, so as to enable Hong Kong people and Hong Kong enterprises to see the full picture at a glance; LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7735

(8) drawing up comprehensive planning and strategic measures for Hong Kong to align with and promote the development of the Greater Bay Area and the innovative cooperation mechanism with timely updates; and

(9) putting in place mechanisms for proactively giving audience to the aspirations, opinions and suggestions of the local business, industrial and entrepreneurial sectors, labour sector, professional sectors, academic sector, think tanks, youth, etc. in relation to the Greater Bay Area, while enhancing interaction to assist with and facilitate their proactive participation in the development of the Greater Bay Area and ensuring that the relevant planning and measures are appropriate and timely, in order to firmly seize the opportunity to work together to strive for the framework of an international first-class bay area and world-class city cluster to be essentially formed in the Greater Bay Area in four years and lay a solid foundation for its maturity in 2035.

Note: Mr Martin LIAO's amendment is marked in bold and italic type.

7736 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

Annex 6

The marked-up version of the revised amendment moved by Mr HO Kai-ming (Translation)

That after prudent planning, the Central Government has promulgated the Outline Development Plan for the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area ('the Plan'), the contents of which have taken on board the views of Hong Kong, Macao and the major cities in the Greater Bay Area, setting out the directions for future development of the Greater Bay Area, putting forward specific economic development objectives for Hong Kong and proposing a number of measures to facilitate Hong Kong people in living and working on the Mainland; in order to enable Hong Kong to properly perform the role of a core engine for regional development, grasp new opportunities of future development and improve people's livelihood, this Council urges the SAR Government to formulate policies and allocate more resources to develop pillar industries, innovation and technology and other emerging industries, and to adopt more proactive measures to facilitate the daily living and travel of members of the public in Hong Kong, so as to offer appropriate channels of business expansion in the Greater Bay Area to enterprises of different sizes (micro, small, medium and large), create more new development and employment opportunities for Hong Kong people, particularly young people, and provide Hong Kong people with living space of better quality; the SAR Government should also proactively take part in promoting the development of the Greater Bay Area to the benefit of the Hong Kong economy, and through various measures, expand the leading advantages of the financial sector in Hong Kong by, among others, accelerating the process of forging connectivity with the financial markets on the Mainland, facilitating healthy competition among the three exchanges under one country and making concerted efforts to take forward the development of a financial innovation zone in the Greater Bay Area, so as to promote 'connectivity among three new domains' featuring connectivity in capital, talents and systems, and hence achieving full connectivity among the financial markets in the Greater Bay Area; other specific measures include:

(1) appealing to the Mainland authorities that the Mainland individual income tax payable by Hong Kong people working in the Greater Bay Area must not be higher than the tax payable by them in Hong Kong; LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7737

(2) strengthening cooperation with other cities in the Greater Bay Area in operating and managing the existing and soon-to-be-completed cross-boundary transport infrastructure, so as to enhance the overall operational efficiency of the facilities;

(3) capitalizing on the advantages of Hong Kong to promote the formulation of performance standards for the service industry in the Greater Bay Area that are in line with the international standards, and expanding the scope of mutual recognition of professional qualifications among the Mainland, Hong Kong and Macao;

(4) cooperating with various cities in the Greater Bay Area and the relevant enterprises to launch more youth internship programmes targeting the professional sectors and organize more competitions relating to the planning and design of construction projects for young professionals; and

(5) strengthening cooperation with other cities in the Greater Bay Area to increase opportunities for exchanges of and training for civil servants at various levels in Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macao by, among others, organizing more thematic courses and seminars on and field trips to the Greater Bay Area, and to study the exchange of civil servants with Guangzhou and Shenzhen on a pilot basis for short-term attachment training in the relevant corresponding departments, so as to develop empathetic thinking in swapped positions; and

(6) seizing the development opportunities in the Greater Bay Area to promote the development of the tourism industry and attract more overseas visitors to visit Hong Kong on multi-destination itineraries, so as to give play to the role of Hong Kong as a tourism hub;

(7) from the perspective of Hong Kong, categorizing the organized information on the latest developments and opportunities in the Greater Bay Area into areas of policy, service and industry, and disseminating the relevant information in a one-stop and user-friendly manner, particularly putting emphasis on explaining and publicizing the new thinking, new institutions and new concepts therein, so as to enable Hong Kong people and Hong Kong enterprises to see the full picture at a glance; 7738 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019

(8) drawing up comprehensive planning and strategic measures for Hong Kong to align with and promote the development of the Greater Bay Area and the innovative cooperation mechanism with timely updates; and

(9) putting in place mechanisms for proactively giving audience to the aspirations, opinions and suggestions of the local business, industrial and entrepreneurial sectors, labour sector, professional sectors, academic sector, think tanks, youth, etc. in relation to the Greater Bay Area, while enhancing interaction to assist with and facilitate their proactive participation in the development of the Greater Bay Area and ensuring that the relevant planning and measures are appropriate and timely, in order to firmly seize the opportunity to work together to strive for the framework of an international first-class bay area and world-class city cluster to be essentially formed in the Greater Bay Area in four years and lay a solid foundation for its maturity in 2035;

(10) implementing convenient immigration measures, including incorporating the Home Visit Permits of Hong Kong people into the Mainland's digital certification system, and allowing Hong Kong people to renew or replace their Home Visit Permits directly on the Mainland, so as to provide convenience for Hong Kong people in travelling to and from the Greater Bay Area;

(11) promoting mutual recognition of occupational qualifications in the Greater Bay Area to encourage the flow of talents in the region, and perfecting the contribution arrangements for Hong Kong people working on the Mainland in participating in social insurance to better protect their employment in the Greater Bay Area;

(12) allowing Hong Kong people to conduct their Mainland business using their Hong Kong address, and relaxing the existing maximum amount of cash that can be carried into or out of the Mainland and the tax arrangements for some goods, so as to provide convenience for Hong Kong people in starting and developing businesses in the Greater Bay Area;

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 20 March 2019 7739

(13) promoting exchange and cooperation on social services among the Governments of Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macao, including enhancing the portability of welfare measures and perfecting the elderly care policy and social services in the Greater Bay Area, so as to provide convenience for Hong Kong people residing in the Greater Bay Area;

(14) strengthening partnership among Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macao in the regulation and operation of the tourism industry to jointly develop a world-class tourist destination cluster; and

(15) introducing an electronic payment card that can be used in all cities in the Greater Bay Area to provide convenience for Hong Kong people in their daily travel and spending in the region.

Note: Mr HO Kai-ming's amendment is marked in bold and italic type.