LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6491

OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Thursday, 13 February 2014

The Council continued to meet at Nine o'clock

MEMBERS PRESENT:

THE PRESIDENT THE HONOURABLE JASPER TSANG YOK-SING, G.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE ALBERT HO CHUN-YAN

THE HONOURABLE LEE CHEUK-YAN

THE HONOURABLE CHAN KAM-LAM, S.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE LEUNG YIU-CHUNG

DR THE HONOURABLE LAU WONG-FAT, G.B.M., G.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE EMILY LAU WAI-HING, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE TAM YIU-CHUNG, G.B.S., J.P.

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

THE HONOURABLE FREDERICK FUNG KIN-KEE, S.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE VINCENT FANG KANG, S.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE WONG KWOK-HING, B.B.S., M.H.

PROF THE HONOURABLE JOSEPH LEE KOK-LONG, S.B.S., J.P., Ph.D., R.N.

6492 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014

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

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

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

THE HONOURABLE RONNY TONG KA-WAH, S.C.

THE HONOURABLE CYD HO SAU-LAN

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

DR THE HONOURABLE LAM TAI-FAI, S.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE CHAN HAK-KAN, J.P.

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

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

DR THE HONOURABLE LEUNG KA-LAU

THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG KWOK-CHE

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

THE HONOURABLE IP KWOK-HIM, G.B.S., J.P.

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

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

THE HONOURABLE ALAN LEONG KAH-KIT, S.C.

THE HONOURABLE LEUNG KWOK-HUNG

THE HONOURABLE ALBERT CHAN WAI-YIP

THE HONOURABLE CLAUDIA MO

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6493

THE HONOURABLE JAMES TIEN PEI-CHUN, G.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE NG LEUNG-SING, S.B.S., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE STEVEN HO CHUN-YIN

THE HONOURABLE WU CHI-WAI, M.H.

THE HONOURABLE YIU SI-WING

THE HONOURABLE GARY FAN KWOK-WAI

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

THE HONOURABLE CHARLES PETER MOK

THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHI-CHUEN

THE HONOURABLE CHAN HAN-PAN

DR THE HONOURABLE KENNETH CHAN KA-LOK

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

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

THE HONOURABLE KENNETH LEUNG

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

DR THE HONOURABLE KWOK KA-KI

THE HONOURABLE KWOK WAI-KEUNG

THE HONOURABLE DENNIS KWOK

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

DR THE HONOURABLE FERNANDO CHEUNG CHIU-HUNG

6494 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014

THE HONOURABLE SIN CHUNG-KAI, S.B.S., J.P.

DR THE HONOURABLE HELENA WONG PIK-WAN

THE HONOURABLE IP KIN-YUEN

DR THE HONOURABLE ELIZABETH QUAT, J.P.

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

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

THE HONOURABLE TANG KA-PIU

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

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

THE HONOURABLE CHUNG KWOK-PAN

THE HONOURABLE CHRISTOPHER CHUNG SHU-KUN, B.B.S., M.H., J.P.

THE HONOURABLE TONY TSE WAI-CHUEN

MEMBERS ABSENT:

THE HONOURABLE JAMES TO KUN-SUN

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

THE HONOURABLE WONG YUK-MAN

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

THE HONOURABLE FRANKIE YICK CHI-MING

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6495

PUBLIC OFFICERS ATTENDING:

THE HONOURABLE MRS CARRIE LAM CHENG YUET-NGOR, G.B.S., J.P. THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION

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

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

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

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

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

MR YAU SHING-MU, J.P. UNDER SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING

PROF SOPHIA CHAN SIU-CHEE, J.P. UNDER SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH

MR ERIC MA SIU-CHEUNG, J.P. UNDER SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT

CLERKS IN ATTENDANCE:

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

MR ANDY LAU KWOK-CHEONG, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

6496 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014

MISS FLORA TAI YIN-PING, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

MISS ODELIA LEUNG HING-YEE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

MRS PERCY MA, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6497

MEMBERS' MOTIONS

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Good morning, everyone. The meeting now resumes. We now proceed to the second debate session on the theme of "Land, Housing, Transportation, Environment and Conservation".

MOTION OF THANKS

Continuation of debate on motion which was moved on 12 February 2014

MS CYD HO (in Cantonese): President, in this session, I will speak on issues about housing, especially rent control, and the environment. First of all, I will speak on the housing issue. After the delivery of the Policy Address, the middle class were greatly dissatisfied. While the increasing rents are eating more and more into their household income, they cannot benefit from the poverty alleviation measures and there is no mention of any alleviation measures such as tax refund in the Budget. They of course have great grievances.

The housing expenses in Hong Kong today are sky-high. The property prices are beyond the means of ordinary folks and the escalating rents have made life very difficult for the sandwich class who are ineligible for public rental housing (PRH) and cannot afford to purchase HOS flats. They have come under great financial pressure. The household income of this group of people exceeds the Waiting List Income Limit but below $40,000. The amount of $40,000 was set by the incumbent Secretary for Transport and Housing, Prof Anthony CHEUNG after some adjustments and he also raised the income limit for HOS applicants to $40,000. Nevertheless, households in Hong Kong with a monthly income of less than $40,000 make up 80% of all households. In other words, 80% households in Hong Kong are in need of housing allowances from the Government because the rents of private housing are beyond their affordability. People of the sandwich class represent 35% of the total population of Hong Kong. When the Government ceased the production of HOS flats, hoping to drive the sandwich class to the private rental market, they suffer the most.

Donald TSANG of the last term Government wished to lower the housing expenses of the household income to 40% or below, but this ratio is on the high side when compared to that in overseas countries. The housing expenses in overseas countries account for about 25% to 30% of the household income. 6498 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014

However, as the tax rates are higher in those countries, the people's household disposable income is about 50% of their total income. It is true that the tax rate in Hong Kong is lower, but taking into account the high rate of indirect tax, rates and premium, the living expenses in Hong Kong are among the highest in the whole world.

For a family with a monthly income of $40,000, 40% of the income, that is, $16,000, is not enough to pay for home mortgage. Take for example Riva, a newly developed housing estate in Yuen Long, New Territories North. A flat on the lowest floor is sold at $4.4 million. Unless a family can borrow money to pay 50% of the property price as down payment, $16,000 is definitely not enough to pay the monthly mortgage payment for 70% of the property price. Households with a monthly income of $40,000 are among the highest-income groups in the sandwich class. If even these households cannot afford the mortgage payment, households with an income of $20,000 or $30,000 have greater difficulties.

Besides, when the river rises the boat goes up. When property prices are sky-high, rents will not be low. Take Hong Kong Island as an example. For $16,000 a month, one can only rent a flat in a middle-class housing estate with a gross floor area of about 500-odd sq ft. As for the lower sandwich class, that is, households with a monthly income about $20,000, they can hardly rent a flat at $8,000, that is 40% of their income. President, you are also an elected Member of Hong Kong Island, you should have heard of Kwan Yick Building in the Central and Western District. For a flat of that building with a gross floor area of over 320 sq ft, the saleable area is only about 200-odd sq ft and one can touch both sides of the sitting room when he stretches his hands, the rent of such a flat is $10,000 a month. That housing estate is well over 40 years old. If a sufficient proportion of ownership shares can be obtained, I am afraid it can be subject to compulsory sale.

As a matter of fact, the middle class are not afraid to fend for themselves, neither are they worried about not being able to enjoy many welfare services. However, if the Government does not interfere in the rental market, the sandwich class has to spend a high proportion of their income on housing expenses … The Government should take measures to lower the housing expenses; otherwise, the sandwich class who are ineligible for public housing may lead an even harder life than public housing tenants. The Development Bureau said that 150 sites have been included in the plan, but the land use of these sites has to be changed and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6499 they have to undergo the town planning process before they can be become residential sites.

However, distant water cannot put out a fire nearby. When we ask the Government for a timetable indicating when those 150 sites can be changed for residential purpose; as well as when PRH, HOS or private flats of restricted sizes are available in the market, we never get a clear answer. Therefore, we hope that before the housing supply can be increased, the Government will formulate other measures to lower the rents and cool down the rental market. We, the Labour Party, propose that a comprehensive review be conducted on the Landlord and Tenant (Consolidation) Ordinance and reinstate the rent control to a certain extent. Tenants have no bargaining power but they need to rent flats. If landlords have one or more flats for investment, they can withhold their flats from the rental market because with fewer flats available, higher rents can be charged. Being on an unequal footing, the bargaining power of landlords and tenants are poles apart. As such, the Government should cool down the rental market by legislative or administrative means and take care of the "property-less" class.

Before 2004, rent control was in place. Other than resuming the flat for self-occupation, landlords could not resume their flats arbitrarily, and they had to give six months' notice for termination of tenancy. If they raised the rents upon tenancy renewal, there was a cap on the increase rate. However, when we last scrutinized the Bill and passed the amendments in 2003-2004, the three aforesaid tenant protection measures were scrapped. As the Government wanted to save the property market, it claimed that relaxing rent control could revive the property market. Since the relaxation of rent control in 2004, tenants have been in a dire situation. According to government statistics, the rent index in the past decade has risen over 200% but wages of tenants have not increased over 200%. The notice period for non-renewal of tenancy was shortened from six months to one month, and at present, landlords can resume their flats for any whatever reasons and not just for self-occupation.

For an ordinary family, from the time it received the tenancy termination notice to the time it has found a new flat suitably located for children to go to school and parents to go to work; and then pack, move and unpack, everything has to be completed in just a month. The stress is thus tremendous. We can imagine the tremendous stress they are under. Some mental health specialists point out that the stress arising from house removal under such circumstances is even greater than divorce or death of a spouse.

6500 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014

However, there are no measures to protect tenants in Hong Kong. I am not talking about tenants moving out after eight or 10 years when their financial situation has improved, but they are being forced to move out after two years or even a shorter period of time because their landlords want to raise the rent significantly by forcing the old tenants to move out. As a result, tenants may have to move and go through such pain every two years. Therefore, the Labour Party proposes to reinstate the six-month notice for termination of tenancy. This will not affect the landlords' financial situation immediately as they continue to receive rents. After the extension of the notice period, as the three parties, that is, buyer, seller and tenant do not have a completely clear picture of the market outlook in six months, they may not want to make any changes within a short time. As a result, the pace of termination of tenancy contracts and turnover of tenants will slow down, subsequently the rental increase will also be slowed down. This administrative measure may not have an immediate impact on people's monthly income or expenses. However, we consider this market measure appropriate. We also propose to reinstate the cap on the percentage of rental increase of flats below a certain size.

Actually, Mr Albert HO had moved an amendment, requiring that flats with a monthly rent under $6,000 a month should continue to be subject to rent control. Unfortunately, the amendment was not passed, leading to the present plight of tenants. When the Chief Executive attended the Question and Answer session of this Council the day following his delivery of the Policy Address, he said that rent control would discourage landlords from letting out their flats, and as the supply decreased, the rents would surge even higher. Nevertheless, according to government statistics, this is not the case. Rent levels are not totally determined by supply and demand.

Let me cite an example during the period from 1990 to 1997. In 1990, there was a massive emigration after the June 4 Incident in 1989 and the index of small flats was 80.3%. By 1997, when people felt more at ease, the index rose to 128.1%, a six-fold increase. However, what happened after the abolition of rent control? The index in 2004 was 75.5% but in 2013 the index rose to 163.6%, an increase of almost 120%, more than two folds, in a decade. If we look at the pay adjustments in these two periods, the pay increase between 1990 and 1997 was bigger than that between 2004 and 2013 and the disposable household income was more before 1997. It is evident that without rent control, the rental increase was higher and the life of the sandwich class harder.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6501

President, facts speak louder than words, and even louder than sophistry. The rationale given by LEUNG Chun-ying cannot explain the actual situation of the rental market in Hong Kong and neither does he sympathize with the people's hardships. Hence, we urge the Government to expeditiously review the Landlord and Tenant (Consolidation) Ordinance to allow the sandwich class an easier life.

Other than the middle class, the grassroots also need our care. As the number of PRH units can only cater for the housing need of one third of the population in Hong Kong, while those eligible to apply for PRH account for 45% of the population, meaning that the housing needs of at least 12% of the population are not met. These people have to live in unauthorized rooftop houses or "sub-divided units" where the environment is extremely crowded or even dangerous. Therefore, before the Government announced the introduction of the Low-income Working Family Allowance (low-income allowance), the Labour Party already had pointed out that the Government needed to give rental allowances to the households on the Waiting List for PRH. Some opine that this proposal imposes great moral risk as no matter how much the Government's allowance is, landlords will raise the same amount of rent. As regards the low-income allowance proposed by the Government now, the Labour Party suggests that the household income should be calculated according to the rents actually paid. The Government should first deduct the rents paid and then determine the amount of allowance according to the disposable household income, so that grass-roots low-income families living in private housing have a better chance of receiving the full low-income allowance.

President, following the economic downturn in 1998 resulted from the financial turmoil, the Hong Kong Government pledged to tide over the difficulties with the people. However, the grassroots and the sandwich class in Hong Kong may have more difficulties now than they had during the financial turmoil; on the contrary, the Government is very rich. We hope that the Government will introduce appropriate measures through administrative and legislative initiatives to allocate resources and provide allowances to people to ease their burden of housing expenses.

Next, I would like to talk about the environmental issues. Waste management is the most discussed subject in recent years, which is also the most urgent. However, owing of the inadequacy of the Government of the past terms in waste recovery and recycling, there is now a pressing need to extend the 6502 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 landfills and provide the incineration facilities. But the Government suffered a humiliating defeat last year in this respect. I believe that it will face even greater political resistance when it applies for the extension of landfills and provision of incineration facilities in future. Unfortunately, landfills and incineration are essential to waste management. While people recognize the need for landfills and incinerators, we strongly urge the Government not to abuse such facilities. The Government must put in more efforts in areas of recovery and recycling to make up for the lost time and complete the unaccomplished task.

However, even if funds are immediately allocated for waste recovery and recycling, the results cannot be seen within three or five years. The public will not be able to see the effects of the recovery and recycling measures or the results of waste reduction. Therefore, the Government needs to allocate additional funds to win over the public.

We hope that in the Budget about to be delivered soon, the Financial Secretary will earmark a large sum of public money as contingency provision for the recovery and recycling work, or as a reserve or deposit to indicate the Government's commitment. Such act is very important.

Let me reiterate, the Labour Party hopes that the Government will set aside $2 billion from its recurrent expenditure each year to create 10 000 jobs in the green industries in local districts to engage in waste recovery and recycling. It should also provide funding to universities and research institutes to conduct researches on the recycling system design for various materials, recycling technology, product design and development of business opportunities.

We have found recently that mistakes have been made with regard to the research and information collection of some simple matters. For example, the formula used internationally to calculate the waste recovery rate adopted by Hong Kong is actually inapplicable to Hong Kong because some of the plastic that we export is left in Hong Kong during transshipment and is dumped into landfills. Some of the plastic exported is transported back to Hong Kong from Europe or other overseas countries during transshipment. As a result, we are unable to grasp the correct figures.

The Hong Kong Blueprint for Sustainable Use of Resources 2013-2022 claimed that Hong Kong's recycling rate was about 48%, but according to the latest published findings, the rate is only 39%. I urge the Secretary to make LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6503 public all the data in the research report to study them with us together. The statistics involve some basic operation. It is found that when re-exporters or exporters of plastic waste fill in the declaration forms as required by the Hong Kong Customs and Excise Department for export control, they may write down plastic instead of plastic waste, rendering it impossible for us to get the correct data. In respect of waste management, it can be said that everything is waiting to be taken up. It is a tremendous task to get things done, especially when we cannot even do the most basic work well. The incumbent Environment Bureau has to face huge challenges ahead. It is envisaged that the imminent major challenge is how to convince the public to analyse, from the overall perspective of waste management, the effect of obnoxious facilities such as landfills and incinerators on Hong Kong. An even greater challenge is to persuade every member of the community to reduce consumption and face up to its impact on the entire economy. To achieve this objective, it requires the full co-operation of the executive authorities and the legislature, political parties, community organizations and every member of the community.

Apart from waste management, the main purpose of environmental protection is to ensure the sustainable development of society and protect public health. Therefore, President, the Legislative Council has set up the Subcommittee on Issues Relating to Air, Noise and Light Pollution to study these types of pollution from the standpoint of public health. The Subcommittee is about to wrap up its work and is preparing the report to propose certain measures. We hope that the authorities will follow up the recommendations of the report.

Regarding the air, the incumbent Government has generously allocated $11.7 billion to replace the old diesel vehicles to reduce the exhaust from vehicles. It is for certain that this will gain some good results.

The Hedley Environmental Index of the University of Hong Kong indicated that in 2012, 3 069 persons died and 150 000 were hospitalized as a result of respiratory system and heart diseases caused by air pollution, and the direct and indirect social costs of air pollution amounted to $39.4 billion. Therefore, the Government's allocation of $10-odd billion for the replacement of diesel vehicles is worth the money. Other than heavy diesel vehicles, the study on electrification of bus and other vehicles also needs to be commenced expeditiously.

6504 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014

Moreover, after the commissioning of the Kai Tak Cruise Terminal, ocean liners are docking at the Harbour Centre. Even if future laws are enacted to require ocean liners to use light diesel oil with a lower sulphur content, the health of residents in Kowloon City and Choi Hung Districts will inevitably be jeopardized with a sudden increase in emission from many ocean liners. Hence, I hope that the Government will install on-shore power supply facilities as soon as possible, so that the health of residents of the two districts will not be affected due to the development of cruise business in the tourism industry.

There are also the noise and light pollution. In an overcrowded municipal environment, people are susceptible to noise and light pollution which affect the quality of their sleep and their mental health. Although there is yet a definitive medical report in the world or Hong Kong to prove that noise and light pollution have direct impact on people's health or even trigger diseases, it is certain that it will affect a person's sleep, upset his endocrine, and lower his immunity and resistance against diseases.

We urge the Government to provide more funding to universities and medical academics to conduct studies on the impact of noise and light pollution on people's quality of sleep in Hong Kong's crowded environment with a mixture of commercial and residential buildings, as well as what diseases it will cause. I hope that the Hospital Authority and universities will collect more clinical data in this respect and make greater efforts in respect of city and building design. Interviews with patients in hospitals should be conducted to find out if their illness is related to the noise and light pollution in their living environment.

Regarding the regulation of noise and light pollution by legislation, owing to the objection of the relevant industries, the authorities could only issue a set of Guidelines on Industry Best Practices for External Lighting Installations in January 2012 to encourage self-discipline of the business sector. The result is not effective. Residents living in commercial/residential districts still cannot sleep well as they have to put up with the multi-coloured signboards or signboards with occulting lights of the restaurants downstairs. Evidently, the Guidelines does not work. Without legislative control, there is no way to protect people's health properly.

President, the environment issues are just like the housing policy. If the Government always bows before the interests of the business sector, sacrificing LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6505 the people's rights and interests, the Government, of course, can never earn the trust and support of the people.

Thank you, President.

MR TONY TSE (in Cantonese): President, in last year's Policy Address, the Chief Executive stated that "promoting economic development" was the primary goal of the Government and stressed that the top priority of the Government was to tackle the housing problem, assist grass-roots families in moving into public housing and the middle-income families in buying their own homes. Nonetheless, in the latest Policy Address, I cannot see whether "promoting economic development" is still the primary goal of the Government, nor can I see what concrete measures have been formulated by the Government to assist the middle-income families in buying their own homes. Undeniably, the Chief Executive has poured a lot of efforts in assisting grass-roots families in moving into public housing and improving the quality and quantity of public housing. With more attractive public housing and the persistently high property prices in the private market which make home ownership a distant dream for many middle-income families, there are more and more applicants waiting for public housing in recent years. Given that supply cannot be substantially increased within a short period of time, the Government only focuses on demand-side management to depress the soaring private property prices. However, no corresponding policies and measures have been put in place to address problems such as the escalating rental expenses per month, diminishing living space, difficulty in home ownership, and so on. As a result, many people have the impression that the Government seems to emphasize on public and subsidized housing but neglect the problems in private housing faced by more people. Therefore, I hope the Financial Secretary will introduce tax concession for rentals in the upcoming Budget so as to relieve people's burden.

President, on 9 October last year, I moved a motion on "Formulating a target ratio of housing expenses and a standard for the average living space per person" which was supported and passed by the Legislative Council. So we can see that not only members of the public expect the Government to give a helping hand in its policies, this Council has also voiced out similar concerns. Although in his Policy Address, the Chief Executive has mentioned again the cramped living conditions faced by many people at present, no concrete improvement measures or goals have been proposed. The Chief Executive's sincerity in 6506 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 improving the living conditions of the public is thus brought into doubt. Does the Government deliberately put the housing problem of the middle class in the second place, and will only assist them in home acquisition after assisting the grassroots in moving into public housing? If that is the case, how can the Government fulfil one of the themes of the Policy Address, that is, to support the needy? Are middle-class families in need and grass-roots families not safeguarded by public rental and subsidized housing being excluded? What concrete measures and goals have been put in place by the Government to help the middle class buy their own homes in view of the persistently high property prices? In rebuilding the housing ladder, are the difficulties faced by the middle class taken into account? Regarding long-term housing supply, be it public housing, Home Ownership Scheme flats or private housing, how can both quality and quantity be assured? I hope the Secretary will make a response on these few aspects later.

The Government has decided to adopt the recommendation of the Long Term Housing Strategy Steering Committee, that is, to set the housing supply target for the next 10 years at about 470 000 units. Many people criticize that the supply is still insufficient in view of the large number of people waiting for public housing. Furthermore, to meet the target of 470 000 units, apart from a large quantity of land, complementary support from society is also required. However, as land is needed in implementing government policies and initiatives in a number of policy areas including healthcare, education and social welfare, apart from the difficulty of getting sufficient land, we also have to face another problem, that is, do we have sufficient manpower (including civil servants) and resources to meet the housing supply target of 470 000 units in 10 years? Given the scarcity of land, I do not understand why the Government does not expedite the redevelopment of numerous buildings in the urban area built under the Civil Servants' Co-operative Building Society Scheme. The Policy Address does not give an account of all these. Maybe the Secretary can provide additional information when he gives his response later.

Urban renewal is another concern of the community which has an impact on housing supply. The Demand-led Redevelopment Project Pilot Scheme forged ahead by the Urban Renewal Authority (URA) in recent years has received an overwhelming response from property owners. It is learnt that the number of applications has far exceeded the number of projects commenced. However, as the URA runs on a self-financing basis with no regular income, many people are worried whether the URA has sufficient resources to sustain the implementation LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6507 of the Scheme. In the past, the URA gave people the impression that it only carried out demolition without focusing on the function of urban revitalization. Urban renewal should not be considered on the basis of a single project, the development of the whole district should be taken into consideration, so that the whole community can benefit through rejuvenation and redevelopment. I hope the Government can review the problems faced by the URA and put in more resources where necessary to address such problems.

President, the Government has implemented a number of major infrastructure and housing projects in recent years which require a lot of manpower including construction workers, as well as the collaboration of civil servants. There is huge cost overrun in a number of government projects. The implementation of a large number of government projects has, to some extent, pushed up the construction cost and brought about significant impact on the sustainable development of the industry. I understand that the Government would like to do more at a faster pace. But please keep in mind that more haste, less speed. The Government must pay regard to the development of the whole industry and avoid causing unnecessary impact on the industry players. I hope the Government will consider the problems seriously. As regards how to attract more young people to join the construction industry so that new projects can benefit more people, I suggest implementing further mechanization in the industry such as increasing the use of prefabricated components. In my opinion, the increased use of prefabricated components, if coupled with retraining of construction workers, will not bring about adverse effect on existing workers, but will instead further enhance their skills and productivity.

President, apart from housing, transport is another area of concern for the public. The Chief Executive has expressed clearly that the Government will continue to develop a transportation system centred on public transport with railway as the backbone. However, many people are worried that the provision of mass railway transport services by one railway company will lead to the monopoly of the MTR Corporation Limited (MTRCL) which may not be in the best interests of the public. Besides, the MTRCL does not only operate railways, its major source of revenue comes from property development. Nowadays many people consider the MTRCL one of the major property developers in Hong Kong. After all, the considerable revenue from real estate for the MTRCL is the result of the tilting of government policy. If the MTRCL's shopping malls are not well connected by highly efficient railways, its rental income will definitely be affected. As such, in determining the MTR fares, I 6508 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 think the revenue from real estate should be included and taken into consideration. Furthermore, being the largest shareholder of the MTRCL, the Government should clarify the risk management of the MTRCL, which has made overseas investment, and explain clearly whether the risks in such overseas investment are to be borne by the Hong Kong Government or members of the public subsequently. Meanwhile, I also hope that the Government will step up the enhancement of public transport system. Apart from bus route rationalization, it should also consider how to promote and improve bus services such as the design and construction of bus terminuses, as well as the dissemination of information, with a view to enhancing the competitiveness of public buses.

President, lastly, I would like to talk about environmental protection. It is learnt that the Environment Bureau will submit to the Legislative Council in the end of this month a proposal of extending three landfills and building an incinerator. However, I believe the Secretary still remember and will take into serious consideration the views and suggestions put forward by various sectors in the community and Honourable Members over the past year on the Policy Framework for the Management of Municipal Solid Waste as well as the various problems arising from landfills, including the transportation of refuse and management of landfills. Improvement should be made in areas of inadequacy in the past, so as to put into implementation the long-term framework for environmental protection. Regarding fresh water supply, Dongjiang water has been the main source of fresh water supply for Hong Kong. However, with rapid development of urbanization in the Mainland, the demand for fresh water by the Mainland has increased. In view of the significant appreciation of Renminbi, as well as the continuous enhancement in seawater desalination technology, will the Government implement the desalination programme as put forward in past policy addresses; and if so, when? When will findings be available for the studies currently conducted by the Government and when will the final decision be made? I hope the Secretary will give an account of these later.

President, I so submit.

MR MA FUNG-KWOK (in Cantonese): President, in addition to last year's Policy Address, the Chief Executive continues to talk at length about the issue of land supply in Hong Kong. In fact, the shortage of land supply has become the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6509 biggest bottleneck in the development of Hong Kong. Every member of the public and every trade face the difficulties brought about by insufficient land supply. We need land to address housing problem; we need land to develop real estate; we need land to upgrade recreational and cultural facilities, to build hospitals and improve education. I agree that the Chief Executive should put top priority to increasing land supply.

The Chief Executive has demonstrated his efforts in land supply planning by accepting the recommendation of the Long Term Housing Strategy Steering Committee of setting the housing supply target for the next 10 years at 470 000 units, as well as reporting the Government's plan in identifying land. The proposal to develop the Northeast New Territories and Lantau Island and the proposal to build large artificial islands are plans with foresight. I have repeatedly suggested that the Government increase the development density of two precious sites in urban areas, namely, Kai Tak and West Kowloon, so as to increase the supply of floor areas to cater for the needs of the industry and the public. The Policy Address has made active response to all these. In terms of land and housing, the Policy Address on the whole gives us the impression that the Government is determined to address land problem. This may restore public confidence in the Government's land and housing policies and is therefore worthy of affirmation and support.

President, despite the efforts made by the Government, statistics show that there is still insufficient land to meet the target of long-term housing strategy. Besides, distant water cannot put out a fire nearby. With the strong lagging effect of the supply of housing, even if the Government manages to find enough "flour", it still takes a long time to make the "bread".

For years, the production of "flour" has almost come to a halt. In the six years from 2007 to 2012, the Government had carried out land formation on a total land area of only 82.7 hectares, of which only 16.4 hectares are for housing purpose. The ratio of housing expenses to public expenses had also decreased from 15.1% in 2001 to 4.2% in 2010. For the production of private residential housing, only some 10 000 flats were completed in each year from 2007 to 2012.

To compensate for the undersupply in the past, the public can only wait patiently before they may witness a substantive increase in supply. As such, the Government should learn a lesson from the imbalance of supply and demand 6510 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 brought about by the fluctuation in the property market and step up its effort to build an adequate land reserve, so that cyclical fluctuations in the market and economy will not affect the long-term planning of land supply.

President, in supporting the Government to increase land supply, I must remind the Government that the identification of land should be carried out in accordance with procedures. It should not act with undue haste, so as to avoid criticism of "blind scramble for land". The Government must take into consideration land use efficiency and balance the basic needs of the community for various facilities. If sites originally zoned for cultural and recreational purpose are rezoned for housing purpose, conflicts may easily arise which will affect social harmony. As such, these issues must be handled with care.

President, the soaring property prices and rents are definitely closely related with the supply. We must focus on increasing the supply in order to address the problem in the long run. However, with the lagging factor of housing supply, I agree that the Government should put in place some measures to curb foreign investment and speculative activities as a means to regulate the property market.

The "double curbs" measures introduced in 2012 have effectively kept in check the uncontrolled market conditions, managed public expectation on the property market, and suppressed the rising trend of property prices due to speculation. Such measures are thus appropriate, reasonable and timely, and should be sustained. In view of the ever-changing property market, the Government's measures should also be flexible, so as to respond quickly to the changes in the market. Too many restrictions may create even more opportunities for speculation, thus giving rise to more uncertainties in the property market. As a result, the "curb" measures may not achieve the desired effects if they become either not harsh enough or too harsh.

President, in the Policy Address, it is mentioned that the Government will capitalize on the transformation of Kowloon East and support the development of arts, culture and creative industries. It will also consider converting the sites underneath the Kwun Tong Bypass for arts and cultural events and use by creative industries. This proposal is the aspiration of those engaging in arts, culture and creative industries.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6511

What I would like to stress is that many artists had been affected by the policy of revitalizing industrial buildings for some time in the past. Some of them had to face drastic rental increase while some had been forced to move out. It is ironic that arts groups in industrial buildings are repelled by the policy of revitalizing industrial buildings. Therefore, I request the Government once again to review the policy of revitalizing industrial buildings and understand the difficulties faced by artists so as to give them room for survival. I also hope that the Government will announce as soon as possible the details of the development plan for Kwun Tong Bypass.

It is also mentioned in the Policy Address that $1 billion has been earmarked to launch a Restored Landfill Revitalisation Funding Scheme under which non-profit-making organizations, national sports associations and other groups can apply for funding. The purpose is to make better use of restored landfill sites to develop recreational facilities. I give full support to this Scheme. Many national sports associations have relayed to me that the lack of dedicated venues is a big obstacle in sports development. The implementation of the Scheme will probably compensate for the present tight supply of venues and cater for the needs of some sports groups.

President, I so submit.

MR JEFFREY LAM (in Cantonese): President, as we all know, the housing problem has plagued many Hong Kong people. While low-income families have to wait endlessly for public rental housing (PRH), even middle-class families with a monthly income of $40,000 to $50,000 have a feeling of helplessness in the face of the high property prices, which is beyond their affordability. It is indeed strenuous that at present, many families have to spend a large portion of their monthly income on housing. Objectively speaking, the Government has also been trying hard to find land for housing development, and its determination in resolving the problem is apparent.

President, first of all, I would like to talk about the Pilot Scheme for Arbitration on Land Premium. I know that in the past, many people had been trying to change the land use for better utilization of land, but due to the great difference between the amount of premium they were willing to pay and the amount charged by the Government, no agreement could be reached even after repeated discussion. I believe that with the implementation of this arbitration 6512 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 scheme, it will be easier for both parties to reach a mutually acceptable agreement which will surely help to expedite an increase in the supply of land.

Secondly, I support the proposal to increase the plot ratio as stated in the Policy Address. The Chief Executive has made it clear that factors such as traffic and community facilities have to be considered. We understand that it is not easy to achieve. With the proposed redevelopment of Wah Fu Estate and the lifting of the plot ratio restrictions in the Pok Fu Lam area, it is expected that the population and traffic burden of those areas will increase. The Government has to do a lot of preparatory work, including planning and expediting the development of infrastructural facilities to dovetail with the completion of the Mass Transit Railway West Island Line and South Island Line, in order to meet development needs.

Thirdly, rezoning Government, Institution or Community (GIC) sites for residential use. This line of thinking is equally commendable. As the land is owned by the Government, the problem of land ownership does not exist, and the supporting facilities in the areas concerned are by and large adequate. However, as the public have increasing expectation of the Government, government departments need to have more manpower and office space to serve the public. In rezoning GIC sites for residential development, the Government has to find adequate land to build other community facilities so as to strike a balance among the various needs.

Finding the land required is not a simple matter. We need to find land not only for residential development, but also for building hospitals, schools, residential care homes for the elderly, childcare facilities, leisure, cultural and sports facilities, and so on. The demand for offices and shopping centres is also great. Without an adequate supply of land, the development of the entire society will be hindered. Therefore, we have to consider proposals such as developing underground spaces, Green Belt sites and reclamation.

President, we need to understand that Hong Kong only has a land mass of 1 108 sq km, of which 40% is designated as country parks. Only 76 sq km of land across the territory is available for public and private residential development. In other words, 7 million Hong Kong people are living in premises built on 6.8% of the total land mass and 95 000 people have to be housed on each sq km of land. These figures show that our living environment is very densely populated.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6513

As the area aboveground is inadequate, we have no choice but to consider underground development and multi-directional development. Reference can be made to the approach adopted in Tokyo. Tokyo has been very successful in developing underground spaces. Apart from an intertwining railway network, there are underground bicycle parking areas, underground carparks, underground refuse collection points, and so on. In addition, the Government can consider the request of the business sector to build pedestrian subway links and underground shopping centres to alleviate the crowded conditions of the streets. As we may be aware, the streets in some shopping districts and commercial districts are packed with vehicles and people at different times of the day. The Government can also consider building some community facilities underground, such as games hall and libraries. As underground spaces are three-dimensional, I suggest that the Government can draw up an underground space outline development plan to record the depths of the existing underground pipes, wires, cables, subways, railway lines and foundations of buildings, as well as the geological details of the area. The plan can also identify the areas suitable for development and the spots in which development has to proceed with caution. As three-dimensional printing is now a mature technology, models of the underground situation can be produced to facilitate the development of underground spaces of Hong Kong.

President, I saw a movie entitled Midsummer's Equation last year. In the movie, the words spoken by Prof YUKAWA (starring Fukuyama MASAHARU) to the green groups during a consultation meeting on the development of resources under the sea-bed touched a chord in me and I quote, "Any mining of underground resources will inevitably affect the survival of living creatures and yet, repetition of such human activities has made modern civilization possible. You have enjoyed the benefits of modern civilization. The outstanding issue is a question of choice". (End of quote)

The Policy Address pointed out that the Government has identified dozens of Green Belt sites which can be rezoned for different uses. According to the planning standards, the Green Belt zone is designated near built-up areas to promote the conservation of the natural environment and to safeguard it from encroachment by urban-type developments. At present, some people in Hong Kong are living in partitioned flats and some even do not have a place to live. In the process of identifying land for residential development, can we consider the option of some different sites such as Green Belt sites? Some people advocated that not an inch of land in Green Belt sites and country parks can be used for 6514 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 development. Can we not even discuss the possibility? If the possibility of using such sites for residential development is beyond discussion, can we discuss the possibility of using such sites to build accommodation for the dead, such as cemeteries and columbariums? I think if these problems cannot be resolved today, they have to be resolved in future anyway. There is no way we can evade these problems. Everyone in Hong Kong has to face these problems squarely and make choices.

President, finally, I would talk about reclamation outside the Victoria Harbour. With reclamation, it takes time for ground settlement. The reclaimed site cannot be used for residential or other development once reclamation is completed. According to my understanding, it takes at least five years for the reclaimed ground to settle. Besides, water mains and electricity cables have to be laid and road works have to be completed to turn the potential sites into disposed sites. I believe that will take 10 years. Therefore, reclamation works undertaken today can avoid shortage of land for residential development for the next generation. Since the Government is taking forward studies on reclamation in certain selected sites which would cause a lesser impact, we would inevitably have to make choices to meet the needs of the people of Hong Kong. Looking fore and aft and dragging on with every single issue will only cause regret. It takes time even if we want to undertake reclamation for residential development. If we choose to wait now, the next generation will have to wait all the more. Is that what we want?

President, if everyone in society insists on his own views, provokes and fuels disputes, politicizes every issue and does not make even the slightest compromise, no matter how hard the Government tries to find land, it will be difficult for the public to be housed quickly. All the proposals including reclamation, changing the plot ratio, rezoning sites, developing Green Belt sites, and so on are controversial. Voicing out an objection is very easy, but undertaking the responsibility of promoting the well-being of the people involves hard work. I hope that the proposals of the Policy Address will be implemented as soon as possible so that the people can live and work in peace and contentment.

President, I so submit.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6515

MR IP KWOK-HIM (in Cantonese): President, I would like to express my views on the proposals of the Policy Address in respect of housing and certain infrastructure projects.

Regarding the problem of housing, just now Mr LEUNG Che-cheung has already expressed comprehensive views on the issues concerned on behalf of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB). Hence, I would like to focus on specific matters; of course, it does not mean that these are simple matters. In particular, I would like to discuss the redevelopment of Wah Fu Estate as stated in paragraph 123 of the Policy Address.

I think the redevelopment of Wah Fu Estate is a positive news that would surely be welcomed by residents of the Estate. As the Estate was constructed during a period of water rationing, several buildings were built with seawater. As Members who are involved in district work, we have some understanding of the living environment of Wah Fu Estate. Over the years, several buildings in the Estate have to be reinforced structurally by steel bars and I-beams. This situation is definitely unsatisfactory. Of course, we are also aware that in the past, the Administration had insisted that there was no need for redevelopment as the buildings were sound structurally. Hence, the Government's present decision is welcomed. Of course, in the course of redevelopment, it is most important for the Government to keep the residents duly informed of the progress and planning of the entire project. Therefore, I call on the bureaux and departments concerned to maintain a high degree of transparency when redeveloping Wah Fu Estate and engage the residents in communication in order to ensure the smooth implementation of the project.

Regarding the redevelopment of public rental housing (PRH) estates, I consider that the previous practice of the Housing Authority (HA) is better because it would invariably adopt the "reception estate" approach when redeveloping major PRH estates. Back then, Shek Pai Wan Estate was the reception estate for tenants affected by the Wong Chuk Hang Estate redevelopment project. In my view, when the HA undertook the redevelopment of major PRH estates in recent years, it has relatively given less consideration to the problem of reception. Hence, I very much hope that when undertaking this project, the authorities concerned can revert to the practice of giving more thorough consideration to this issue, such that future redevelopment of old estates can proceed more smoothly.

6516 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014

As a matter of fact, due consideration should be given to redevelop some old estates in Hong Kong. For instance, on the Hong Kong Island where I am more familiar with, PRH estates such as Sai Wan Estate, Model Housing Estate, and so on, are relatively old or historic. The redevelopment of these old estates not only helps rejuvenate the districts, but also provides a substantial supply of PRH units. This is a proposal worth considering by the Government. Hence, if the Government comes to such a decision, the redevelopment projects should be planned and implemented in a forward-looking rather than short-sighted manner, and consideration should be given to various factors holistically and organically.

Separately, it is worth mentioning that besides the HA, the Housing Society (HS) is also responsible for the provision of public housing. Of course, the estates of the HS are smaller in scale and can by no means be compared with those of the HA. Nonetheless, public housing is also provided by the HS. I earnestly hope that when considering the redevelopment of public housing, the Transport and Housing Bureau can maintain communication with the HS, especially the problem of receiving the affected tenants. Should there be co-operation and closer liaison between the two sides? Otherwise, the progress of redevelopment will be impeded.

Let us consider this example. As far as I know, the redevelopment of Ming Wah Dai Ha will take 10 years due to the lack of reception estates. Although when the HS sought the HA's assistance in the matter, the HA also has its own problems to deal with, I consider that there is always a solution to all problems. Take, for another example, Yue Kwong Chuen. As we all know, some buildings in the estate do not have lift service, and there are also concerns about structural safety. In the event of redevelopment, can the HS alone deal with various problems, while the Transport and Housing Bureau has no responsibility at all? Regarding this question, I hope all parties concerned can join hands to provide the necessary support, so that the redevelopment project can proceed more smoothly. Do not say that it is HS's own business and do nothing. But of course, the HS must also review its position in the entire matter.

Separately, I would like to talk about the Government's long-term housing strategy as stated in paragraph 143 of the Policy Address. I strongly approve of the objective outlined in point (4), viz., to "rebuild the housing ladder by enabling PRH tenants who can afford it to buy HOS flats, thus freeing up units for reallocation to grassroots in need". That is the core issue in the housing supply LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6517 chain. As we know, the authorities have been striving to expedite the construction of PRH. But how many units can be produced? Actually, this matter has a direct bearing with the private residential market.

Besides, how many PRH units can be built on the existing sites, particularly on sites in urban areas? How many PRH units must be built in order to satisfy the demand of people currently living in urban areas, such that the problem with "sub-divided units" can be improved substantially? Regarding this series of questions, if the authorities can perfect the housing ladder so that PRH tenants with the financial means can buy Home Ownership Scheme (HOS) flats, thus releasing PRH units for reallocation, the problem of "sub-divided units" which has aroused grave public concern in society will be duly resolved. Some tenants of "sub-divided units" prefer to live in small units in urban areas and refuse to move to PRH estates in rural areas or new towns due to the remote location of such estates and inconvenient public transport links.

Hence, I hope the Government can give more consideration to increasing the ratio of HOS flats production. I think this point is critical. The increased production of HOS flats can also address the concern of District Councils because whenever a certain area is developed, the PRH estates constructed will become a focal point in the area. Under the circumstances, should only PRH units be provided, or should consideration be given to increasing the production of HOS? Such a housing development direction should be more easily accepted at the district level. And with the approach I mentioned earlier, that is, enabling PRH tenants with financial means to buy HOS flats, thus releasing PRH units for reallocation, this two-pronged approach should help address the problem of housing supply. Hence, I very much hope that in the process of planning the provision of public housing, the Government can also consider setting a reasonable ratio between PRH and HOS production and introduce adjustments as necessary, taking into account the prevailing market conditions and demand.

I would also like to express some views on the implementation of infrastructure projects. Recently, the Finance Committee and the Public Works Subcommittee of this Council are beset with the serious problem of spiralling construction costs. Members are gravely concerned about this matter because we must ensure the proper use of public funds given that taxpayers' money is involved. At present, project costs can invariably increase by two folds or even many folds, which Members find it hardly acceptable. In this connection, 6518 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 should the Government embark on a serious review on the current tendering method or implementation mode of infrastructure projects?

Currently, the "design and build" (D&B) method is generally adopted for infrastructure projects. As I learn from contacts with industry players, the D&B procurement method is more suitable for construction projects in the private sector. As far as public works projects are concerned, the Government can hardly get a better or fair deal on project costs due to various limitations in terms of bargaining power, market size, public interest consideration, and so on. I hope the Government can ponder more on this point.

Another point is the scheduling of public works projects. How can construction costs be kept low if many projects are rolled out in one go? Hence, the Administration should ensure reasonable scheduling of public works projects instead of rolling out dozens of similar projects, such as the construction of tunnels and road infrastructure, all in one go. Otherwise, construction costs including equipment and labour costs would definitely be seriously affected.

Lastly, I would like to say a few words about the Operation Building Bright (the Operation). The Operation has brought about tremendous improvement at the district level, especially in some old districts, as the financial assistance provided has indeed resolved certain long-standing issues in the maintenance of old buildings. But at the same time, many illegal acts have arisen, such as the serious problem of bid-rigging, resulting in a multi-fold increase in maintenance costs.

Let me illustrate with a case which I had previously provided assistance. Two years ago, the maintenance costs of the building concerned were in the range of $6-odd million to $7 million. But now, the maintenance costs of a project of a comparable scale have already increased to $14 million. Why is that so? Have the costs of wages and materials really increased that much within such a short period of time? While I believe that is one of the causes, the factor of bid-rigging may be more vital. As public money is involved, I hope the Government will deal with the problem squarely, instead of acting indifferently as if this is just a matter for the relevant owners' corporations or the owners themselves. I earnestly hope that the Home Affairs Department, the Buildings Department, the Urban Renewal Authority, the HS, the Independent Commission Against Corruption and the police can all take a proactive role and intervene as LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6519 and when necessary, especially in the tendering process, so as to combat such illegal acts effectively while safeguarding the interests of the public, as well as the proper use of public funds.

Thank you, President.

IR DR LO WAI-KWOK (in Cantonese): President, at the first Council meeting of this Session, this Council passed a motion moved by me to urge the SAR Government to expeditiously formulate long-term and comprehensive infrastructure planning to ensure the timely provision of adequate land and various supporting infrastructure facilities, and implement such planning in a practical and orderly manner, so as to achieve sustainable development in Hong Kong. In addition, two other amendments moved by me, which respectively urged the authorities to formulate Hong Kong's long-term railway development blueprint and to promote the development of Lantau Island, were also passed.

The 2014 Policy Address has made some concrete responses to these topics of common concern to this Council, the industries and the public, but the key is how to formulate relevant policies and measures comprehensively, and how to promote and implement them effectively. President, there is indeed widespread public concern about how the supply of land and housing can be increased. The Policy Address has proposed measures to, among other things, change land uses, develop Green Belt areas, increase plot ratios, and study the development of underground space, in order to continue increasing land and housing supply in the short, medium and long terms, with a view to meeting the new target of providing 470 000 units in the coming 10 years. In addressing the housing shortage by increasing supply, the Chief Executive has prescribed the right remedy to the problem. However, in this regard, it is also necessary to stress the importance of overall planning. For instance, an increase in the development intensity of urban land may add to the loads on existing community and transport facilities, and will unavoidably attract objections from the local communities.

As for changing land uses, it often involves a lengthy planning process, and should be dealt with according to priorities in an orderly manner. Moreover, while increasing land for housing construction, the Government should not overlook other land uses, such as allocating land to support the development of the industrial and commercial sectors, especially emerging industries. In my opinion, when formulating the planning concerned, apart from considering the 6520 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 ancillary transport facilities, overall community development and environmental enhancements, the Government also needs to balance different land uses.

President, it is also noteworthy that in order to implement any large-scale planning effectively, the Administration must allocate supporting resources and manpower. As the Legislative Council Member representing the engineering sector, I am gravely concerned about the lack of long-term overall planning in various projects in Hong Kong, which has resulted in workers being seriously underemployed at times, and extremely overworked at other times.

At the special meeting of the Panel on Development and the Panel on Housing held in respect of this year's Policy Address, I repeatedly emphasized that in every major public works project, a slight move in one part may affect the whole situation. For example, a land infrastructure and housing supply project would involve the professional grade staff of various departments such as the Planning Department, Housing Department, Civil Engineering and Development Department, Drainage Services Department, Water Supplies Department, Electrical and Mechanical Services Department, Transport Department, and Highways Department. The Government's expenditure on public works has increased from about $30 billion before 2008 to $62 billion in 2012-2013, and is projected to be over $70 billion in each of the next few years.

With the commencement of various major public works projects one after another, how will the Government carry out proper organization, planning, management, controls and inter-departmental co-ordination? How will it ensure the deployment of sufficient professional grade staff to the departments concerned? How will it maintain the professional level and overall morale of the Civil Service? I once again call on the authorities to give clear answers to these questions, and I look forward to the Financial Secretary "spending whatever is necessary" and allocating additional resources accordingly. Worse still, we are facing a severe manpower shortage in the construction industry; how should we solve this problem?

Apart from continuing to promote the development of the North East New Territories and Hung Shui Kiu, this year's Policy Address has announced another striking initiative, which is the Chief Executive's decision to establish a Lantau Development Advisory Committee, explore ways to further develop Lantau Island and neighbouring areas, capitalize on the benefits brought by major infrastructure projects in the area and the synergy between Hong Kong and the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6521

Pearl River Delta in developing a bridgehead economy, develop an East Lantau Metropolis for accommodating new population, as well as develop a new core business district. All these initiatives will undoubtedly paint a rosy picture of the future, but then, it is important to note that since the reunification, the previous Governments had invariably proposed to develop Lantau Island, yet they had been indecisive and dragged their feet for many years. I hope that the current-term Government can learn a lesson, and properly press ahead with the procedures of consultation, planning, implementation, and so on. During the whole process, there must be participation of relevant stakeholders, including representatives of professional sectors such as the planning, construction and engineering sectors; representatives of the tourism, logistics and environmental protection industries, and so on; as well as people from Lantau Island and its adjoining areas, among others, so as to draw on collective wisdom for putting forward practicable proposals.

President, this year's Policy Address has also mentioned that the authorities will announce as soon as possible a new railway development blueprint setting out new railway projects to be implemented after 2020. As I pointed out in proposing the relevant amendment earlier, the SAR Government should, by comprehensively considering factors such as Hong Kong's long-term population and economic development trends, land and housing supply and overall urban infrastructure planning, and based on the findings of the public consultation on "Our Future Railway" as well as in line with the clear positioning of various modes of local public transport, expeditiously formulate Hong Kong's long-term railway development blueprint, and implement the planning concerned in an orderly manner.

President, the Chief Executive has stressed that environmental protection is one of the priorities of the current-term Government. In this connection, the authorities must invest in environmental protection infrastructure and introduce related measures on an on-going basis to promote public participation in waste reduction and recovery. We must tackle the serious problem of municipal solid waste in three ways: waste reduction at source, recycling, and proper waste treatment. In paragraph 95 of last year's Budget, it was already announced that $500 million was earmarked to set up waste electrical and electronic equipment processing facilities as well as five community green stations. In this year's Policy Address, the Chief Executive has also stated that the Government plans to develop one green station in each of the 18 districts and provide funding for their operation, and the first community green station is expected to be completed by 6522 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 mid-2014. In my opinion, the authorities should formulate the implementation details of the "producer responsibility scheme for waste electrical and electronic equipment" as soon as possible.

In addition, this year the Chief Executive has further announced that the Government has earmarked $1 billion to launch a Recycling Fund to promote the sustainable development of the recycling industry. The details of specific application of the Fund have yet to be formulated, but as I pointed out in my written proposal submitted to the Chief Executive earlier, the Government must provide financial incentives, including land, capital, technical support and other complementary measures, so as to aid the industry in constructing modern recycling facilities. Hong Kong needs advanced recycling equipment, and it also needs to adopt the renewable energy technology of transforming incinerated waste into electricity. In promoting the recovery and recycling trades, the authorities must have overall planning and put in place appropriate supporting measures, so that better results can be achieved with less effort.

Besides, the energy policy is pivotal to the development of the economy and people's livelihood in Hong Kong. The authorities will soon launch a consultation on the future fuel mix for power generation in Hong Kong. I hope that the related review can take full account of the energy policy objectives of, inter alia, safety, reliability, affordability and environmental benefits, and strike a proper balance among them.

President, the bureau officials present in this Chamber this morning include the Secretary for Transport and Housing, Prof Anthony CHEUNG, the Secretary for the Environment, Mr WONG Kam-sing, and the Under Secretary for Development, Mr Eric MA. The three bureaux in which they hold office are closely related to the work of the engineering profession. As the representative of the engineering sector in this Council, I have to point out that the engineering sector in Hong Kong has made great efforts to promote sustainable development, taking the view that a balance must be and can be struck between development and conservation. The recent Sai Wan incident has, however, reflected the incompatibility and contradiction in the actual development and conservation work carried out by the relevant departments of the SAR Government. A better approach to handling the situation of Sai Wan Village would have been to follow the usual practice of acting in accordance with Outline Zoning Plans (OZPs), as in the cases of Hoi Ha, Pak Lap and So Lo Pun which were dealt with by way of OZPs in the same period. Yet, the Government forcibly incorporated Sai Wan LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6523

Village into country parks, resulting in even greater social conflict which was uncalled-for. I dearly hope that the Government can learn its lesson and find ways to patch up its relations with the Heung Yee Kuk, the villagers and the relevant councils. Otherwise, the Government will find itself in a predicament when balancing land development against conservation.

President, I so submit.

MR YIU SI-WING (in Cantonese): President, yesterday Secretary Prof Anthony CHEUNG put forward some contingency measures in anticipation of the saturation of the Hong Kong International Airport in the next few years, but I think these measures can only meet the urgent needs. There is a pressing need for Hong Kong to build a third runway so as to maintain its position as a hub and its competitiveness, and this demands immediate attention.

According to the Airport Authority Hong Kong (AA), if the capacity of the two runways is further increased from the current 65 to 68 air traffic movements per hour, they will reach the maximum capacity. Hong Kong will then have to restrict the movements of passengers and cargo aircrafts, which would seriously undermine the sustainable development of Hong Kong's economy and tourism industry. Looking around the neighbouring regions, we can see that different countries are proactively developing aviation strategies. The construction of the third runway of Thailand's Bangkok Airport will be completed in 2016; Singapore's Changi Airport has planned to build the fourth runway and provide more supporting facilities; Seoul's Incheon Airport will complete the construction and expansion of its second passenger terminal and cargo terminal by 2015, and the fifth runway will also be commissioned in 2020, whereas airports in Guangzhou, Shanghai and Shenzhen have also planned to build their third, fourth or even fifth runways. Only Hong Kong is left in lonesome and remain stagnant. Worse still, the Government and relevant departments are still busy lobbying various environmental groups, pressure groups and Legislative Council Members.

As Members may be aware, even if the Environmental Impact Assessment report of the third runway is eventually approved, it takes as long as nine years to build the runway. Hong Kong would have missed plenty of opportunities by then, and our market share would be absorbed by other regions, not to mention that the Government is still not fully confident that it can silent the opposition 6524 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 voices and convince the opposition groups. To maintain Hong Kong's position as an aviation hub, it is obvious that there should be no more delay in the construction of the third runway. I hope that different political parties, organizations and Legislative Council Members will bear in mind the overall interests of Hong Kong and support the construction of the third runway with an objective and practical attitude, such that the third runway can be completed on or even in advance of schedule, and thus prevent the recurrence of the high-speed rail funding incident. The Government has to keep up with its hard work and should not give up.

The third runway is not the only factor affecting Hong Kong's world competitiveness. According to the airline companies, the AA has significantly increased the parking charges for the Business Aviation Designated Apron Area in 2013 at a rate ranging from 50% to 38%. Various airline companies have found their plans upset by the soaring charges, which has not only imposed heavier pressure on operation, but has also affected Hong Kong's image as an international port. Given that the relevant charges have not been revised since the commissioning of the Chek Lap Kok Airport, the increase is therefore perfectly understandable by the industry, but the sudden substantial hike after all these years did catch the persons-in-charge of various airline companies or offices by surprise. It is advised that the authorities should avoid adopting similar approaches in future, but develop a reasonable and appropriate charge increase mechanism so as to allow ample time and room for various airline companies to estimate and plan their expenditure.

President, noting that the focus of this year's Policy Address is housing supply, the business sector is worried that the development will stress too much on residential flats in the years to come to the neglect of commercial land supply. The lack of supply of shops and hotels is not covered extensively in the Policy Address. Insufficient supply of sites for shops will push up rental, thereby increasing the cost of enterprises, which will in turn affect the development of enterprises and people's livelihood. Business opportunities would have been missed even if land supply is subsequently increased. For the provision of hotels, the number of hotel rooms should reach 84 000 by 2017 as planned and thus achieve a better balance between supply and demand. Among these hotel rooms, 7 000 do not have an implementation timetable, so I hope that the Government will take the initiative to follow up on this. The Government estimated that by 2023, inbound tourists will exceed 100 million passenger trips, and the tourism industry will continue to be plagued by the saturation problem of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6525 hotel rooms. There are a few things that the Government should pay attention to, including the expensive but small hotel rooms, which have directly undermined the incentives of overseas visitors to come to Hong Kong. Upon the commissioning of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge, classy and quality hotels which are inexpensive will be provided in Macao and Hengqin across the harbour, we may then lose those overnight visitors with high spending potentials. I therefore hope that the Government will pay close attention to the commercial sites for shops and hotels in the coming decade, so as to ensure that there is sufficient supply, with a view to enabling the steady development of Hong Kong's tourism and services industries.

President, some people have placed the development of tourism and environment conservation in conflicting positions, which is completely wrong. If the Government only considers environment conservation and develops a large number of country parks, as well as constructs bridges and roads in remote areas, do you think this is a big waste? Eco-tourism does not require massive construction works, nor will it cause pollution to the environment. It may even drive the economic development and promote employment of local residents. Hence, it is entirely a green industry. Certainly, the "conservation-first" approach should be adopted for the development of eco-tourism, so as to give some respite for visitors and the natural environment. Notwithstanding that the natural condition of Hong Kong is superb and there are wonderful mountains and sea, the overall planning does not tie in well with tourism. Also, the lack of publicity and promotion has failed to help convert eco-tourism into an industry with economies of scale, which has resulted in a waste of resources. We propose that while promoting environment conservation, the Government should also provide a platform for gauging the views of local people, environmental groups and the tourism industry on the development of eco-tourism with local characteristics.

Since Hong Kong is a renowned tourist city, efficient and effective complementary tourist facilities will benefit the development of our society, create business opportunities and promote employment. It is hoped that the relevant Policy Bureaux will break their boundaries and work together to offer suggestions and advice on Hong Kong's tourism industry.

President, I so submit.

6526 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014

MISS ALICE MAK (in Cantonese): President, given that the land where the three major new development areas (namely Hung Shui Kiu, North East New Territories and Tung Chung) are situated, and the land vacated after the clearance of three sewage treatment works have both historical and development value, we should respect the lifestyles and culture of the local residents in the course of development.

When I spoke on the Members' motion "North East New Territories New Development Areas Planning and Engineering Study" a year ago, I had stressed the importance to respect the residents living on that piece of land during the planning process, and the need to achieve humanization in the future development. Over the past few weeks, the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions (FTU) has submitted some proposals to the Development Bureau on the Tung Chung New Town extension, which have highlighted the 14 hectares of reclamation in Tung Chung West.

The FTU opines that as these 14 hectares of land can only produce very limited public housing units, it is not worthwhile to damage the natural coastline of Tung Chung West and places like Ma Wan Chung Village which has rich fishing village culture. What is more, the gap between Tung Chung and Chek Lap Kok is already pretty narrow, it is expected that the proposed reclamation will make water flowing through Tung Chung become even more rapid. Not only the natural coastline will vanish, the traditional villages in the vicinity, such as Ma Wan Chung Village, will also vanish as a result of the reclamation.

Hong Kong has evolved gradually from a fishing village to a metropolitan city, and not many fishing villages survive today. Apart from Tai O, the so-called "Venice of the East", Ma Wan Chung Village is another fishing village that still survives, where houses were built on the edge of the river. Tai O and Tung Chung is linked up by the famous Tung O Ancient Trail, and the two places are popular spots for watching sunset. The FTU has therefore submitted to the Development Bureau a proposal that can provide a similar amount of housing units without reclamation. This is because we think that in the course of development, suggestions should also be made to revitalize fishing villages, develop markets and build roads. We hope that the development can blend in with the history and culture of the area, with a view to achieving sustainable organic development.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6527

Furthermore, as I have said in the debate session on "Economic Development", in order for Hong Kong to develop logistics, we must formulate the relevant policies. The FTU has put forward a number of proposals on the planning of the Hung Shui Kiu New Development Area for consideration by the Government, which include creating 100 000 job opportunities in the area and assisting local logistics industry to sustainably develop in the wake of the new development area. We must stress that despite our support of the development of new towns and new development areas, it is imperative to provide sufficient job opportunities in the area in the course of development, so as to avoid causing problems similar to those in Tung Chung, Tin Shui Wai and Tuen Mun, where the residents have to pay high transportation costs for working across districts every day. This will not only impose a heavy burden on the grassroots, but will also produce uniform developments which have lost their originally local characteristics. We hope that the future new development areas could create and provide sufficient job opportunities in the area, thereby safeguarding the stable income of the grassroots and preserving local cultural characteristics, so that members of the public can enjoy a good and prosperous life.

Thank you, President.

MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): President, it has been very cold these two days and the temperature has dropped to only 5°C to 8°C in the urban areas. While people are shivering in the cold, the media is also struggling in the hard winter. Yesterday, a veteran journalist was suddenly dismissed by Commercial Radio Hong Kong (CRHK) without any reason. This is nothing but a move to silent people who are outspoken and eloquent.

Media is the Fourth Estate aiming to help members of the public to monitor the Government. Nonetheless, outspoken journalists and leaders have been substituted one after another. As the Fourth Estate is being weakened, our world ranking also keeps dropping. Members may remember that we ranked the 18th 12 years ago and 58th the year before last, and our ranking has dropped further to the 61th this year, representing a fall of 43 places in 12 years. As airwave is a public asset, the CRHK is not in a position to control and undermine the freedom of speech, or erode the basic rights and core values of Hong Kong people on business grounds. If the CRHK refuses to explain why LI Wei-ling was dismissed, I can only draw the conclusion that the CRHK has kowtowed to people who are in authority or power by sacrificing LI Wei-ling.

6528 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014

President, LEUNG Chun-ying has assumed office for 20 months, but what has happened under his governance? Firstly, society is severely divided with people trading insults and even coming to physical blows. Secondly, in respect of the freedom of speech, the media has been suppressed and the Fourth Estate has been weakened. Thirdly, in respect of governance, the Policy Address has deceived itself and others by thinking that words spoken are actions taken. Fourthly, this year's Policy Address is just like a dragonfly skimming over the water. Not only has it failed to address Hong Kong people's housing difficulties, the proposed poverty alleviation policy is just "window-dressing" as the low-income allowance can only help about 2% of the population. The effect of this initiative which costs $3 billion is only negligible.

On the part which the Chief Executive discussed about housing and land, Members may refer to paragraph 118 of the Policy Address in which he lied right at the beginning. The Chief Executive stated in paragraph 119 that "We must set targets, make plans and devise strategies to address the problem. Our target is to ensure that Hong Kong people are adequately housed and will have better accommodation." But may I ask Members to look at how the under-occupied households are treated under the public housing policy? Since the introduction of the under-occupation policy a few years ago, the Government has cut down on the living space of under-occupied households. While the average living space per person is 150 sq ft, it is 320 sq ft in Singapore. The size in Hong Kong is only half of the latter. As the under-occupation policy continues to cut down on the living space of under-occupied households, the average living space per person was reduced to below 300 sq ft last year. Although the standard was higher for some public rental housing (PRH) households ― not all PRH households but only the under-occupied households ― or individual under-occupied households than Singapore, it has now become lower. What actually did LEUNG Chun-ying mean to say? He has not only used words to substitute action, but has even lied to us. He is actually reducing but not increasing the living space of Hong Kong people.

Members may also refer to paragraphs 126 and 129 of the Policy Address, in which he mentioned when the sites would be available. In paragraph 126, he said that the land would be available from 2022 onwards for housing development, and then in paragraph 129, he said that the 257 hectares of land in the North District and Yuen Long would be available as early as 2020. I trust that LEUNG Chun-ying is so eager to win the re-election that he thought he LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6529 would still be in power in 2020. And yet, he still needs to overcome an obstacle in 2017, so how can he be so sure that his successor will carry on with his plan? What is more, President, we learnt the stories about fairies turning stones into gems from fairy tales or old Cantonese movies, but as noted from paragraph 136, LEUNG Chun-ying wishes to turn an ocean into an island. As advised by the professionals, it takes at least 20 years to turn an ocean into an artificial island. In other words, LEUNG Chun-ying must seek re-election for four terms.

Let us look again at how land is obtained. The answer is repeated studies. Not only the revitalization of industrial buildings mentioned in paragraph 134 requires assessments, the development of the New Territories North mentioned in paragraph 135 also requires studies, not to mention the four sewage treatment works mentioned in paragraph 137. But for the four districts including Tsim Sha Tsui West, Causeway Bay, Happy Valley and Admiralty/Wan Chai, only a pilot study is underway. As pilot study is usually carried out before a study is actually conducted, it therefore means that the project is still at a preparatory stage. And, given that the areas named are all busy districts, we cannot help thinking that he is just bluffing.

President, I do have a vision and many expectations about Hong Kong. I once worked in the United Kingdom and my boss asked me to stay there. I nonetheless rejected him because young people like us should have a sense of commitment towards Hong Kong. But what commitment has LEUNG Chun-ying made in this year's Policy Address? Is he day-dreaming or bluffing? He should not think that people will believe in what he said or regard words spoken as actions taken. This is a blatant attempt to take the easy way out.

The Secretary may say, "Mr Frederick FUNG, do you think you are brilliant? Let me hear your suggestions. Do you have any land?" We did submit practicable proposals to the Secretary and the Housing Authority (HA) from time to time and would not level criticisms without doing anything. First of all, we have all along agreed, which is also supported by the Basic Law, that if any land used by the Hong Kong Garrison for military purposes is no longer needed for defence purposes, once approved, it shall be turned over without compensation to the HKSAR Government for disposal, and if the HKSAR Government needs for public use any part of the land used for military purposes by the Hong Kong Garrison, it shall seek approval of the Central People's Government, and where approval is obtained, the HKSAR Government shall make reprovision of land and military facilities for the Hong Kong Garrison at 6530 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 such sites as agreed to by the Central People's Government, and bear all the expenses and costs entailed.

Therefore, as stated in the Basic Law, we may exchange land with the Central People's Government or the Hong Kong Garrison. We are not seizing their land, nor do we support the Government to blindly seize land. I merely propose an exchange of land. It is obvious that there are three places where construction can proceed once the exchange of land is completed. First, the Gun Club Hill Barracks at Austin Road, covering an area of 11 hectares with a pretty low utilization. Second, the Kowloon East Barracks located at the junction of Junction Road, Waterloo Road, Hereford Road and Renfrew Road, which covers an area of 10 hectares. Third, the Shek Kong Barrack, which covers an area of 159 hectares. However, in response, the Government always said that the land is being used. But has it ever asked how the land is being used? All of them are now used as quarters. Can he go and see for himself, or ask someone to station at the gate to count the number of people passing through and living inside? Please tell no more lies and there is nothing to fear. The Government dares not make any proposal for fear of the Hong Kong Garrison and the Central People's Government.

Secondly, the Government has reserved 900 hectares of land for small housing development, and the relevant policy has actually stirred up many conflicts as early as the 1990s. At that time, the Hong Kong Association for Democracy and People's Livelihood put forward a proposal and successfully convinced the then Hong Kong British Government as well as the Chief Executive-designate TUNG Chee-hwa to consider abolishing the small house policy. We proposed to prescribe a period during which buildings of 30 to 40 storeys similar to the Home Ownership Scheme flats would be built, in order to meet the needs of those with small house concessionary rights and being on the waiting list for small houses. In 1997, there were some 10 000 people on the waiting list. How about today? We have reserved over 900 hectare of land, but do Members have any idea how many PRH units can be built on 1 hectare of land? This is something the Government has the authority to do.

The third proposal is the redevelopment of public housing. The authority to redevelop public housing lies entirely with the Government and we have given advice to the Government and the HA. According to our study, even if the Government announces today an immediate redevelopment of 39 housing estates with buildings of less than 24 storeys, most of them would become buildings aged LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6531

50 or above when the redevelopment actually commences. Yet, we can build 1.5 times more of PRH units in these sites. Why does the Government only pick Wah Fu Estate for redevelopment? Although it has won the applause of Wah Fu residents and the pro-establishment camp, the entire development project has adopted a slapdash approach. If we ask the Government to give an account, sorry, there is no plan at all.

Take Sham Shui Po as an example. In Sham Shui Po, we have Nan Shan Estate, Chak On Estate, Shek Kip Mei Estate and Lai Kok Estate. Since these estates are situated within the old aircraft flight path, they are all less than 12 storeys high. The Government announced the redevelopment of Pak Tin Estate all of a sudden, but has it optimized the redevelopment of Pak Tin Estate? The site vacated during the final phase can be used for the redevelopment of Sham Shui Po, so that those four housing estates with buildings lower than 12 storeys can be redeveloped by phases. Is this not a plan that the Government can announce? The same case applies to other districts. Since the Government has announced the redevelopment of Wah Fu Estate, why has it not announced the redevelopment of other old housing estates on Hong Kong Island, especially Aberdeen? This is because sites would likewise be vacated during the final phase of the redevelopment of Wah Fu Estate for the development of other housing estates. The case is similar for Chai Wan and the New Territories. But why has the Government considered Wah Fu Estate only? All land is at the disposal of the Government, but it has nonetheless remained silent. Instead, it keeps on bluffing extensively in the Policy Address.

The fourth proposal is the redevelopment of old districts. In the Policy Address, the Government stated that it would review the redevelopment scheme comprehensively, and enable the Urban Renewal Authority (URA) to sustainably operate with due care under the principle of upholding a self-financing objective in the long run. Is the Government sincere in launching the redevelopment of old districts? What are the problems of the old districts? The problems include complicated and poor environment, buildings with loose cement falling off from the external walls, as well as the proliferation of "sub-divided units". As a matter of fact, the proposed redevelopment can kill many birds with one stone. If the redevelopment of old districts does not aim to achieve social mission, the URA would be no different from property developers. Do Members know the amount of surplus of the URA at present? Apart from the $10 billion loan from the Government, its surplus stands at more than $10 billion.

6532 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014

We have also suggested that the Government should consider formulating redevelopment plans for places affected by the old aircraft flight path. It may relax the plot ratio. But in view of the extensive coverage, which includes Kowloon City, Yau Tsim Mong and Sham Shui Po, the URA turned down the proposal. Yet, the Government does have the power to ask the URA to take up the project. Given that the Government can request the media to replace any staff, why can't it do the same to the URA to ensure that the latter follows its redevelopment plan? Why did it not request the HA, the Housing Society and the URA to join hands to develop Kowloon West into a new community providing public housing units, private flats and Home Ownership Scheme (HOS) flats? Redevelopment projects of the URA only focus on private housing development, and although some of them are destined for a public purpose, the majority are for sale. If the three departments can work together, the future development projects will not only provide private housing for sale to partially recover the cost, but will also produce HOS flats for sale on a self-financing basis and PRH units for local rehousing of the tenants.

I wonder if the two Secretaries have been to Kowloon City. A few days ago ― in fact, I have visited Kowloon City from time to time but not just a few days ago ― I purposely went to the rooftop of an old eight-storey building in Kowloon City. This is not the only eight-storey building in the area, but over 50% of the buildings in the neighbouring blocks or in the entire district are only eight storeys high, or at the most 12 to 14 storeys high. They offer an extensive vista. Can't the problem of the Government be resolved by turning those eight-storey buildings into buildings of 30 to 40 storeys? Is it not more pragmatic to introduce such a plan? Or, would it rather bluff about its proposal to turn the sea into an island? What kind of plan is the so-called Land Supply Strategy? It is nothing more than a dream.

President, I feel infuriated and angry whenever I talk about the issues concerning housing and land. "Top priority" is just empty words, and the Government has taken words spoken as actions taken. President, I wonder if the Secretary is aware of the opinion poll conducted by the University of Hong Kong. On the day the Policy Address was delivered (15 January), 36% of the respondents were satisfied with the Policy Address and 31% expressed dissatisfaction, which was 7% higher than last year. The net rate of satisfaction was therefore 5%, and the Policy Address scored 54.1. It was even lower than 56.4, the score of the Policy Address delivered by LEUNG last year, and was indeed the lowest score in these four years.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6533

The findings of another survey conducted on the day following the delivery of the Policy Address and the day after (that is, 16 and 17 January) showed that, the rate of satisfaction dropped drastically from 13% to 23% whereas the rate of dissatisfaction rose sharply from 10% to 41%. As a result, the net rate of satisfaction also dropped from 5% to -18%. The score has also dropped by 6 points from 54.1 to 48.1, falling below the passing mark. President, why would members of the public make such an evaluation? Is it because they do not understand the Policy Address or are they misled by other people or the media? Members must not forget that these two surveys were conducted within 48 hours after the delivery of the Policy Address. Who is so powerful as to mislead the entire society? It is the Government which has misled the people. It has taken words spoken as actions taken, and the "top priority" approach is nothing more than a lie.

President, I also want to talk about the Pilot Scheme for Arbitration on Land Premium. The purpose of the Scheme is to enable the two parties to negotiate an agreeable premium, thereby resolving the problem of land premium. But the fact is, it has undermined the power of the Lands Department (LandsD). In the past, the LandsD would make an evaluation ― I certainly hope that it is an objective calculation based on market value ― before an application was submitted by a property developer.

Since the LandsD often got hold of objective figures, it did stand firm in the past. Nowadays, while the LandsD gets hold of certain figure ― which is hopefully objective and concrete ― property developers also get hold of certain figure, and they start to negotiate. Unless the LandsD stands firm and tells the property developer, "Sorry, there is no room for negotiation and I will stand firm", otherwise the negotiation process would only have undesirable results as the market price will certainly be pulled down. Regardless of whether the proportion is adjusted to 5:5; 6:4; 7:3 or 8:2, the power of the LandsD would be weakened. This is not only seen as kowtow to property developers, but will be deemed as a transfer of benefits to them. Can we say this is impartial, fair and just? I do think civil servants working in the LandsD are fair and just, and do not have any conflict of interest. Hence, the Scheme itself will tilt in favour of property developers.

It is obvious that the Government has blatantly and legitimately tilted in favour of the property developers under the system, and has given us an impression that this is perfectly justified. Such a tilted policy has totally 6534 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 compromised the neutrality of civil servants and undermined the power of the LandsD is unacceptable.

President, I have to highlight another point at this juncture, and that is, increasing the overall domestic plot ratio. The Government is actually making the same mistake. Members may still remember that in view of the huge demand for housing, our first Chief Executive Mr TUNG had introduced the policy of building "85 000 units". Perhaps the direction is correct, but the approach is definitely wrong. I wonder if Members are aware that he had increased the plot ratio of all construction sites. The most glaring decision was to increase the number of buildings blocks at Nam Cheong Station from 10 to 11 and increase the number of floors from 30-odd to 40-odd, thereby providing an additional 2 000 flats. This decision was proven to be a mistake. After the collapse of the property market, however, the Government requested property developers to submit tenders and consulted the Sham Shui Po District Council ― the consultation was conducted after property developers submitted their tenders ― Members of the Sham Shui Po District Council were infuriated, as there was no reason why they were only consulted at that stage. Worse still, the proposed developments were "screen-like buildings", which I think Secretary WONG Kam-sing would agree. In order to increase housing units, the Government had indiscriminately seized land. In order to increase housing units, the Government had indefinitely increased plot ratio disregarding the actual situation. All these were the blunders made by Mr TUNG, not once, but time and again. The District Council finally succeeded in stopping the announcement of the tender result, and allowed the Government to use three to four years' time to prepare another development plan. It ended up that three less building blocks would be built, the number of floors of each block has been reduced, and the car park would be built on the ground floor. By doing so, the plot ratio of the Nam Cheong Station project was successfully reduced. A blatant mistake made by Mr TUNG at that time was to increase the plot ratio. However, today, the Government has adopted the same approach to achieve its mission by all means. We are sorry that we cannot confer power on the Government following such broad direction or principle.

President, I always participate in debates held in this Chamber and you should have an impression that I always remain calm. But this time, I can no longer remain calm. Housing is the root of Hong Kong people, a necessity to us all. What is more, it is the most difficult part of life that we are currently facing. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6535

The problem of land and housing under discussion is concerned with what will happen a century later. Since LEUNG Chun-ying will remain in office for three more years, will he implement any stopgap measures to help those people who have housing difficulties and are paying exorbitant rents? At present, the monthly rental of "sub-divided units" in Sham Shui Po, Yau Tsim Mong, Kowloon City, Wan Chai, old Hung Hom district, Kwun Tong and Tsuen Wan is no less than $2,500, and they are mostly located at the upper floors of old tenement buildings. For those accessible by lifts, the monthly rental will be $3,500. It can be as high as $5,000 for those relatively newer flats. Can you imagine how a three-member family, that is, a couple with a child, can afford the rent? Secretaries, is there any mention of this problem in the Policy Address? Is there any plan or strategy?

The parts concerning land and housing in the entire Policy Address is not only a lie, but has also taken too lightly the housing problem that Hong Kong people are currently facing and warrants immediate solution. Thank you, President.

MR MARTIN LIAO (in Cantonese): President, according to the International Housing Affordability Survey 2014 published by Demographia recently, Hong Kong has, for four years in a row, ranked first among cities in the world as having the least affordable housing prices. Hong Kong's median multiple of 14.9 is the highest ever recorded. In other words, Hong Kong people have to fork out 14.9 times of their annual income, that is, nearly 15 years, without spending any money on food, housing and other items in order to buy a property about $4 million in price. By this median multiple, Hong Kong is listed as a "severely unaffordable" market, which is almost four times that of Singapore.

The dire hardship faced by Hong Kong people is blatantly clear. As the saying goes, a man's home is his haven. If Hong Kong people are always pre-occupied with or worried about their most fundamental need for housing, how can they nurture a sense of belonging to Hong Kong? How can society as a whole have the capacity to create wealth? When Hong Kong people must spend most of their income on mortgages, and when business starters must use most of their capital on rents, it will not only lower our standard of living, but also impede economic development in the long run, while aggravating conflict and confrontation in the community. Demographia's survey has undoubtedly highlighted the crux of Hong Kong's problems, that is, protracted inadequate 6536 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 supply of land and absence of long-term urban planning. Moreover, these problems have been pushing our society towards a breaking point.

Regarding the structural problem of housing supply, the issue is of course further aggravated by a whole host of historical reasons. I am pleased to note that the Chief Executive has put the housing problem as the top priority of his administration and pledged to ensure that "Hong Kong people are adequately housed and will have better accommodation" and to "rebuild the housing ladder". In this year's Policy Address, the Chief Executive has picked up from last year's major theme of land development and set out further targets for increasing housing and land supply by adopting a more aggressive approach in order to formulate various short, medium and long-term planning and objectives for Hong Kong's future housing policy.

First of all, the Chief Executive affirms the housing production target as recommended by the Long Term Housing Strategy Steering Committee to provide a total of 470 000 units in the coming 10 years, with a ratio of 6:4 between public and private housing. In other words, 28 000 public housing units will be produced annually, of which, 20 000 are public rental housing (PRH) units and 8 000 are Home Ownership Scheme (HOS) flats. This target represents a 36% increase from that pledged in his first policy address. Regarding the supply of private housing, the target is 19 000 units per year on average. I consider this an appropriate ratio between public and private housing, which demonstrates the importance attached by the Government to the housing need of the grassroots, while the additional supply of HOS flats can also help meet some of the demand of the middle class for home ownership. I welcome the setting of this long-term target by the Chief Executive for it shows that the Government has the commitment as well as the determination to tackle the housing problem. I believe that so long as the target and direction are right, the Government can steer towards the goal by developing more land, rebuilding the housing ladder for people and effectively guiding the property market back to a healthy course.

Of course, some people may query whether this target will eventually only exist on paper. President, as the Chinese saying goes, "A skilful wife could hardly cook without rice"; this is of course an immensely difficult challenge. Given the Government's meagre land reserve, there is always the difficult question of "Where can we find land to achieve this target?" Regarding land supply in the short to medium term, the Government is primarily developing and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6537 releasing more land through land use review and increasing development intensity. According to the Government, in the past year, it has identified about 80 sites with the potential for residential use. If sites identified earlier were also included, a total of 150 Green Belt sites and Government, Institution or Community sites would be rezoned for residential use. With increased development intensity for these sites, some 210 000 additional public and private units will be made available over the next five years.

With regard to increasing the plot ratio of land sites, except for the Central and Western, Wan Chai and Eastern Districts on Hong Kong Island and Kowloon Peninsula, which are more densely populated, the Government is planning to generally increase the maximum domestic plot ratio currently permitted for other districts by around 20%, such as the Kai Tak New Development Area and Tuen Mun East, whereas the domestic plot ratio of Zone 4 of New Towns, which is relatively low in density, can be increased by 100%, that is, the building height can be relaxed from three-storey high to six storeys.

President, as resumption of land is not involved in changing the land use zoning and increasing the development density of sites, the Government can definitely increase land supply expeditiously through such means under its own control. Nonetheless, the development of individual sites would require the approval of the Town Planning Board, and it is unavoidable that such proposals may meet with objection. As I see it, a sound housing policy is formulated on the basis of good urban planning, and good urban planning is not only about quantity but quality as well. In addition to being adequately housed, Hong Kong people must also be comfortably housed. A higher development density will naturally lead to intensified wall effect, which not only prevents natural lighting and ventilation in our homes, but also affects the landscape of the city as a whole.

Apart from accommodation, people also need other community facilities as well as a space for recreation and leisure. A higher development density means a larger population in the area. As a result, the demand for community facilities, open space as well as road and transport network will increase correspondingly. Hence, I do not agree that the plot ratio of buildings in the territory should be relaxed across the board because it runs contrary to the objective of building Hong Kong into a livable city, not to mention that height restriction is currently imposed on buildings on both sides of the Victoria Harbour. I would rather see greater efforts made by the Government to develop more land than having the public put up with a deplorable living environment. I hold that the Government 6538 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 should consider the matter on a case-by-case basis, taking into account the actual planning of the sites, as well as the relevant environmental factors, including the capacity of local transport network and infrastructure, the provision of community facilities and open space, the impact of a higher development density on the environment, air quality and ventilation, and so on. The Government should not sacrifice the quality of living of the people just for the sake of meeting its targets.

Separately, a proposal is made in the Policy Address to introduce a Pilot Scheme for Arbitration on Land Premium to facilitate early agreement on land premium payable by way of arbitration. This is a breakthrough because at present, applications made by developers for lease modification or land exchange invariably involve protracted negotiations with the Government, which is both time and energy-consuming. As it is always difficult for both sides to agree on the premium payable, there are only a few successful cases of land use modification in recent years. As a result, many projects have to be put on hold.

President, dispute on land premium is definitely an obstacle to land development as construction projects can be stalled for years or even a decade, and that is not conducive to overall housing supply. I consider that arbitration is an ideal way to settle the differences between the two sides. An established arbitration mechanism can increase credibility of the process so that land premium can be decided through an open, fair and highly transparent procedure. The entire process is thus expedited so that a large amount of agricultural land can be converted into sites for domestic, commercial or hotel uses, while the revitalization of industrial buildings as well as the renewal of old areas can be advanced to release more housing supply. This will not only increase the investment incentive of developers, but also avoid causing misunderstanding in the public about the so-called collusion between the Government and businesses in respect of the land premium policy.

Nonetheless, the devil is always in the details. The success of the proposal would depend on its implementation details. The arbitrator must be an independent professional having no conflict of interests with either party, while an objective and mutually-accepted land premium assessment mechanism should preferably be formulated by the Government, so that the arbitrator can determine the premium payable objectively and fairly. Most importantly, the arbitration award must be binding on both parties to enable the effective operation of the arbitration system.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6539

With regard to commercial buildings, apart from developing Kowloon East into a new Central Business District and further increasing land supply for commercial and business uses in Central and Wan Chai, I support the new thinking adopted by the Government to explore the potential and possibility of developing underground space. If such plans can be taken forward, the flow of travellers as well as the rental of retail space in the areas concerned would be reduced significantly. It would be conductive to improving Hong Kong's business operating environment and increasing our competitiveness.

In the long run, as Hong Kong is facing the dire situation of "near-zero land reserve", the Government must hasten its studies on increasing land reserve through various means in order to meet our future development needs. Notwithstanding the provision of transport infrastructure including the airport, the railway and the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge which is near completion on the Lantau Island, its terrain is hilly with little flat land. I agree with the proposal stated in the Policy Address that in the long run, subject to environmental protection considerations, artificial islands can be built in the waters of East Lantau to provide housing land for the growing population and to spur economic development.

President, as an ancient Chinese saying goes, "If people can live and work in peace and contentment, their families will thrive, society will prosper and the ruler will have people's heart." Only by solving the housing problem can our society enjoys a better life as a whole. I so submit.

MR ABRAHAM SHEK: President, housing supply is one of the key cornerstones of this year's Chief Executive's Report. To boost the supply of flats in the robust construction industry is critical in ensuring sufficient lands resources. Since the implementation of the 10 mega-scale infrastructural projects, the ageing workforce and labour shortages have become increasingly apparent in various construction trades. If the problem continues to worsen, not only will flat production be delayed, but construction costs will also soar. Adding to the ultimate prices of the flats, the worry is not unfounded.

Actual construction of private residential units was only 14 100 in 2013, down 24% compared with 18 600 in 2012. Actual completion of private residential flats hits the 4-year low in 2013 with only 8 300 units actually completed, down 18% compared with 10 000 units in 2012. The surge in 6540 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 construction costs has discouraged developers from engaging in new residential projects. Moreover, increasing labour and material costs have impaired the sustainability of the construction industry. The substantial increase in the project estimates of Shatin to Central Link, West Kowloon Cultural District, Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge and the Hong Kong Lake Road are prominent examples. It is incredible to learn that the Administration expected the Third Runway to take 10 years to complete. Allowing the momentum of the construction industry to sink would run against Hong Kong's long-term interests and competitiveness.

The pragmatic solutions are: eradicate bureaucratic red-tape caused by overly cumbersome consultations and statutory procedures; strengthen the role of Construction Industry Council in training new blood, particularly the steel workers; collaborate with the industry to improve working conditions to retain talents in the industry; improve and expedite the construction processes by increasing the use of precast building technology and streamlining administrative procedures; and lastly, the most important one is to proactively consider importing foreign labour for trades with marked shortages subject to the actual needs of the infrastructural and residential projects.

(THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, MR ANDREW LEUNG, took the Chair)

Deputy President, as I said earlier, housing remains a key concern in this year's Policy Address. The Chief Executive has issued a post-dated cheque to the people of Hong Kong, assuring them that they will be adequately housed in a better environment in the next three decades. This means accepting the Long Term Housing Strategy Steering Committee's recommendation to adopt 470 000 units as the new public and private housing total supply target for the coming 10 years. With public housing accounting for 60% of the new population in the next 10 years, are we going into more and more subsidized housing? And this would create a great burden to our financial well-being. It seems that either the Chief Executive is being overly optimistic about the future or he is intentionally giving people false hope in order to play down the housing woes that we are now facing.

Thirty years is too long. However, we can foresee the probable future by looking at the past and the present. As far as the public housing is concerned, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6541 the Housing Authority plans to build a total of 82 000 public rental housing units during the 5-year period from 2014 to 2018, an average of 16 400 units per year. This is only an increase of 9% compared with the 5-year period from 2009 to 2013 when about 75 000 units were constructed in total or 15 000 units per year in those days. The potential growth of applicants for public rental housing units far exceeds the construction speed. There were 130 000 applicants in September 2010; 165 000 applicants in 2011; now, 237 800 applicants in September 2013, with a growth rate of 20%, 27% and 13% respectively. Now that there are more than 240 000 applicants waiting for public rental housing units, it is becoming increasingly doubtful that the average waiting time for a public rental housing unit can be kept to within three years, particularly for single applicants. At this rate, the queue for public rental housing units will only lengthen in the next five years.

When it comes to private housing, Deputy President, the Administration estimates that the private sector will produce about 13 600 flats in each of the next five years, an increase of 40% compared to the past five years, when an average of 9 680 flats per year were produced. But the de facto high land price policy and the Government ill-advised property measures are backfiring. While the Administration blows its own trumpet saying how successful the tough Buyer's Stamp Duty (BSD) and Double Stamp Duty (DSD) measures have been in cooling down the property market, nothing is better than the facts which speak louder. According to the latest Demographia International Housing Affordability Survey, a family in Hong Kong would have to save its entire income for almost 15 years to purchase a home, making the SAR the most unaffordable city in terms of housing. To put that in perspective, since the introduction of the Special Stamp Duty (SSD) in 2010, property prices have risen by as much as 35%. Secretary, is this what you aim to have? To increase 35% in housing prices? How successful you are and I congratulate you.

In the meantime, transaction prices at the government land auctions have gone wild until only recently that they become steady after rising for over 35%. Exorbitant property prices are just a reflection of the ever higher land prices. The major benefactor in this whole scheme is the Government because it is the greatest land holder in Hong Kong. The paradox is that the tough measures of SSD and BSD have tightened the flat supply, in particularly the secondhand market, adding fuel to the property price barrel. On the other hand, the high land price makes it impossible for developers to bring down first-hand property prices as the land price constitutes a considerable part of the flat price itself. Likewise, revitalizing the Home Ownership Scheme (HOS) Secondary Market 6542 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014

Scheme, a failure itself, has driven up prices of HOS flats almost to private flat levels. Thereby those well-off public rental housing tenants who could have gone into HOS now cannot do so even though the Administration will in future provide some 17 000 HOS flats over the next four years, starting from 2016 to 2017 onwards. It is unlikely that the new HOS flat supply will be able to bridge the gap in demand and be able to make it affordable for those who are in the line.

In hindsight, the rapid growth of applications for public housing rental units over the past three years was no coincidence, Deputy President. The SSD, BSD and DSD have definitely played their parts. According to a survey by the Housing Authority, at the end of 2012, of the 71 500 single person applicants aged 35 or below, 34% were students when they submitted their applications and 47% possessed tertiary or higher academic qualifications. Applying for public rental housing units has become the best bet for young people once they reach the age of 18. Responding to this trend, the Director of Housing put the blame on the young people, saying at the recent Public Accounts Committee hearing that public rental housing was intended for the most disadvantaged in the community and the Housing Department would consider deducting marks from students when considering their applications for public rental housing units under the quota and point system. Rightly so, but you created the system and they are only working with the system, so why blame them? The Administration was callous, unaware of the plight facing the young people when both the housing ladder and social ladder are broken. Is the Administration trying to force young people to settle in "sub-divided units", bed spaces, cubicle apartments or even on the streets? If the Government continues its de facto high land price policy and unnecessary interference into the property market, it will make a mockery of the vision of allowing more Hong Kong people to purchase a home and have a better standard of accommodation.

Deputy President, in 2013, only 50 000 people have actually purchased housing compared to 150 000 before the implementation of the SSD. If the Government's aim was to ensure that more Hong Kong people buying Hong Kong flats, the result is different. Instead of 150 000, only 50 000 can afford to pay the 35% increase since the implementation of the SSD. How successful the Government is in creating a situation that they benefit most from the auction of land?

Deputy President, against this backdrop, how can the Administration convince the public that the Chief Executive's cheque can be cashed? I am sure the Secretary has his way in answering me. And then he said, "If you listen to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6543

Abraham, the representative from the Real Estate and Construction Industry, you are supporting …", I repeat, "you are supporting 地產霸權." How sad it is for a government official to use this term when he attacked my amendment in the stamp duty. I support the stamp duty but I do not support the Government's measures of using the BSD to deprive us of the rights that was granted to us under the Basic Law.

The Chief Executive again played his own trump card by announcing that he would continue to develop new land but, in fact, this proposal has been raised many times over many many years and no headway has been made. I hope that our Secretary Paul CHAN can change this bad luck trend. Developments of Northeast New Territories, Hung Shui Kiu New Development Area, extension of Tung Chung New Town and the review of the deserted agricultural land in North District and Yuen Long will not bear fruit for many many more decades. The Secretary, Prof Anthony CHEUNG said that the future development of Wah Fu Estate would be done in phases but the timetable is still unavailable. Show to us, how are you going to do it with this shortage of labour? In the even more distant future, the Administration has been raising hope about the ongoing land use review, the long-term strategy of cavern development in Hong Kong, underground space development in the urban areas, near shore reclamation site, and so on and so forth. But all these suggestions are likely to take, as I said earlier, several decades to develop and a number of Chief Executives through universal suffrage to see the results. Good luck on you!

For increasing plot ratio, I totally subscribe to that. Plot ratio has been reduced because the Government wants to control the height and the breadth of building, leaving nothing for the market to decide on how to build and where to build.

Deputy President, perhaps, the only potential game changer in the Policy Address is the proposed Pilot Scheme for Arbitration on Land Premium. This is a constructive attempt to resolve controversy over the Authority's long-standing black box operation which it single-handedly decides the level of land premium to be charged, and that was the reason why in the last two years, we have seen the supply of land through lease modification coming to a total standstill. I do hope that this pilot scheme would work.

Thank you, Deputy President.

6544 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014

DR ELIZABETH QUAT (in Cantonese): Deputy President, in this session, I will speak on three areas, namely, energy, the environment and conservation.

Deputy President, regarding the development of Hong Kong's electricity market, when the current 10-year Scheme of Control Agreements (SCAs) were negotiated between the Government and the two power companies, a general consensus has already reached in the market, that is, Hong Kong should in future increase power interconnection and segregate the generation sector from the network sector in order to open up and introduce competition to the electricity market.

With the completion of the Administration's interim review of the SCAs, the five-year development plans of the two power companies for 2014 to 2018 have also been finalized. According to the current SCAs signed between the Government and the two power companies, if the Government intends to revise the regulatory framework for the electricity market, it should engage the two power companies in discussion before 2016. In other words, the Government only has about two years to reach a consensus with the general public on the issue of market liberalization. Hence, it is high time for the Administration to launch a comprehensive study on the relevant issues, in order to prepare afresh the signing of new SCAs with the two power companies, as well as introducing changes to the future regulatory framework for the electricity market.

We should pay special attention to the provision of "stranded costs" under the current SCAs, that is, in the event of a change implemented by the Government to the electricity supply market structure that causes material impact on the power companies, they shall recover from the market stranded costs incurred from implementing the relevant measures as required by the Government. The Government should fully assess the impact in this regard to allow for due consideration by the public.

Over the years, the Government has never disclosed the detailed findings of its internal studies on the liberalization of the electricity market. The Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB) opines that the objective of lowering tariff through opening up the market and introducing competition is worth supporting. Nonetheless, if we consider the actual experience from different places in the world where the local electricity markets have been liberalized, it is clear that while this proposal or notion sounds very good, there are not many successful overseas examples. Hence, while the SAR Government should expeditiously launch a public consultation on the future LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6545 fuel mix for power generation in Hong Kong, we hope that it should also conduct specific studies, discussion and consultation as soon as possible on issues like increasing power interconnection, segregating the generation sector from the network sector, introducing new operators and opening up the electricity market.

In respect of the environment, I have all along requested that a more stringent energy efficiency target should be set by the Government for the two power companies. Although nothing has been mentioned about it in this year's Policy Address, I certainly hope that the Government will roll out more measures to encourage emissions reduction by various sectors in the community as well as members of the general public. In addition, the Government should allocate more resources on the research and development (R&D) of green technologies, as well their application.

I recently learn about a fish farm which has collaborated with a university. With help from the power company, the university R&D results are applied to actual fish farming technologies. Apart from solar panels, water pumps with variable speed drives are used to regulate different water flows during day and night, and heat pumps are used to replace the conventional thermostat to achieve energy saving. It turns out that with suitable use of R&D and new technologies, the fish farm can save up to 140 000 kW of electricity and reduce 74 tonnes of carbon emissions per annum.

Earlier, I visited a next-generation green data centre. In the past, data centre operation required a low ambient room temperature of 10-odd °C, like that of a refrigerator, resulting in a large electricity consumption. But with the use of new ventilation designs and green technologies, data centres can now operate under ambient room temperatures as high as 28°C, or even above. The above two successful cases in Hong Kong involve the application of green technologies. They prove that the promotion of green technologies can genuinely achieve substantial energy savings and emission reduction. Hence, it is incumbent upon the Government to formulate the necessary strategies so that various trades and industries can vigorously promote the R&D as well as the application of green technologies.

Next, I would like to talk about cycling. As bicycle is a green transport mode with zero emission, I am happy to note that the Policy Address has pledged to foster a "bicycle-friendly" environment in Hong Kong and to improve cycle tracks and parking spaces for bicycles. But I would also like to see the Government take one step further by incorporating bicycles into the public 6546 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 transport system and encouraging the wider use of bicycles as a supplementary transport mode.

As I have mentioned previously at various meetings, some cities already have a well-developed self-service bicycle hiring system, and users can even hire bicycles easily through mobile phone applications. In those cities, the design of cycling tracks is holistically connected and co-ordinated with the original network of roads and pavements. They are good examples which Hong Kong can draw reference from.

I also hope that similar schemes can be put on trial in Hong Kong. In particular, self-service bicycle hiring pilot schemes can be introduced in districts such as Sha Tin and Ma On Shan in the New Territories with better-developed cycling paths. In parallel, the design of various software and hardware including cycling tracks and roads should be improved, so as to encourage the public to travel by bicycle instead of by cars, which can reduce carbon emissions and support environmental protection.

Apart from reducing carbon emissions, Hong Kong people are also gravely concerned about the reduction and management of municipal solid waste. For example, the Government is now taking steps to gradually resolve the problems of odour, environmental pollution, air pollution, and so on, arising from the Tseung Kwan O Landfill, including the refuse collection vehicles retrofitting subsidy scheme as well as other improvements. All these are effective measures. I also hope that the Government can consider enhancing the transport of refuse by sea, so as to reduce the impact of transporting refuse by land on residents in the vicinity.

Separately, I very much welcome the Government's proposals to earmark $1 billion to launch a Recycling Fund for promoting the sustainable development of the recycling industry, and to develop one green station in each of the 18 districts. I have also made similar requests when speaking in the Council in the past.

In respect of promoting waste reduction, as well as the recovery and management of different kinds of municipal solid waste, especially low-value resources such as food waste, I hope the Government can expeditiously formulate the relevant strategies and objectives. According to the Government's existing plans, it seems that neither incinerators nor landfills can inadequately resolve the current problems faced by Hong Kong on waste management. I also hope that LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6547 the authorities can formulate and enforce the strategies and objectives as soon as possible without further delay.

(THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair)

In respect of conservation, while the Policy Address states that the Government is implementing a number of measures to strengthen the conservation of ecologically important sites in private ownership through the Management Agreement Scheme and the Public-Private Partnership Pilot Scheme, we regrettably note from the Tai Long Sai Wan incident that the Government has already wasted a good opportunity to demonstrate how conservation can proceed in tandem with development through public-private partnership. I hope the Government can mend the fold and reconsider the way forward in balancing the needs of development and conservation through discussions with the affected villagers, so that practical policies and measures can be formulated in the long run.

In addition, I also hope that the Government can invest more resources on biodiversity studies in order to ensure Hong Kong's sustainable development.

President, I so submit.

DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, as the Chinese saying goes, "Water is money". Water is the most important resources for human beings; it is also the most important natural resources for Hong Kong.

As pointed out in paragraph 169 of this year's Policy Address under the sub-heading "Water Quality of Victoria Harbour", the water quality of Victoria Harbour proper will further improve on completion of the main works of the Harbour Area Treatment Scheme Stage 2A by the end of this year. The Administration has also undertaken to commission a consultancy study with the objective of enhancing the leisure and amenity value of the coastal areas of Victoria Harbour. I strongly support this direction of work.

Nonetheless, I must still take the Chief Executive to task today for his policy addresses. I still recall that in paragraph 148 of last year's Policy Address, the Chief Executive made a special pledge in promoting a water-friendly 6548 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 culture. But this pledge had vanished in the Financial Secretary's budget as nothing had been mentioned about resource allocation in this regard. On 2 June 2012, we invited the Chief Executive to visit different coastal locations in West Kowloon so that he could gain first-hand experience of the strong odour carried by the sea wind as well as its negative impact on people's livelihood.

In the past, most coastal locations in West Kowloon including Cheung Sha Wan, Tai Kok Tsui, Hung Hom, and so on, were sparsely populated. But with urban development, they have now become densely-populated areas. In 2011, the Green Harbour Actions group (the Group) was co-founded by Kowloon West New Dynamic and the Hong Kong Baptist University. As an ongoing initiative, the Group will conduct water quality survey on random samples taken from different water pollution black spots in the harbour once every four months. According to the latest survey results published in November 2013, a E. coli count of 7 200 was recorded for the marine stretch of Tai Kok Tsui, 5 200 in Tsim Sha Tsui East, 4 000 in Hung Hom, 6 100 in To Kwa Wan, 5 100 in Kwun Tong, 4 300 in Cheung Sha Wan. Samples had also been taken in North Point, Causeway Bay, Lai Chi Kok, and so on, and I will not go into the details here. A E. coli count of 610 is equivalent to grade 4, or "Very Poor", in terms of water quality. As we all know, much effort has been made in recent years to revive the Cross Harbour Race. However, water quality of the race course inside the harbour is still far from satisfactory. Hence, we believe that more efforts should be made by the Government in this regard.

Since I entered into politics in 2007, I have all along strived to develop Hong Kong's coastline into a green and sustainable harbourfront surrounded by sea. The Government is now taking steps towards this direction. My most vivid recollection is the meeting I had with Mrs Carrie LAM back in 2007 when she was still the Secretary for Development. I suggested to her that the Government should adopt an approach of tackling the easier tasks first, before going to the more difficult ones such as connecting areas that were inaccessible by foot through the construction of floating or viaduct bridges in order to provide uninterrupted access along the entire harbourfront.

I think the Government is now more receptive to the idea. But with the gradual opening of more promenades, such as the Hung Hom Promenade which is a beautiful scenic spot frequently visited by many members of the public, and the Tai Kok Tsui Promenade which has already taken the first step forward, our harbourfront is like a lady who looks stunning from afar, but emits an unpleasant body odour to those who get close. I think the strong odour inside the harbour LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6549 will probably create adverse health impact on people who are jogging, or as a Member just mentioned, cycling, or even practising Tai Chi along the promenades.

In this connection, local residents from different strata, including those living in middle-class areas and luxurious apartment areas, have relayed to me that they must always keep the windows shut for fear of the high bacteria content of sea wind blowing across the harbour. The situation is especially serious in areas along the Yau Ma Tei Typhoon Shelter as the smell will become more pungent at night when oil is released from vessels.

Although I live in the New Territories West, I have also reflected in person my views to the Environmental Protection Department about the situation in the marine stretch of Ting Kau. I hope members of the local District Council as well as Members of the Legislative Council representing the New Territories West can also follow up this matter on our behalf. I think the odour detected by local residents at night is the smell of oil.

I believe that the odour from the harbourfront is hazardous to health and hence, I hope that with the completion of the leading project of the West Kowloon Cultural District, all districts in the territory including Kowloon West, the New Territories and the Hong Kong Island can co-operate and strive for improvements in Hong Kong's water quality.

As a world-class landmark of Hong Kong, the West Kowloon Cultural District will house different performance venues in the neighbourhood of luxurious residential developments. But if residents and tourists can smell strong odour from the harbour when they go there, it will a major scandal for Hong Kong. Hence, I hope the Hong Kong Government can make reference to the practice of our neighbours in handling this matter.

I had visited Taiwan and Singapore to inspect the situation there. In 1993, the Riverside in Singapore was a stinky harbourfront area with hardly any visitors. But after two years' of hard work, when I visited the place again in 1995, the place had transformed into a favourite tourism spot with a Riverside Restaurant and many bars. Tamsui in Taiwan used to be a stinky waterfront area too, but nowadays, visitors can spot micro-organisms and sea creatures in the seawater. Hence, I think it all depends on the Government's determination in seeking improvements.

6550 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014

Let me cite a simple example. Whenever the city of Taipei is mentioned, people will naturally think of the local government's achievements in the areas of environmental protection and improvement of water quality. Moreover, I have also travelled to Taichung (with Jason HU Chih-chiang as its mayor) and visited a local Eslite Bookstore featuring outdoor vegetal walls that contained more than 100 000 plants. This striking building has become a famous tourism attraction in Taichung. Nowadays, Taichung has shed its old image of having a prosperous sex industry or being rampant with other shady activities. That is the achievement of the local government.

I am aware that the current-term Government is facing many difficulties in administration. Apart from housing, the Government must also strive harder in environmental protection, especially in respect of water quality in the harbour. Why is it necessary to improve water quality? Because good water quality is enjoyed by all, irrespective of their wealth, social status or living area, and people of all ages like to visit the harbourfront. If the Government can make breakthrough improvements in the harbourfront within its five-year term, I think Hong Kong people will definitely remember the efforts made by the current-term Chief Executive and the Government for a long time in the future.

Since I entered into politics in 2009, I have been suggesting to the Government that the allocation of resources on improving water quality should be like making savings. In fact, I had also discussed the matter with the last-term Chief Executive, and he told me that my suggestion would incur at least $10 billion. But even if it means spending $10 billion, it would be a worthwhile investment because the health and living quality of Hong Kong people as a whole is at stake. I think such an initiative will be supported by the middle class in particular. While poor people may not have too much spare money on leisure activities, they can still go to the harbourfront to practise Tai Chi or play with their children.

I hope the Government is committed to this cause and establish an inter-departmental co-ordination mechanism. In the past, the Government had also pledged that co-ordination work would be undertaken by the Chief Secretary personally because water quality cannot be improved simply by the Environmental Protection Department alone. The Environment Bureau must fully co-operate with the Marine Department, the Home Affairs Department, the Drainage Services Department, and so on. Moreover, the West Kowloon Cultural District Authority will also have a role to play because certain commercial developments, such as the planning of the public cargo working area, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6551 may be involved. Another factor is whether the Marine Department can properly control the noise, oil and water pollution caused by cruise vessels. I sincerely hope that the Government can show its determination so that the next generation of Hong Kong can still enjoy a green harbourfront. Hong Kong, with a blue sky, green mountains and a green harbour, will then truly become a livable city with a water-friendly culture.

President, my speech in this session ends here.

MR KWOK WAI-KEUNG (in Cantonese): President, in this debate session, I will speak on the two areas of housing and environmental affairs. As we all know, the consultation document on Long Term Housing Strategy (LTHS) has set down a hard housing supply target of constructing 470 000 units for the next 10 years. However, Members may have learnt from the districts that proposals of land development and relaxation on development intensity have been met with resistance. We hope that the Government will consider how a soft landing can be achieved in implementing such policies. As pointed out in paragraph 120 of the Policy Address, in developing land, factors such as traffic and infrastructural capacities, community facilities, local characteristics, landscape and air ventilation have to be taken into account, so that the hard target of meeting future housing needs can be achieved with a soft landing.

Regarding the housing policy for young people, we have to point out that there are 100 000-plus non-elderly applicants on the Waiting List of public rental housing (PRH) units. In the past, we thought that young people who submitted their applications for PRH units even when they were still studying or in their university years, had put forward their demands too much in advance. I would like to stress here that young people do not demand to be allocated with PRH units once they graduate. The truth is, the young generation can hardly expect that they would get very well-paid jobs, and some of them may still be earning $10,000 or so a month after working for a very long time. They may fall between two stools for extended period in future, in the sense that while they are ineligible to apply for PRH units, they cannot afford to buy their own flats owing to the consistently high property prices. Therefore, they apply for PRH units in advance as a kind of protection.

Regarding the youth hostels mentioned in the Policy Address, although the Government will allocate additional resources in this area, only 1 000 units will be provided. The youth hostel projects in Sheung Wan and Tai Po which have 6552 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 been implemented and the projects in Mong Kok and Jordan to be launched later will only provide a total of 1 000 units in four districts. These 1 000 units will only be a drop in the ocean as they cannot even meet the housing demands of young people who are on the Waiting List for PRH. Besides, the current level of rent of youth hostels is unreasonable. Why do I say so? The rent of youth hostels has been set at 60% of the market level. Using the rent level of 2013 as the basis for calculation, the rent was about $380 per sq m in the urban areas, and $280 even in Kowloon. The rent of a 150 sq ft youth hostel unit on Hong Kong Island will at least be $3,000. The amount of $3,000 may not sound too expensive because the current rent level is generally very high. It is actually cheap when compared to the rent of a standard flat in the private market at $7,000 to $8,000. But the question is, as this group of young people only earns about $10,000 a month, how much money can they save after deducting $3,000? If a frugal young man who can save $5,000 a month, he can only save $200,000 to $300,000 after staying in a youth hostel for five years. With that amount of money, he can barely pay the mortgage insurance premium, not to mention the down payment. Is helping this group of young people buy their own homes the long term target and purpose of the Youth Hostel Scheme? If it is, I believe and propose that the rent should be adjusted according to the actual circumstances. The Government may charge these young people a fixed level of rent irrespective of the market level, or charge them with a rent set at a certain percentage of their salaries, this approach will be more practical. If not, these young people will still have to wait for PRH after moving out from youth hostels, thus defeating the purpose of the Scheme.

Next, I would talk about home acquisition by young people. The Chief Executive mentioned in the beginning of the Policy Address that some young people could not afford a home of their own after getting married. They have dinner together in a restaurant and then separately return to the homes of their respective parents. This is one of the scenarios. I have heard a more serious case in which the husband has to go to Shenzhen every day to stay in the in-law's home while his wife and children stay in her sibling's home. This extreme case shows that if the Government has to help young people in home ownership if wants to raise the birth rate so as to solve the present problem of a particularly low birth rate in Hong Kong.

I have to point out again that as stated in the consultation document on LTHS, the median monthly income of non-owner occupied household heads aged 25 to 35 has risen by $5,000-plus from $16,000 in 1996 to $21,400 in 2011, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6553 representing an increase of 34%, which is not bad at first sight. But unfortunately, property prices have risen by 50% to 60% in general in the same period. While the salary level has risen slightly, property prices have soared. As the salary level can hardly catch up with hikes in property prices, more and more families can hardly afford to buy their own homes. Since the document has pointed out the problem, the authorities should think of ways to provide initiatives on all fronts to assist middle-class families to buy their own home. In the past, people frowned at the mention of the Home Starter Loan Scheme. The Government, in particular, said that property prices would be pushed up, but the problem is, there are indeed families which need assistance. Why can the authorities not consider offering such assistance to some people? Even if the number of beneficiaries may be very limited, at least newly-married couples or young people would understand that the Government has noted their concerns and is willing to think of ways to meet their needs.

In addition, while Group B PRH is provided at present, the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions also proposes to introduce the sale of Home Ownership Scheme (HOS) flats under List B with a higher income threshold, so as to assist the middle class to buy their own homes. Lands allocated for My Home Purchase Plan (MHPP) back then have now been used for building HOS flats, but MHPP has its merits too. The purpose of MHPP is to allow young people to rent a flat for a period of time so that when they have saved enough money, they can purchase that flat if they like it. Can the Government introduce MHPP in other areas?

Next, I would talk about the proposal of redeveloping Wah Fu Estate. Last year, the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions (FTU) visited Wah Fu Estate and held a consultation meeting with the residents. Many residents asked whether the Estate would be developed then. Although no answer was provided last year, the Government has announced the plan for redevelopment this year. Although the residents were pleased upon hearing the news, their feelings were mixed with concerns. Why do I say so? They were pleased because as many Members have said, the construction quality of Wah Fu Estate is unsatisfactory. I visited one flat on the lower floors two days before the Chinese New Year. The concrete of the cross beam and the walls was spalled and a spot near the flushing water pipe could be described as badly damaged. As the flat is located on the lower floors, the drainage pipe in the toilet gives off a foul smell not only when flushing, but at all times. The living conditions in Wah Fu Estate are actually no better, or even worse than those of "sub-divided units". Hence, the 6554 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 residents are pleased that their living conditions can be improved and they can move to other units.

However, what are their concerns? Now that the Government has announced its plan for redevelopment, the residents are concerned about when demolition works will commence and when they will be relocated, and the whole process may span eight to 10 years. The residents are also concerned about when registration will start and whether arrangements for a seamless relocation will be made, including arrangements which will enable them to be relocated in the same district with suitable shopping and community facilities. In addition, as they have built up a close relationship with their neighbours over the years, they are concerned whether such relationships can be maintained in the relocation process and whether they and their neighbours will be relocated in the same vicinity as far as possible. Therefore, it is hoped that the Government will announce any updated information about the future arrangement as soon as possible.

The redevelopment of Wah Fu Estate is certainly related to the implementation of the South Island Line (West) project. However, the Policy Address only indicates that the Government is actively considering taking forward the project. Here we would like to stress that the Government should not only actively consider taking forward the project, but should implement it expeditiously. At present, there are 8 000 to 9 000 units in Wah Fu Estate. As it is estimated that a total of 20 000-plus units can be provided after redevelopment, and the population in the area will be more than doubled. Besides, lifting the development moratorium in Pok Fu Lam will also increase the population in the area. Hence, mass transportation has to be developed expeditiously to serve the public.

In addition, I would give my views on the architectural designs of certain buildings. We have received requests from the labour sector for assistance in occupational safety. Many new private buildings are elaborately decorated nowadays. Even the balcony for installing the split type air-conditioner or the planter is designed to take up very little space for aesthetic reasons. If construction workers have to do renovation works, they will encounter the problem of not having enough space for the working platform to land. Worse still, louvre windows will create an additional problem of obstruction. Therefore, I hope that the Government will take safety issues into consideration in approving the plans; otherwise, the lives of repair and maintenance workers will be seriously and directly endangered.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6555

I will now turn to environmental affairs. As we may be well aware, it is mentioned in the Policy Address that the Government has earmarked $1 billion to launch a Recycling Fund. I believe that Members will welcome the Fund which is expected to facilitate the reduction of waste and promote the development of the industries concerned. However, as details of the Fund have not been announced, we hope that information and news can be made available as soon as possible. It is also hoped that the Government will consult the industries, with a view to utilizing the Fund for the long-term development of the industries and reduction of waste deposited at landfills.

Besides, I suggest Members to refer to the studies conducted by the Institute for Local Self-Reliance of the United States. The results of the studies show that in treating the same amount of waste, the job opportunities created by waste recovery and recycling are 10 times of those created by landfilling. In other words, developing environmental industries can not only lessen or resolve the immediate crisis of refuse and waste in Hong Kong, it can also create job opportunities and strengthen the foundation of our local economy.

I would also point out that while the Government is developing environmental industries, I hope it will also review the mode of operation of private recyclers. We have received many complaints from the districts alleging that private recyclers are polluting the environment and obstructing the roads. These problems will directly affect the willingness of the public to participate in recycling and their impression on recycling. If they detest private recyclers, they will not be willing to participate. Therefore, I hope the Government can consider the problems seriously.

Furthermore, I would talk about the controversial topic of waste charging. According to a survey conducted by the FTU, supporters of the proposal just out-numbered objectors by a negligible proportion, and it can even be said that their ratio is about fifty-fifty. What do the results show? They show that while the public is aware of the need to reduce waste and garbage, they have concerns about the preliminary proposals of waste charging. They doubt whether waste charging can indeed reduce waste and whether the Administration will only impose waste charges on a "per head" or "per residential unit" basis and not according to the amount of waste produced by each person or household. People do not want to pay for the waste produced by others or vice versa. They stress the importance of fairness in formulating a charging framework in which the principle of waste producer pays should be reflected.

6556 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014

Besides, as I said earlier, if support facilities for recycling are inadequate, the public are concerned that items worthy of recycling will eventually be thrown into garbage bags. Problems may arise from the lack of support facilities for recycling provided by the Government, the lack of information of the locations of the collection points of recyclable items and difficulties in sending the items to the collection points. These problems may give the public the wrong impression that the Government is compelling them to throw away a large amount of garbage. If adequate support facilities for recycling are provided, the public will be willing to classify their garbage and dispose them in the recycling bins. Therefore, relevant work has to be done to meet these needs.

Finally, if waste charging is to be implemented, the Government should consider how the charges collected are to be used. Although the Government has clearly indicated that the current charging proposal is not intended to cover costs, it is the wish of the public that the waste charges paid would be used specifically for waste treatment and reduction. If the Government indicates that the charges will simply be put it into the Treasury, the public will think that even though the Government says it is not trying to cover costs, it is actually trying to help out with the costs. Therefore, we suggest the Government to put the waste charges into the Recycling Fund into which $1 billion has been earmarked. The injection of $1 billion is only a start and the sustainability of the Fund will depend on the continual input of the waste charges collected. I believe this approach will encourage the public to participate in recycling.

I so submit. Thank you, President.

MR JAMES TIEN (in Cantonese): President and the three Secretaries, the themes of this debate session are land, housing, transportation, environment and conservation, and I will mainly express the Liberal Party's views on land, housing and transportation. During the first session held yesterday, the Liberal Party said that the Chief Executive has made little mention of economic development in this year's Policy Address, which is even shorter in length than last year's, and the measures are considered "devoid of substance".

Notwithstanding that, the business community does hope that the Government can do something about land supply. Taking care of the grassroots and identifying more land for public rental housing (PRH) and Home Ownership Scheme (HOS) all boil down to the question of money. In order for Hong Kong to make money, there must be good economic development, and the proper LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6557 development of the economy counts heavily on the operation of the business community.

We therefore consider that in the course of economic development, commercial land, including hotels and shopping malls … Many people are complaining about the exorbitant rent, which has driven up commodity prices and in turn pushed up inflation in Hong Kong. Tourists also complain about the high hotel room charges, which is attributed to the insufficient supply of hotel rooms. Therefore, considering the overall economic development, I think the Government should continue to provide more land. While the Government should increase land supply from this perspective, the allocated land has often not been utilized. An example is that the entire West Kowloon project has come to a halt. Why are the construction works of hotels, shopping malls, offices and performance venue of the West Kowloon project being held up? And, why have other projects not commenced except for the Kai Tak Cruise Terminal?

Increasing land supply may not necessarily pull down property prices from a certain perspective. To pull down property prices, there must be supply of new buildings. This is because property prices will only drop when housing units are available for purchase by people, or shops are available for lease by businessmen to do business, or hotel rooms are available for tourists. The current situation is that despite the abundant supply of flour, there is still a shortfall in the supply of bread. This gives rise to another issue. Who is going to turn the land into housing developments? Who is going to turn the flour into bread?

Let us look at the construction industry in Hong Kong. A member of the trade told me that there is a shortfall of more than 10 000 construction workers, especially workers for plank fixing, bar fixing, concreting, welding and plastering.

President, I am sorry that I have forgotten to declare interest. Since I have engaged in real estate activities, I do have a part to play in the construction of buildings, recruitment of construction workers and submission of tender. Information shows that of the 320 000 construction workers, 70% aged above 40; 44% aged above 50 and 12% aged above 60, but only 13% aged below 30. Coupled with the fact that the overall unemployment rate is only 3.2%, Hong Kong can be said to be near full employment. Although we may increase wages to attract workers from other sectors, we are actually competing for the same group of workers. There is a shortfall of workers after all. In that case, we 6558 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 doubt if the Government, especially the current-term Government, can construct the relevant buildings by 2017. Even if the Government is willing to provide additional land, it does not mean that someone knows how to turn the land into housing units for people to live in.

We suggest that the Government should draw reference from the arrangements made for the construction of the Chek Lap Kok Airport, where a labour importation scheme was introduced at that time. I think the Government should consider formulating a special labour importation scheme for public housing and infrastructure projects, under which labour will be imported for the construction of PRH and HOS flats, as well as the abovementioned infrastructure projects.

Of course, the local business community will also benefit because if workers are imported through the labour importation scheme, local workers thus released can take part in projects preferred by property developers, such as hotels and offices of the West Kowloon project, as well as other projects in Kai Tak or the New Territories. I therefore consider it necessary for the Government to co-ordinate and work on this. But unfortunately, the Secretary for Labour and Welfare is not in the Chamber at the moment.

Another point that we wish to talk about is the arbitration on land premium. The Liberal Party has taken a different view from Members of other political parties and groupings. With regard to land premium, previous conflicts had arisen mainly because the Government used the prevailing land price as the indicator for setting the premium. Property developers, on the other hand, argued that the land was bought long ago and there was no reason for them to pay full land premium based on the prevailing land price. If the Government did ask for full land premium, property developers would reject. This explains why a number of land that may otherwise be used for housing construction has remained idle in the past few years. The negotiation on land premium has broken down. I therefore consider arbitration a reasonable approach.

Certainly, I also agree with some Members in saying that if an arbitrator bows to property developers and agrees on any premium so long as they are willing to construct buildings, hence releasing a lot of land, the resulting premium will not be reasonable either. Thus, the key lies in who plays the role of an arbitrator. The Government should not base entirely on market price because if this is the case, property developers need not pay land premium and can instead simply submit new tenders and choose from other available Government land. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6559

What is more, with increasing land supply, tender price has become lower and lower. Given the decreasing land price, the premium payable by property developers should thus be based on the lowest land price recorded most recently. If a piece of land in Kai Tak was sold at $8,000 per sq ft six months ago, and another piece of land is now sold at $6,000 per sq ft, it would be unreasonable for the Government to ask the property developer to pay a land premium of $8,000 per sq ft. Under this circumstance, the two parties can never reach an agreement on land premium.

The Liberal Party supports this scheme, but the most crucial factor is who will play the role of an arbitrator. Apart from being an expert, an arbitrator must also have credibility, and the premium agreed through arbitration must be made known to members of the public and the Legislative Council. In that case, the arbitrator would not be accused of favouring property developers. The amount of money involved is colossal. By colossal, it means that construction works may commence once the premium is paid. It has nothing to do with the ratio of, say, 6:4. These are separate matters, and it is nothing to do with the ratio of 60% PRH and HOS flats and 40% private flats, as claimed by the Government. This ratio only applies to land granted by the Government, and has nothing to do with land requiring the payment of land premium. Land requiring the payment of premium belongs to the remaining 40%, and supply can be significantly increased without having any implication on the remaining 60%. Will the rental of those additional offices become cheaper? Will private developments become cheaper? Will shop rental become cheaper? I think this is not impossible.

Lastly, since Secretary Prof Anthony CHEUNG is present, I would like to talk about transportation. At present, the most practical way is to build houses on land for people to live in. But unless offices are also built in the area to provide job opportunities for local residents, the need to work across districts will add to the importance of transportation.

We are therefore pretty worried about the major initiatives of the Government, especially the railway in New Territories East. The East Rail Line Lo Wu line is already flooded with passengers, and the train compartments are fully packed from Sheung Shui to Fan Ling every day. Although the future Shatin Central Link will have direct access to Admiralty, the proposed number of train compartments has been reduced from more than 10 to 12. Furthermore, Secretary Prof K C CHAN said that the Government would embark on a construction spree in Northwest New Territories, like Fan Ling North. If the spur line is also connected to the existing railway network, how can residents go 6560 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 to work in Central? Many passengers have to wait some time before they can board the train. Upon the completion of the numerous housing developments, many people will move into the area. Will residents have difficulties in going to work in the urban areas? Supporting facilities are lacking. Thus, the entire plan must be viable. I do not think any Hong Kong people would want to spend an hour going to work and then another hour to return home after work, though this is pretty common in foreign countries. Therefore, from the perspective of economic efficiency, I hope that the Government will pay attention to the abovementioned problems.

Thank you, President.

MR CHAN HAK-KAN (in Cantonese): President, in this Policy Address, I note that the Chief Executive has proposed new measures that are different from previous ones on various fronts such as supporting the disadvantaged, helping the young, environmental protection, and land supply. Clearly, the Government is determined to resolve certain intractable problems that have plagued Hong Kong for a long time. Yet, I wish to tell the Government that these problems did not come into existence overnight. It is actually a big challenge for the Government to resolve these problems. The new measures will definitely get on the nerves of some people or affect certain vested interests, and members of the public have expressed many different views on them. Therefore, I hope that the Government will take more heed of opinions from different sectors of the community before launching the new measures, or else they may not be successfully implemented.

President, in this session, I would like to talk about development first, and then I will talk about environment protection. If we want development, we need to have sufficient land supply. The Government is now going all out to identify sites, including some Green Belt areas and GIC sites, for building more flats. I am in support of this. Some people say that the Government is "grabbing land blindly", but I do not totally agree with them. My concern is whether our land resources are fully utilized at present. When all people are desperately anxious to have their own homes as early as possible, how can we accept that certain sites have been left idle and deserted for a prolonged period, or cannot be used for housing development just because their uses cannot be changed for some reasons?

So, in this year's Policy Address, the Government has proposed a Pilot Scheme for Arbitration on Land Premium, which is squarely aimed at rooting out LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6561 the problem countered in changing land uses for development. In fact, my office has handled a land premium dispute before. In my constituency, there is a site which was earmarked for a cinema a few years ago, and the developer later wanted to change the use of the site for other developments ― I have no idea whether it wanted to construct commercial or residential buildings ― but as the developer and the Government failed to reach a consensus on the land premium, the site has remained idle for six or seven years after the cinema was demolished. Despite having been left vacant and unattended for a long time, the site cannot be used for construction of buildings because the land premium mechanism has yet to be hammered out. This shows that if the land premium mechanism cannot be implemented, the situation will be like what has happened to this piece of land, which is now an eyesore as it has turned into a dusty, deserted site after the demolition of the cinema; not only are the lives of the residents affected, but more importantly, such land which originally could have been used for redevelopment or increasing housing supply has not been released, and the ultimate victim is the whole community of Hong Kong.

One of the reasons for Hong Kong's success is our highly efficient society, so actually, such instances of inefficiency should not have occurred here. Most importantly, we lack a mechanism to address the existing land premium problem. I have heard comments from the community that this land premium arbitration mechanism is a black-box operation which favours property developers and transfers benefits to them. Obviously, people making such comments have little understanding of the nature of the arbitration mechanism, under which arbitration is to be done by an independent third party who is to settle land premium disputes between the Government and developers, so that the land concerned can be developed as quickly as possible. In other words, the purpose of this mechanism is precisely to prevent collusion between the Government and the business sector.

I have read some overseas information on such mechanisms, and I think the example of the United States is quite good and can serve as reference for Hong Kong. The United States has in place a very comprehensive property arbitration mechanism, under which there are detailed rules and regulations in black and white for everything, from the appointment of arbitrators to the procedures of mediation, hearing and charging of administrative fees, with the sole objective of providing a fair and impartial process, rules to follow, as well as transparency, which can in turn lead to higher efficiency in the release of land. Compared to the existing mechanism whereby developers and the Lands Department staff discuss in private behind closed doors, is the proposed mechanism not more transparent? Is it not more effective in preventing the so-called transfer of 6562 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 benefits and collusion between the Government and the business sector? While the launch of this arbitration mechanism will not be announced until the middle of this year, I hope that the Government can draw more reference from the established mechanisms of advanced countries in Europe and America, and set up a land premium arbitration mechanism with credibility in a bid to expedite urban redevelopment.

This aside, President, the fact that some sites in Hong Kong have long been deserted is not only attributable to the land premium problem, but also due to inadequate ancillary transport facilities, particularly in areas with no rail access in the New Territories (NT) where visitor flows are very low and development is very slow. On the contrary, in areas with rail access such as Sha Tin, Sheung Shui, Fan Ling and Tai Po, visitor flows are very high and development is very fast, and these areas have developed to such an extent that they are comparable to urban areas in Kowloon and Hong Kong Island. This big contrast goes to show that railways are crucial to the development of the NT. Thus, if the Government wants to develop "brownfield sites" of no conservation value in the NT, the first thing it should consider is the issue of rail access. However, in this Policy Address, there is no mention of any concrete plan to implement the Northern Link (NOL), and this worries me a lot.

Apart from diverting East Rail passengers to the West Rail, the NOL can also strengthen the traffic connections between the NT East and NT West. If the Secretary wants to develop land in the central NT, the NOL is even indispensable. But strangely enough, now that the Government is going all out to identity sites in the NT for housing construction, there are timetables for developing the North East NT and Hung Shui Kiu, and it was even stated in last year's Policy Address that the Government intended to build flats in Sha Tau Kok, how come there is still no timetable for implementing the long-awaited NOL, which is a prerequisite for developing such land? If railway construction cannot keep pace with the new development areas, what kind of development can we talk about?

President, in fact, the Government has underestimated traffic demand in developing new towns before, and Tuen Mun is a case in point. In the 1970s, the Government decided to develop Tuen Mun into a satellite town, and the population of the area grew rapidly. While the Government foresaw an increase in the external traffic demand of the town, it seriously underestimated the actual demand. The new Tuen Mun Road, which was only built along the path of the old Castle Peak Road in an intermittent manner, inherited the latter's problem of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6563 being circuitous and bendy, and failed to cope with peak hour traffic flows. In the 1980s and 1990s, traffic congestion was basically an everyday occurrence on Tuen Mun Road. When was this problem solved? It was not until Route 3 and the West Rail were commissioned that the congestion situation was improved.

Therefore, we would rather overestimate a new town's external traffic demand than underestimate it. Tuen Mun residents paid a heavy price of 10 years' external traffic inconvenience. The Government must learn a lesson from that in developing the new development areas, including the North East NT and Hung Shui Kiu, in order not to repeat the same mistake. In the future, the population of the North District will surely exceed that of Tuen Mun; how should we prepare for the rapidly growing population? Regrettably, there is no answer in this Policy Address. I hope that Secretary Prof Anthony CHEUNG, who has just left the Chamber, can announce the specific details of the NOL as soon as possible, and ensure smooth traffic flows in the new development areas.

On a separate front, the Government has proposed plans to make use of caverns and develop underground space. I am in support of them. As many government facilities are now situated in prime sites, if these facilities can be moved into caverns, the sites so vacated can be used for building public rental housing units, Home Ownership Scheme flats or private apartments which we need desperately. So I hope that the Government can take action expeditiously. As for underground space development, this has been very successful in our neighbouring regions such as Japan and Taiwan. Since Hong Kong is already highly urbanized, if we want to develop it further, we only have two ways to do so: first, high-rise development; second, underground development. Regarding high-rise development, as there are already many skyscrapers in the commercial districts of Hong Kong, there is actually little room for high-rise development; given that commercial land is in short supply, the only option is underground development. Therefore, I hope that the Government can complete its study on the four underground spaces and announce the details as soon as possible, so that the public can understand the situation and take part in the discussion.

President, next, I would like to talk about environmental policies. With respect to the policy proposals on environmental protection and conservation in the Policy Address, they are actually centred on three aspects, namely "harbour", "land" and "air". Having talked so much about railways just now, I also want to talk about vehicles. The former Chief Executive, Mr Donald TSANG, proposed in the 2009-2010 Policy Address that the use of electric vehicles should be promoted, so as to make Hong Kong the (I quote) "second in Asia, after Japan, 6564 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 where electric vehicles are most widely used" (end of quote). However, a few years have passed, but the rate of using electric vehicles in Hong Kong is still rather low. I have no idea whether this is because of personnel changes in the Government, or because the Government does not attach as much importance to electric vehicles as before. President, do you know that there are five electric vehicle chargers in the car park of the Legislative Council Complex? But as I understand it … I once drove an electric vehicle to the Legislative Council and charged it at one of the said chargers for a little while. I do not know if other Honourable colleagues have ever driven electric vehicles, or used these five chargers to charge electric vehicles. I suppose none of you has used them. So, I want to tell the Secretary that while it is a good thing for the Government to take the lead in buying electric vehicles, promoting the use of them is not as simple as having them used by the Government itself. The Government should look into the reason why no one, other than the Government, opts for them. If the Government finds out the reason ― I believe the Secretary must know it ― then it will be able to successfully promote the development of electric vehicles. President, let me cite an example. A member of the public once approached me for help, saying that he intended to buy an electric vehicle but when he wanted to install some charging equipment in the car park of the housing estate where he lived, the owners' corporation of the estate did not let him do so, for fear that the process of connecting electric wires or even charging the vehicle might expose him to danger, which would in turn affect the power supply for the entire block, and therefore insisted on forbidding him to install any electric vehicle charger in the car park. What happened in the end? He gave up the idea of buying an electric vehicle, and bought a different car.

As regards the charging time of an ordinary electric vehicle, if a 13A plug is used, it may take eight to 10 hours before the vehicle can be fully charged. The Government indicated last year that it would provide more than 1 000 additional "standard" slow chargers across the territory. But among these 1 000 chargers, 500 are situated in government car parks, and members of the public may not have round-the-clock access to them. In other words, the number of additional slow chargers available is only 500. In this year's Policy Address, it is stated that another 100 medium-speed chargers will be provided. While there is quite a big difference in quantity between these chargers and the 1 000 slow chargers, it can be seen that the Secretary is also aware of where the problem lies. In fact, electric vehicle chargers have to be sufficiently quick, abundant and convenient, so that more people can be encouraged to use electric vehicles. The relationship between electric vehicles and their chargers is actually one of "chicken and egg", which I believe everyone understands. As we now have LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6565 more than 1 000 slow chargers, can the Government consider the implementation of "one station, two systems" at the same location, that is, providing both slow charging equipment and quick charging equipment at one charging station?

I have recently talked with the staff of an electric taxi supplier. According to them, their quick charging equipment can provide full charging to an electric vehicle within a short time (two to three hours), and that is good for travelling a few hundred kilometres or more. However, they are facing many problems in installing such charging equipment, because they are ignored by all departments and they have to negotiate with every private contractor or developer themselves for permission to install these chargers. As a matter of fact, the Government has now installed slow chargers in many car parks, be they big or small, administered by the Housing Authority or in private housing estates, so why can it not adopt the model of "one station, two systems" as I mentioned just now? Given the existing locations with slow chargers installed, why not permit the installation of quick chargers at those locations too? Is this not going to quickly make certain electric vehicles or public electric taxis more popular, thereby reducing roadside emissions and air pollution? So I hope that the Secretary will seriously consider this. I am not asking you to set up new, additional quick charging stations, but you can consider the model of "one station, multiple systems".

President, lastly, I would like to talk about the issue of waste charging. I remember that the Government said in last year's Policy Address that ― sorry, President, it was said by me, not the Government ― I pointed out that Hong Kong's recycling industry was left to fend for itself and it would need a helping hand from the Government, so I proposed that in implementing waste charging, the Government should adopt the "dedicated-fund-for-dedicated-use" practice, that is, the money collected should be used to help the recycling industry. Having been discussed in the community for quite some time, various producer responsibility schemes or levy schemes have commenced one after another. As for municipal solid waste charging, Mr Bernard CHAN, Chairman of the Council for Sustainable Development, revealed a few days ago that the mainstream view of the respondents to the second stage public consultation is that people's acceptance of waste charging is contingent on a fair, just and transparent charging mechanism. This is consistent with my view. In other words, it is imperative that the amounts of such charges are in line with public opinion. Meanwhile, many people and I are very concerned about whether there will be an exemption mechanism for waste charging. To the public, while a garbage bag only costs a dollar or so, it is still money. Therefore, such an exemption mechanism is really important. Should we merely talk about the sharing of responsibility without 6566 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 providing any exemption for the grassroots or families living below the poverty line? I think the Government must seriously consider this.

President, I have been urging the Government to squarely address the plight of Hong Kong's recycling industry. I remember that in March last year, the General Administration of Customs of the Mainland launched the 10-month Operation Green Fence. This has caused immense sufferings to Hong Kong's recycling industry, which has all along been neglected by the Government and can only play the role of "passing things from the left hand to the right hand". My DAB colleagues and I, together with members of the recycling industry, once took an action in which we placed blocks and blocks of plastic waste in front of the Legislative Council Complex. It was quite a shocking scene. Those blocks of plastic waste were low-value waste plastics recovered from recycling bins on the streets or in various housing estates by small and medium recyclers in Hong Kong on a daily basis, and had not been genuinely separated or cleaned. After such waste materials are taken to the recyclers' plants, they will undergo a simple cleaning process to be carried out manually, and then they will be compressed into blocks to be transported to the Mainland for recycling. If our environmental protection and recycling trades operate in this way, I really cannot see how they can add value to their operation and develop. Therefore, I welcome the Chief Executive's proposal to set up a Recycling Fund to support the recycling industry as stated in the Policy Address. But then, I also have some worries. I hope that the Government can do a better job in the operation of the Fund, because it is undeniable that there is actually no uniformity in the scale and operation of our recycling industry at present.

If this Fund can really support the development of the whole industry, and really promote the return of some low-value recyclables to the recycling market, it is certainly a good thing. However, if it fails to serve its intended purpose, then in the end it may just become a futile expenditure item. Is the Recycling Fund "a piece of juicy pork just for people to have a taste of it", or "life-saving money" that can really help the development of the recycling industry? I really hope that the Government can seriously think about this question, and how this sum of money can be used to serve its intended purpose. What is more, I hope that all relevant proceeds in future, be they from producer responsibility schemes or various waste charging programmes, will be injected into this Fund on a "dedicated-fund-for-dedicated-use" basis which we have often mentioned. Only through this can we achieve sustainable development of the industry.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6567

President, I believe the most controversial environmental issue last year was the proposed extension of the three strategic landfills. The authorities should have probably realized that there is no once-and-for-all solution to the construction of obnoxious facilities, and that is why the Secretary has initiated a series of polices and new approaches for improving the environment of landfills and transport of waste, in the hope that these initiatives will bear fruit as soon as possible. Still, I would like to share with the Secretary a valuable experience on the construction of obnoxious facilities. Actually, it is not the case that the local communities or all Hong Kong people are one-sidedly against such proposals. They just do not want the Government to focus only on expediting such extension or construction in pressing on with its measures without paying heed to their calls for community enhancements. Therefore, seeing that the authorities are to re-submit proposals to extend the landfills, we hope that the authorities can establish in each of the affected areas a task force comprising representatives of the local residents, and this task force must be a standing one responsible for the design, management, operation and future transparency of obnoxious facilities, so as to allow more public participation. In addition, at the end of last year, I went to the landfill and restored landfill in Tuen Mun for an inspection. I note that restored landfills do have a lot of potential and room for development. I have told the Government and the Secretary that we hope they can put such land to good use. Of course, any buildings to be constructed on restored landfills cannot be too tall, but apart from the usual practice of constructing parks on the sites, actually there can be other ways to deal with them. So, this Policy Address has taken on board our suggestion and proposed a Restored Landfill Revitalisation Funding Scheme. I think this is a good proposal, yet the Government has to note that such landfills are situated in remote locations not easily accessible by public transport. If the Government wants to develop them, it should do proper road planning. Only by doing so can it encourage members of the public to go to these restored landfills to use the new facilities in future.

Lastly, I hope that the Government can, as stated in the Policy Address, bring changes to the principles of waste management and take actions accordingly, so that it can join hands with the public to do a good job in waste reduction, recovery and treatment.

President, my speech in this section ends here. Thank you, President.

6568 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014

MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, in this session, I would like to focus my speech on paragraphs 156 to 172 of the Policy Address, which are about environmental protection and conservation. I will particularly focus on waste management, but before I go to that, let me first talk about two other related areas of environmental protection, namely air quality and the water quality of Victoria Harbour.

Actually, I recognize the efforts made by Secretary WONG Kam-sing in these two areas ― we have to be fair, after all. As regards air quality, I think the Government must expedite its work and enter into discussions with various local governments in the Pearl River Delta in a bid to draw up a comprehensive air quality blueprint, so that we can see a blue sky and white clouds in Hong Kong one day.

Just now Dr Priscilla LEUNG talked about waters, the waters of Victoria Harbour. I also want to say something about it. In fact, the water quality of Victoria Harbour has improved tremendously in recent years. I have taken part in the "cross harbour swimming race" before and had a few gulps of seawater during the race. Although I heard that such water contained Escherichia coli, I turned out fine in the end. So I do recognize the efforts made by the Secretary and the Bureau in improving the water quality of Victoria Harbour, and I hope that he can keep up the good work.

As for waste management, I am very disappointed at this chapter, as I do not see a comprehensive waste management strategy in the Policy Address. My Honourable colleague, Mr Charles Peter MOK, mentioned yesterday that waste management could not rely solely on landfills or incinerators, but would require a comprehensive, all-round waste management approach. In the short term, we may need to extend the landfills; in the medium and long terms, we may need to build incinerators and reduce waste at source. Nonetheless, the Government still has a blind spot, or a job that remains to be done, and that is the waste recycling network.

It is mentioned in the Policy Address that help will be provided to waste recyclers, but actually, according to information, only 1% of the local waste recovered is recycled at present. Given the lack of efficiency in local waste recycling, the industry currently needs to import large quantities of plastic or paper waste from overseas every year for export processing, rather than handling local waste. These cases are handled with pretty low efficiency. According to the figures from the Census and Statistics Department, Hong Kong imported a LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6569 total of some 3.2 million tonnes of plastic waste and 100 000 tonnes of paper board waste in 2012 for processing, export and re-export, with most of them exported or re-exported to the Mainland. From the angle of waste treatment effectiveness, the practice of relying on waste export to deal with recyclables is subject to many restrictions and uncertainties. First of all, as mentioned by Mr CHAN Hak-kan just now, there are often restrictions imposed by the jurisdictions to which we export waste. In particular, the Mainland launched the Operation Green Fence in February 2013 to step up the interception and inspection of imported recyclables and reusable materials, and as a result, a large number of recyclables were once stranded in Hong Kong.

In the whole blueprint for waste management, from the recovery to the treatment of waste, the only and biggest missing link is a genuine recycling industry. Therefore, in my view, even though the Government has proposed in the Policy Address to set up a $1 billion Recycling Fund, if we do not have a blueprint for the recycling industry, this $1 billion Fund will just do down the drain. In recent years, all discussions about the development of the recycling industry have been focused on how to collect waste, how to handle the waste collected, as well as some low value-added modes of operation. In fact, the scope of the discussions should be expanded to cover how this policy can be extended to the opening up of a consumer market for the recycling industry. What we are looking at are some end products made of waste. How can we create a consumer market for these end products, so that waste recovered can be transformed into useful products? If the Government only focuses on waste recovery but does not properly deal with the channels for recycling waste recovered, then I think the objective set by the Secretary in the Hong Kong Blueprint for Sustainable Use of Resources 2013-2022, that is to boost the waste recycling rate to 55% after 2022, is very unlikely to be achieved.

Therefore, President, I think the Recycling Fund should be increased, with its breadth and depth further enhanced. I suggest that the Government should set up a $20 billion "Local Fund for Waste Recovery and Recycling Industries" to strategically promote and upgrade the local recovery and recycling trades. The resources of this fund should be used to: first, establish a comprehensive and extensive community-based waste separation and recovery network; and second, develop the recycling industry. This fund can also serve as a seed fund to offer interest-free loans or even direct injections to the trades.

President, that concludes my speech in this session. Thank you, President.

6570 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014

MR CHRISTOPHER CHUNG (in Cantonese): President, housing and land supply was the key area in the Policy Address last year and many paragraphs were devoted to elaborating the way forward in this policy area. This year, the coverage on this area is not as prominent as that of last year. It takes up only a chapter, in which housing supply strategies formulated last year are more specifically put forward, with a lot of actual numbers being listed, such as announcing that the Government accepted the recommendation of the Long Term Housing Strategy Steering Committee and targeted for producing 470 000 housing units in the coming 10 years with public housing accounting for 60%. I am supportive of the Government's endeavour to maintain policy sustainability and put in more efforts to increase housing supply. However, problems often emerge from the calls for extensively searching for land over the territory, changing land use, redeveloping old housing estates and increasing development density. The Government must look squarely into these problems and avoid indiscriminate implementation by increasing housing supply at the expense of the interests of residents in the areas concerned. This is not going to work. I would like to make the following comments.

My first point is about redevelopment of Wah Fu Estate, which has already been mentioned by many Honourable colleagues. Paragraph 123 in the Policy Address indicates the decision to lift the plot ratio for development at the south of Pok Fu Lam, that is the area close to Wah Fu Estate, so as pave way for the redevelopment of Wah Fu Estate. It is expected that about 11 900 additional public rental housing and Home Ownership Scheme (HOS) units will be produced in the future. Indeed, if we go and take a look at Wah Fu Estate, we can see that there is a building which has been propped with steel frames for more than 10 years. It looks dangerous. It shows that Wah Fu Estate should have been redeveloped long ago. On the one hand, I welcome the Chief Executive's confirmation to do this, but on the other hand, I am very concerned about the relevant redevelopment arrangements. My main concern is about the interests of the existing residents and their relocation arrangements. In this connection, I hope that the authorities can expeditiously announce the timetable and procedures for the redevelopment of Wah Fu Estate and clearly indicate the approach to be adopted. Will the area be redeveloped as a whole or in phases, and can the residents be rehoused in the same district? How will their everyday needs be catered for? For example, can we arrange residents to some other places first, and relocate them to Wah Fu Estate when a letter of assurance is available? Are there such policies? As an alternative, will special offers be made to residents of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6571

Wah Fu Estate to attract them to buy HOS flats? I hope that the Government will consider these issues.

Moreover, the Government should also think about post-redevelopment arrangements concerning transportation and facilities for daily life. These efforts, such as extending the South Island Line to Wah Fu Estate, should be planned properly. Such arrangements are necessary because there will be more than 10 000 additional housing units with tens of thousands of residents in the estate. Have the authorities considered arranging connection between the South Island Line and the West Island Line in Western District? This is necessary because there will be a lot of people travelling to and from their workplaces in the future, and there will be problems in the end if we just rely on Pok Fu Lam Road or Aberdeen Tunnel. Will the authorities make reasonable arrangements by reorganizing the bus and minibus routes concerned? The Government should look into all these problems one by one.

Regarding railways, I would like to talk about the development of the Island lines. In paragraphs 123 and 151 of the Policy Address, we have good news from the Government. It is considering the construction of the South Island Line (West) to cope with local development in Wah Fu Estate and Pok Fu Lam. I look forward to the actual implementation of the plan rather than endless consideration. On the other hand, residents in Siu Sai Wan on the other side of the Hong Kong Island have also been suffering from the trouble brought about by the absence of railway service as they have no alternative except bus services. I hope that the Government can also seriously think about having a Siu Sai Wan Line so that the residents there can have some other alternatives when travelling to work and going shopping.

President, lastly I would like to talk about the production of housing units. I know that there is pressing demand for housing from the society and the Government has been searching everywhere for land. We will also give a hand by recommending some options in the district for consideration by the Government. However, how far the Government can go in search for land? What can it get? Is it going to grab every piece of available land, even very small ones, for constructing standalone buildings or pencil buildings? It looks unpleasant from the Kowloon areas to the Hong Kong Island when there are several additional standalone buildings. I therefore hope that the Government will consider this thoroughly.

6572 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014

Recently, a small piece of land covering just 476 sq m near Shau Kei Wan waterfront at the Eastern District has been put up for open tender by the Development Bureau. The site, which is too small for a playground, is intended for the construction of a 40-storey standalone building. This will never be welcomed. It will not only obstruct ventilation but also affect local air quality and environment. The living space for people will become smaller, and it also exceeds the established plot ratio limit. It is even in breach of the Government's undertaking of refraining from building private housing in the area when it constructed the Aldrich Garden.

I agree that the Government should look for more land for constructing more housing units, but indiscriminately snatching such small patches of land in the urban areas is not preferable. The interests of people should not be sacrificed. The Government has all along been promoting sustainable development and green construction by requiring reasonable space between buildings and the heights of buildings to be compatible with the surrounding environment. As such, I hope that it can reconsider if that piece of land in Shau Kei Wan can be withdrawn from housing production.

This is all for my speech in respect of housing and transport. President, thank you.

DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): President, I am glad to see that the Government has clearly distinguished the short- and medium-term issues regarding housing development and land supply in the future. However, given the recent development, the outlook on the overall land and housing supply in the short to medium runs does not look optimistic and actually I am even a little worried, especially seeing the constant frown on the Secretary's face lately. I know that he is deeply worried about the people's hardships.

First of all, I give my full support to the Government's long-term land supply strategy and I also appreciate its efforts in making plans for these issues 10, 15 and 20 years ahead of time, which is absolutely the right move as we cannot wait till the last minute to take action. The society is faced with many problems. For example, many people long for a proper home but no housing units are available, and many wish to buy a flat but cannot afford to do so and their purchasing power continues to shrink. As the past terms of Government only took action at the very last minute when incidents happened, the incumbent LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6573

Government has many heavy burdens on its back. Therefore, we fully support the Government's efforts in its plans for the long-term development and identification of suitable sites.

Besides, as regards housing supply in the medium run, we depend heavily on urban renewal. I am a member of the Board of the Urban Renewal Authority (URA) and I find the present situation somewhat worrying. It is not that the URA does not want to do more but they are actually faced with many problems, such as the ever increasing land premium. One must pay the premium in order to redevelop a building but after the premium is paid, the profit gained from selling a redeveloped building may not be sufficient to cover the costs. Why is it so? The main cause is that there are fewer and fewer low-density buildings. Most of the buildings being demolished now are seven to nine storeys high and in one recent case which is still under negotiation, the building is 12 storeys high and hence the room for premium negotiation is diminishing as the plot ratio set by the Development Bureau is reduced. In addition, luxury apartments are being built just opposite the street in the same neighbourhood, and flats may well be sold between $10,000 and $20,000 per square foot. Under such circumstances, the URA considers it a big problem because the premium is calculated on the basis of the value of a seven-year-old building in the same district. What is to be done about that? I hope that the Development Bureau will provide more support in this regard.

According to the latest data, there are 9 900 private buildings over 40 years old and that number does not include public buildings. According to the statistics provided by the Buildings Department (BD), there will be an increase of 600 such buildings each year in future. In other words, there will be 10 000, 20 000 or even 30 000 buildings over 40 years old in Hong Kong a decade later.

The redevelopment of old buildings is a good way and a good direction forward. Since the Government has promised to assist owners of old buildings to carry out repair and maintenance work and launched the Operation Building Bright, with the money already set aside, will it consider at an earlier time increasing the number of buildings to be redeveloped? There are not many buildings under redevelopment by the URA at present. The URA carried out three rounds of redevelopment in the past and had altogether received about 105 applications. Among them, however, only six projects were acceptable to the URA and feasible to be implemented. Why is it that only such a small number 6574 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 of projects could be carried out among so many requests and aspirations? The number of redeveloped buildings is disproportionate to the vast number of ageing buildings and we should consider increasing the number of redevelopment projects.

Moreover, I have made enquiry to the BD. Everyone knows that there is one big problem about old buildings. A number of old buildings collapsed in recent years. Subsequently, the URA had no choice but to rebuild those buildings. I am very frightened. Why? That is because I have seen many old buildings that may be 40, 50, 60 or even 70 years old that had no problem under normal circumstances. However, as many units in old buildings have been turned into "sub-divided units" or guesthouses or others, the basic structure of the buildings has been damaged, which may lead to disasters anytime. I am really frightened. A building in Kai Ming Street has been completely tilted. Not long ago, my colleague and I saw a tilted old building close to Macpherson Playground in Mong Kok. We tipped our heads to look clearly and found that the building was really titled.

I once asked the BD whether it had inspected buildings which might be at risk because I know that the buildings will be rated after inspection and classified into, I think, four Categories. The buildings that are particularly dangerous are classified as Category IV. However, the BD has been … The answer I got from the BD was that the department would choose to carry out a certain projects every quarter. As for private buildings 30 years old or above, owners of these buildings can request the BD to undertake maintenance work for them if necessary. The BD has not provided me with any information concerning the respective number of buildings in each of these grades.

President, I am even more frightened when the BD refuses to provide the information because it is obvious that it is hiding something from me. But don't worry. Even if it does not tell me, I will continue to follow up. It does not matter because even if it is frightening, it still has to tell the public how many buildings are at risk. Why should it matter? If there is danger, people will be more worried. But if the authorities tell the people concerned that their buildings are in danger of collapse anytime, they will carry out the repair and maintenance work immediately even if they had to borrow money, right? Therefore, I think that anything that can be made clear should be made public as soon as possible.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6575

Concerning housing supply in the medium run, I think that apart from speeding up urban renewal, there is also, for example, the problem involving the buildings built by Civil Servants' Co-operative Building Societies (CBSs), which I do not see why it cannot be resolved. Some owners have told me that they are eager to return their units to the Government but the premium problem stand in their way. Why can't they solve this problem? If the Government cannot solve the co-ordination problem and communicate internally, or solve a problem which should have been solved, it is even more probable that the Government cannot solve the problems for the people. Therefore, I hope that the Administration can solve the problem together with the owners of the CBSs as soon as possible. According to the estimation of Mr Tony TSE, if all buildings units built by the CBSs are resumed to build units of about 500 sq ft each, at least 20 000 units can be built. Of course, I believe that this is only an estimated figure but since additional units can be provided this way, why do the authorities not take advantage of it?

Here, I must criticize the Government's short-term policy. My opinion is that since there are so many disputes in society, can the authorities introduce some short-term policies? As regards the medium-term policy, we all know that although the Government is trying very hard to identify suitable sites, there has been an unsuccessful tendering of a site in Tin Shui Wai recently. Because the premium had risen, many developers thought that it was not worthwhile to acquire the site at the price offered, taking into account the high construction costs. I agree with them. Secretary, I am glad to hear that two sites were sold at a very low price, a 20% discounted price, in the past one or two days. I read about it in the news this morning. It is a good thing that the Government was willing to accept a lower price. The price was very low, $2,000-odd per square foot. Has Mr Tony TSE heard the news? It is a good thing that the Government has the determination and confidence to introduce some short-term measures to increase housing supply.

I think the Government should also consider the problem about vacant flats. Different parties have reported different numbers of vacant flats: some say there are tens of thousands, some say 100 000 or 80 000, and some even say over 100 000. I have no idea how they come up with these numbers. However, assuming that there are 10 000 public or private housing unites ― let us leave public housing aside and concentrate on private housing. Let us say there are indeed 100 000, 80 000 or tens of thousands of vacant units, should we consider and analyse this situation to find out why no one let these units out? There are 6576 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 of course reasons for that, aren't there? Under the policies currently in place, I believe that the owners of these units will not speculate in them in the near future. Then why do they not let out these units? If they do not let out these units, they get no rental income but still have to pay the management fees. If they can get between $10,000 and $20,000 in rent, they can take a cruise to Ha Long Bay in Vietnam, which only costs $10,000 odd and they can even go more than once. Why do they not let out their units? The reason is very simple. Many owners are afraid that if they let out the units, they may run into troublesome tenants who may not pay rents on time every time, or some others who do not pay rents even after the owner has repeatedly demanded it. I know that some owners do not let out their units just to spare themselves of the trouble. Of course, those who can afford to do so are people of some means who do not need to rely on rental incomes to support their living. In other words, as long as someone can manage the units for them and spare them of the trouble, they do not mind letting out their units, neither do they mind charging a lower rent because they do not care too much about the money.

I figure that since tens of thousands or close to 100 000 such vacant units are available, can we not follow the practice of other places? I know that some companies provide specialized services to such unit owners. The owners only need to entrust their units to these companies and the companies will take care of everything, tidy up their units and let them out and manage the units for them. As a matter of fact, there are many such companies in overseas countries. Of course, if an owner has many units in his possession, should he choose any company at random to manage the units for him or should he do otherwise? In my opinion, since the Government also has some companies under it, it may have some work to do. But it should be fine as most people trust the Government. Hence, I suggest the Government consider setting up some rental management companies. For a unit with a market rent of $20,000, the Government may be able to rent it for $10,000 from the owner and then let it out for $12,000, after adding the management and other sundries fees. In this way, every party involved can benefit from it as the owners can receive rental income every month for sure, which may be lower but at least he does not have to manage it on his own. Therefore, the Secretary can consider it as a short-term alleviation measure. This is my humble suggestion.

I so submit. Thank you, President.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6577

MR ALBERT HO (in Cantonese): President, as far as the policy area under debate is concerned, I am not a spokesman for the Democratic Party. Nonetheless, I would like to talk about two issues which may involve other policies that I am responsible for.

The first issue is on the approval of land lease conditions. The Government introduced the Pilot Scheme for Arbitration on Land Premium for the first time with a view to facilitating early agreement on land premium. The Democratic Party has great reservation about this proposal. We can even tell the Government that we will very likely oppose it. For the time being, I may reserve some room for the Government to convince me but I believe the chance of my being convinced is very slim. The reason is simple. Firstly, the methodology of land premium valuation is neither entirely scientific nor objective because it indeed involves a lot of "artistry". As Members may be aware, when a surveyor is engaged by legal practitioners like me to conduct a valuation, he will first ask what the purpose of the valuation report is, whether overvaluation or undervaluation is preferred, what sort of dispute with the Government is the valuation used for. If civil servants are the gate-keeper … I still have some confidence in civil servants since there is a very good anti-corruption system in Hong Kong and civil servants have a good tradition. I believe there is no organized corruption in Hong Kong in general.

However, if the service is to be outsourced, I cannot see any person who is so independent and has entirely no dealings with property developers. Even for civil servants, I am worried about the possible deferred benefits. If external practitioners are engaged to be the arbitrator, I can say that we have no confidence at all. With a great deal of intertwining interests involved, no one with reputation will take up the job. Even if someone takes up the job, transfer of benefits, especially deferred benefits, may likely occur. If the Government is determined to expedite the process, the only thing it can do is to authorize fully independent Judges under special judicial procedures to streamline the valuation process. This is the only thing that can be done. If the Government intends to engage industry players to take up the job as the arbitrator occasionally, I am sorry to say that I cannot figure out how to make Members feel at ease. This is the first issue, which is related to our legal system, and therefore I have to mention it.

The second issue is on environmental protection. Why am I concerned about it? Tuen Mun is one of the districts that will face the problem of landfill 6578 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 extension. The landfill there will absorb half of the refuse in Hong Kong. As such, I must talk about this here.

First of all, if the Secretary tries to convince us to accept the present landfill extension plan, I hope the Secretary is aware that this is a comprehensive plan which requires communication with all parties. We cannot simply put forward one particular landfill or the landfills in a particular district because this concerns not only the interests of a particular district. Instead, we must take a holistic look at the Government policy on waste disposal. We feel that the Government's overall policy on recycling and recovery is hardly adequate. Take Tuen Mun as example. Some two or three years ago, the Government intended to promote the food waste treatment programme. To support the programme, we gathered some residents but subsequently they were dismissed because there were insufficient food waste composters. This is a big joke. Didn't the Government have the money to purchase the composters? The truth is that the supporting measures were not ready. Then why did the Government put forward the programme?

A few weeks ago, I am surprised to learn from the television report that most of the timber waste is used for land filling. In fact, the recycling of timber is the best to do because a lot of the material can be recycled, reused, and made into something useful. However, due to low profitability of recycling, as well as the lack of assistance and support from the Government, a lot of the timber waste is sent to landfills. Such a recycling policy, under which the Administration only asks for increasing landfills, is unfair to Hong Kong people and unfair to residents who have to suffer from the poor conditions of landfills. This is the first point.

The second problem is waste incineration, over which there is still controversy, though not as much as before. The Government should continue to try its best to address the problem. Even if this method is supported for waste disposal, there is still dispute on what kind of technology to use. Recently I have received views that the technology currently under consideration by the Government is very outdated. Other places are talking about the use of the most advanced incinerator which does not release dioxins. I believe that if the most advanced technology can be used in this regard, it can relieve the worries of some people. I certainly hope that the Administration can relieve the worries of the affected people in the vicinity of the incinerators.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6579

Thirdly, if we must continue to use landfills ― I believe this is inevitable and to a certain extent must be retained ― we must think of how the layout and supporting facilities can minimize the adverse effects caused by landfills on the environment, and how to provide some compensation to people in the vicinity in terms of improved environment and facilities. All these must be addressed. It is useless and meaningless if the Administration tries to convince the Democratic Party or other Members to allow the continued disposal of waste in landfills for the sake of the overall situation, and claims that the city will be surrounded by waste otherwise. The Government should indeed fulfil its own responsibilities.

The speech I gave just now is only a general remark. I believe we will ask the Secretary to give a detailed account of all these later when we have the chance to meet. I also hope he can convince us that the Government has fulfilled its own responsibilities before those established measures are considered.

President, I so submit.

DR KENNETH CHAN (in Cantonese): President, since his assumption of office, Mr LEUNG Chun-ying often tells us that he tries to identify usable land everywhere. He would look up in the map of Hong Kong with officials concerned almost every day when they meet to see which sites are available for housing construction so as to address the housing problem in Hong Kong.

Nevertheless, so far we still cannot see clearly the development in this aspect. Why do I make such a remark? For instance, recently the Secretary for Development has advised at a Panel meeting that there are 152 sites available for residential development and indicated roughly the number of sites in each district. However, President, it is baffling that no comprehensive list is available so far. All we get is some general information showing us approximately how many sites are found in certain districts. As to the exact details, only he himself is in full knowledge while we know nothing about them. In reply, he advises that consultation will be conducted with the District Councils in due course; or we can also keep a close eye on the website of the Town Planning Board (TPB) to see if there is any latest movement. Why does he give people the impression that he is furtive? In fact, identifying land in order to meet the housing needs of people in Hong Kong is a good thing to do. The first and second stages of the review on Green Belt sites are almost complete but so far no report has been published for public inspection and response. This is where the problem lies. It is in fact a 6580 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 good thing for the Government to look for land. The Government should have given a full account of the process and taken the initiative to explain to affected residents why the Government and community sites or Green Belt sites in their vicinity are converted into residential use.

The Civic Party has earlier on conducted a survey to gauge public opinions on the Government's measures of land identification so as to know, from the public perspective, which sites may be identified for priority development to cater for their housing needs. Nearly 40% of the respondents indicate that some abandoned farmland may first be resumed, followed by military land. In fact, the Secretary for Development has mentioned this at a Question and Answer Session but subsequently no follow-up has been made. Some respondents also opine that the Government should expedite urban renewal and review the small house policy. In the opinion of the public, these four major areas are what the Government should and is able to do.

President, recently we have witnessed the spread of cancer cells in the mind. Earlier on, on 8 September 2013 if I remember correctly, the Secretary for Development wrote on his own blog that somebody told him that certain sites in country parks might be used for residential development. Why doesn't he say this out? Of course he has made a mistake with the figure. Should it be 70% or 40%? Subsequently he has amended the figure secretly. At first he said the figure was 70% and thought that there were so many country parks in Hong Kong which should best be used for housing development. Later he realized that he had made a mistake because objective data showed that the percentage should be around 40% only. Recently such cancer cells appear again. They are Franklin LAM Fan-keung, a former Member of the Executive Council, and Bernard CHAN, a serving Member of the Executive Council. The Secretary for Environment may take the opportunity to learn about this as he is present now. Executive Council Member Bernard CHAN advises that country parks are categorized into major and non-major ones. This is the first time I hear such categorization. I do not know whether Members have heard about this. He says some non-major country parks may be used for development.

Why would the think-tanks of the Government ― I am not sure whether they are the principal think-tanks ― who like to suggest so many ideas, take control behind the scenes and push the Government to identify land, now target at country parks? The survey conducted by the Civic Party has revealed that only 2% of respondents agree to do so. Is it the case that the Government LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6581 deliberately chooses to do the more difficult tasks? Is it the case that it deliberately works more on implementing ideas that are disliked by the public? Is it the case that the Government will stop doing so only after triggering strong public resentment? Identifying land is originally a good idea. I do not understand why it has turned out to upset everyone instead.

Obviously, country parks are not categorized into major and non-major ones under the Country Parks Ordinance. Such categorization may only be the political judgment within the Government, who considers that certain places may be sacrificed and given up. For instance, as what Mr Franklin LAM says, the country parks on Lantau Island can be turned from an ugly duckling into a white swan. Even Mr LAM Chiu-ying, former Director of the Hong Kong Observatory, is seriously frightened and decides to stand up to defend the country parks. I will also join him in this battle. There are 77 enclaves in country parks, of which 290 hectares have been zoned for so-called Village Type Development. The current approach is to carry out discussion over each individual enclave through town planning procedures. Such approach has surely aroused strong reactions among country park defenders and the affected residents. The problem is, as we can see from various aspects, that there seems to be no planning in such Village Type Development and the so called small house policy. Everything is at sixes and sevens which will cause more damage than protection to the environment.

Let us take a look at the data provided by the Planning Department. In places such as Pak Lap, Hoi Ha, So Lo Pun, To Kwa Peng and Pak Tam Au, the population can range from zero to some hundreds and thousands. Does the Government simply base on what a particular village head says and include his numerous siblings, who left Hong Kong in the 1970s, as well as their offspring in its calculation? I agree very much with the idea of forming a political party by the Heung Yee Kuk. An early formation of such party will facilitate an early review by the Government and our discussion on the small house policy. We can then see whether the party formed by the Heung Yee Kuk can, from the perspective of public interests, convince Hong Kong people why the Government should continue to supply such land to build small houses.

The Village Type Development in the enclaves of country parks spreads like cancer cells which will cause direct damages to the ecology of country parks. Roads, septic tanks, access roads for fire engines have to be built, which will definitely cause nothing but damages. Everyone knows the slogan of striking a balance between conservation and development. But the question is whether 6582 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 everyone will do so. Do we have confidence that the Government will act as our gate-keeper? As such, the Secretary can admit, as a matter of fact rather than a comment by somebody, that the Government really casts a greedy eye on country parks. I guess the Secretary really has this in his mind.

President, it is a fact that the Government grabs land blindly. The site of the former Lee Wai Lee campus will soon be engaged in a scramble to be held at the TPB. On the other hand, during out district work in Eastern District, we notice that a small site with an area of 0.04 hectares (less than 0.05 hectares) near Tung Tao Court will soon be put on tender. However, details are yet to be announced as it is stipulated in the table of unleased or unallocated government sites that sites smaller than 0.05 hectares are (I quote) "the types of land which are considered not suitable for development, not yet available for development, or with low development potential" (unquote). Given that the site is so small, not suitable for development or with low development potential, what impact will be brought to the surrounding if it is developed?

Is the Government being too short-tempered in handling this site, urging its staff to meet the target as soon as possible so that the Government can get a good report card? It turns out that the Government has actually concealed the truth. To tell the truth ― I must also remind Secretary Paul CHAN as the Drainage Services Department is under his purview ― a culvert lies underneath this site, with a protection zone as wide as 15 m. Nothing can be built above the culvert and the protection zone. The culvert is right underneath the site to be put on sale, covering as much as one third of its area. I do not know what kind of structures can be built there eventually.

In view of its coastal location, some developers may find the site attractive as they may at least erect a single "toothpick" building, indeed a very expensive "diamond toothpick". However, it turns out that one third of the site is not usable. If it is to be used, the developer may have to re-lay the underground drainage which will affect the rain water collection and drainage projects of the whole Eastern District. Doesn't the Government know about all these? Members of the public struggle to pay tax, in the hope that the Government will act as the gate-keeper. But why does the situation turn out to be like this?

(THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, MR RONNY TONG, took the Chair)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6583

Deputy President, I would like to talk about the review on heritage conservation policy. I met Mr Andrew LAM Siu-lo and others in autumn last year. We expected a public consultation on this subject to be held by late last year or early January this year. Nonetheless, during the recent scrutiny of the amendment bill on declaring Fat Tat Tong as a monument, we asked about the progress and they responded that consultation was not yet ready as they were waiting for the instruction of the Secretary. When will the Secretary give his instruction?

The Secretary is not the one to get compliment but the Government Hill Concern Group, which was awarded a conservation prize from an international organization in 2013. The Civic Party has also played a little role. The Concern Group fought for the conservation of the Government Hill against the Development Bureau led by Mrs Carrie LAM and subsequently we won the battle. The Concern Group, initiated by the local community, has done a great job in heritage conservation. The local community is moving ahead of the Government and their efforts have been recognized internationally. The award was given by the International Committee for Documentation and Conservation of Buildings, Sites and Neighbourhoods of the Modern Movement at the Xi'an International Conference of Modern Architecture Heritage Conservation. I am therefore looking forward to a review on heritage conservation policy.

Now let me turn to the issue on environmental protection. I have found only recently from announcement of the CLP Power Hong Kong Limited (CLP) at a meeting of the Panel on Economic Development of the Legislative Council that over the next five years Hong Kong will take another 10% of the output from the Daya Bay Nuclear Power Station. In other words, the proportion of electricity supplied by Daya Bay to Hong Kong will increase from 70% to 80% of the plant's output. I am not sure whether the Secretary has learnt about this for a long time; if so, I think he is doing nothing in response. But if he has never learnt about this, this shows his belated awareness. Why are members of the public being kept in the dark and have no say in such significant development? The Secretary may say, "Never mind, Dr CHAN. We will soon conduct public consultation on electricity fuel mix". But what we have to do is wait, wait and wait … I do not know how long we have to wait until the consultation is conducted. Thanks to the CLP, we are forced to take another 10% of nuclear electricity. Regarding the practice of the CLP of jumping the gun before conducting public consultation, I have followed up for a number of 6584 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 times at this Council and the Panel since the Fukushima incident. The Secretary must give an account of this.

What the Secretary bothers may not be nuclear power nor the CLP, but waste and the so-called "3+1 scheme", that is, three landfills plus one incinerator. I have repeatedly made a strong criticism in recalling "A Policy Framework for the Management of Municipal Solid Waste (2005-2014)" published during the era of former Secretary Sarah LIAO. The Framework covers the plans from 2005 to 2014. The Secretary may ask me not to blame him because there is a change of ministers upon the change of the Chief Executive. After the era of Sarah LIAO came Edward YAU, who did nothing. Besides, there is a blueprint that replaces the old one. Nevertheless, the whole Government will not stop operating simply because a secretary joins or leaves the Government. I must ask the Secretary what has actually happened during the period. For instance, during the era of Sarah LIAO, a target was set to bring the recycling rate to 45% by 2009 and 50% by 2014. However, the recycling rate in 2010 dropped to 39% only and the waste disposed of at landfills increased to 3.4 million tonnes in 2012. Municipal solid waste remained at 67% of the total waste disposed of at landfills in 2012. Why have things developed to such a pitiful state?

Now the Government tries to promote the "3+1 scheme", that is, extension of three landfills plus one incinerator. However, I would like to remind the Secretary that when LEUNG Chun-ying contested for the post of Chief Executive among two other candidates, Albert HO and Henry TANG, in 2012, he attended a forum on environmental protection organized by the City University of Hong Kong. At the forum, which was attended by a number of green groups and advocates, LEUNG Chun-ying was awe-inspiring and awarded a big applause by saying that incineration is the very, very last resort. In Point Eight of his policy platform, it is stated that he would "adopt policies based on reduction of waste at source to ease the demand for more landfills and incinerators". This is what he has said. But in reality, what have we done? Have we done a good job in reducing waste at source?

This year, the Friends of the Earth has expressed its great disappointment to the Government's failure to announce the blueprint for food waste management. They therefore hurry to come to the Panel on Environmental Affairs in end February for discussion ― the Panel will pay a visit to incineration facilities in Europe later. Does a short circuit occur in policy arrangement? Many items can be recycled. But at the moment we are still talking about plastic LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6585 bags, tires, used batteries, glass bottles, and so on. Our pace is as slow as ants. If we recall the grandiose plans announced during the era of Sarah LIAO and make a comparison with our present situation, we can say that the Government did very badly in carrying out its duties.

Lastly, as far as the issue of environment is concerned, I must raise the problem of light pollution, which is but an old issue. Being a new Member in the Legislative Council, I have already heard complaints and grievances about light pollution from residents all over the territory. From 2009 until now, whenever legislation is concerned, the Government is not determined to go ahead. For measures with public support, the Government is not determined to stand the pressure from the industry; on the contrary, for those measures with little public support, the Government puts them into implementation hastily. With a government like this, I may be a bit too lenient to describe it as having a short circuit just now. I believe this Government is really seeing things upside down or having psychosis.

I so submit.

PROF JOSEPH LEE (in Cantonese): Deputy President, in this session, I would like to talk about two points of the housing problem. As far as housing problem is concerned, the Government seems to focus on assisting the middle class in buying their own homes and the disadvantaged in getting accommodation as soon as possible. As a result, we have witnessed the grabbing of land blindly by the Government and the increased production of Home Ownership Scheme flats and public rental housing. However, the Government has neglected a group of people known as the middle class who cannot afford to buy their own properties despite the measure introduced to stabilize property prices. Even if land could be grabbed at the moment for the construction of public and private housing, they would only be available for supply after three to five years.

In the meantime, this group of people have to rent a flat as they can neither afford to buy their own flats nor be eligible for public rental housing. Then what can they do? The present policies of the Government take no care of this group of people. Why do I have such a remark? Again, this is about the issue of rent control. I believe I am not the first one to talk about rent control in this session and we have also discussed the issue in the past. But it is strange that the Government regards rent control as an evil which should not be touched. I have 6586 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 also raised this issue with LEUNG Chun-ying, who told me not to mention it, for fear that landlords may unceasingly raise their rents once any rumours are spread. Isn't this just like inverting root and branch? Is it the case that a wound should not be touched for fear that it hurts? It is true that this group of people do have their accommodation but it is not owned by themselves nor public rental housing, but rented properties. If the Government does not review rent control, how can this group of people get protection? It is just impossible.

According to the statistics in November 2013, the present rent index is 157.5 which has been rising for eight consecutive months to a record high. In the first 11 months alone, the accumulative increase has reached 4.2%. It is true that property prices have stabilized, but rents keep rising continuously. The large group of people living in rented properties are in fact very helpless. Yet the Government still refuses to deal with the situation. What can these people do? Does the Government think that this group of people will be able to buy their own homes once property prices have stabilized and gone down? This is not the case in reality. Therefore, it is time for the Government to conduct a review again. Why doesn't the Government consider reviewing rent control?

I remember that in the past, before the outbreak of SARS, rent control could protect tenants. But now it only protects landlords. Why have things turned out like this? Why don't we consider how to protect tenants? Why do we neglect them? As such, I think the Government should consider this point as far as housing policy is concerned.

The second point I would like to highlight is the living space in urban areas. Of course I am not talking about how many square feet the living space should be. Rather, have we missed out some problems that are yet to be dealt with? At the moment the Government says more urban sites should be identified to build more housing as soon as possible, no matter whether by redevelopment or other approaches, so that more people can buy their own homes. This is something good. In fact, I have mentioned on certain occasions that at present there are some 200 buildings constructed by the Civil Servants' Co-operative Building Societies (CBSs) during the administration of the British Hong Kong Government. These buildings were built between 1952 and 1972, and therefore most of them are already 40 to 50 years old. In transacting these properties of age about 40 to 50, buyers must make full payment because banks will not offer mortgage of 5, 10, 20 years, and so on. Many occupants in CBS buildings have relayed to me ― I have known many friends who are civil LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6587 servants ― that these buildings are dilapidated and not equipped with lifts. Many residents are aged and unable to go up the stairs even with the assistance of a stick. What can they do? They can only leave the flat vacant or put it on sale. However, it is hard to sell it out because the buyer, if any, cannot get mortgage. As a result, the occupants may simply leave the flats vacant.

Statistics show that such buildings, located and concentrated in urban areas, have a total area of almost 963 000 sq m. Why hasn't the Government tried to think of solutions from this aspect? The Urban Renewal Authority may indicate that they will not handle this, while private developers may find it not cost effective due to the land premium. But can the Government consider redeveloping these buildings with a total area of some 900 000 sq m by administrative means so that land can be released as soon as possible? In doing so, the Government need not grab land in urban areas and can help the occupants in CBS buildings as well.

Such a redevelopment project will definitely involve the problem of rehousing, including whether re-situ rehousing can be arranged, the amount of compensation, and so on. We can examine these problems. But it seems that the Government has not tried to deal with them.

Deputy President, the two points I have highlighted here are related to housing policy. I hope the Government will consider and review again those problems that are not dealt with in the Policy Address.

Thank you, Deputy President.

MR NG LEUNG-SING (in Cantonese): Deputy President, Chapter III "Poverty Alleviation, Care for the Elderly and Support for the Disadvantaged" in the Chief Executive's Policy Address is voluminous but I would like to talk about land and housing that has been described as an area of the highest importance. The Policy Address has also discussed this subject extensively.

When the current-term Government took office a year and a half ago, the housing demand was keen. At that time, 12 000 public rental housing (PRH) units were produced each year, the construction of HOS flats had been suspended for many years, and less than 10 000 private flats were produced each year due to suppressed land supply. On the contrary, there was a very long waiting time for 6588 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 public housing allocation and there were 180 000 people on the Waiting List, and this number was increasing rapidly. Although the Government realized that the problems were daunting, it made great efforts against all odds and introduced a lot of short-, medium- and long-term proposals in the Policy Address last year, with a view to alleviating the difficulties. In the past year, government officials were eagerly identifying sites and undertaking land development planning, which caused some people to criticize the Government for blindly scrambling for land and malicious attacks were made. The Long Term Housing Strategy Steering Committee (LTHSSC) launched a consultation and worked out long-term development proposals, which became the policy direction in the Policy Address for land and housing development in the coming year. I believe most people are expecting positive results.

We are pleased to find that the Policy Address this year provided certain data showing that progress has been made in land supply. "The Government has identified about 80 additional Green Belt sites and Government, Institution or Community (GIC) sites in various districts with a total area of over 150 hectares with the potential to be rezoned for residential use. These sites in various districts can be made available in the next five years to provide about 89 000 units to help meet the demand for housing land over the next decade. Including sites identified earlier on, there are about 150 sites that have to be rezoned for residential use and will be made available over the next five years to provide about 210 000 additional public and private units." Concerning the above information, it should be noted that the sites mentioned can be deemed as having development potential but real success would depend on the efforts made and the actual results.

As to rezoning GIC sites for the construction of housing, though many sites are disposed sites, the development of which will easily be effective in the short term, the disadvantage is that this will increase the urban density, causing traffic and environmental issues. Thus, it is necessary to strike a balance and consider the matter carefully. In the long run, it is essential to make reference to the development experiences of world cities, focusing on rural development; I believe the recent development of Lantau Island is in the right direction. In addition to expanding the Tung Chung New Town, we can seize the opportunity of the commissioning of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge to develop a bridgehead economy, and make use of the developed railway network of over 10 km along Tung Chung for the development of hillside land and reclamation, set up additional railway stations, build a series of housing estates for commercial LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6589 and residential purposes, and even consider developing the area in the course of creating an East Lantau Metropolis. I believe this would be very helpful to the development of various commercial and residential facilities for local residents and inbound passengers.

About additional sites for development in the long run, many agree that the Government should focus on the spacious rural areas in the New Territories. Looking back, within a few decades in the second half of the last century, new towns such as Tsuen Wan, Sha Tin, Tuen Mun, Ma On Shan and Tseung Kwan O were developed in Hong Kong. With our successful experiences, we can absolutely extend these areas further. As for the development of an underground city to increase commercial sites, we can make reference to the favourable experiences of a number of world cities. The Government should consider promptly making comprehensive arrangements for the West Kowloon Cultural District and Kai Tak currently under construction.

On the housing problem in Hong Kong, I noticed that the Policy Address adopted the recommendations of the LTHSSC and the new target will be to supply 470 000 additional units in the next 10 years. Public housing will account for 60% and it is also intended to provide about 20 000 PRH units and about 8 000 HOS flats each year, so, the supply of public housing will be 36% more than that committed last year. I also noted that the supply of HOS flats accounted for about one third of the overall public housing supply, which is conducive to the establishment of the housing ladder. Public housing residents who have the ability can have greater opportunities of gradual upward mobility, which will promote public housing circulation. This starting point is well-intentioned but I would also like to draw the authorities' attention to the fact that the market cannot be artificially controlled, the proportions should be in keeping with and suited to the times, and a certain degree of flexibility should be maintained.

Insofar as public housing policies are concerned, I have been involved in a lot of work in this area, and I would like to raise two points that still deserve our concern. First, public housing takes up most public resources, including land and other resources, which should be managed very effectively. As stated in the audit report of the Audit Commission, fewer PRH units should be left idle, and the issues of wealthy public housing tenants and under-occupation should be promptly handled. I think that PRH is a kind of social welfare that has long been subsidized by public funds, and the vetting mechanism should be 6590 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 continuously improved. Since a considerable number of PRH residents have already become wealthy public housing tenants, their lease durations should be reasonably set to allow them to return to the private market as soon as possible, leaving PRH to those in greater need.

Second, I have repeatedly stressed that the construction of PRH, particularly HOS flats, should have no frills in terms of land and construction quality, and overall renovation after occupation should be avoided as construction materials would be wasted and waste would be produced.

All in all, the housing problem in Hong Kong should really be handled prudently and properly. Endless construction of additional PRH units deserves our deliberation. The public and private property markets should also be regulated according to the ultimate criterion of achieving price stability.

Deputy President, I so submit.

MR CHAN KAM-LAM (in Cantonese): Deputy President, according to all opinions polls conducted in the past, I believe it is agreed that addressing the housing problems is a priority task of the Government. This is also a task that the public are most concerned with and consider to be most pressing.

Why have the housing problems become so serious? Why have property prices been surging without falling? Since the implementation of the "double curbs" measures by the Government the year before last, we have evidently observed that property prices have gradually stabilized. We should review the development since 2002 to understand the present situation. Starting from 2002, the SAR Government had suspended the construction of subsidized housing, and there were only private housing developments in the market in the past decade or so. The decreasing number of flats produced each year led to a surge in housing prices and an imbalanced supply in the market. As we all understand, if we want to have housing supply today, construction work had to start four to five years ago; we cannot instantly turn stones into gems and the problem cannot be solved easily.

Mr Frederick FUNG said that the Chief Executive is trying to turn stones into gems, and he assumes that words spoken as actions taken. That is not the case. It is not possible to supply housing units if land cannot be found.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6591

In respect of redeveloping public housing estates, are there suitable housing estates for redevelopment among a large number of public housing estates with blocks 15 to 20 storeys high? Are there any old housing estates like Wah Fu Estate ― some people even mentioned Choi Hung Estate recently ― that require redevelopment? I believe we should not lightly propose redevelopment without first formulating a comprehensive plan.

As Mr KWOK Wai-keung has just said, after the Chief Executive announced in the Policy Address the redevelopment of Wah Fu Estate, local residents are greatly worried. They are worried about the place of relocation in future, and how a seamless transition can be made with regard to various aspects of life. We should deal with all these problems. Although there are a few old housing estates in Kowloon that are suitable for redevelopment, are there places in Kowloon for in-situ rehousing that can meet the residents' requirements? This is really a difficult task. Hence, in respect of redevelopment of public housing estates, actual actions are required apart from making the pledge, and stones cannot be instantly turned into gems.

Solving the housing problems in Hong Kong is a tough task and it takes time to rectify the wrong decisions made in the past few years, so as to enable the public to feel assured in buying a suitable flat. I think it is right for the Government to adopt the "curb" measures to regulate market demand and supply in the past. Two days ago, a developer took the initiative to reduce the prices of a new property by more than 30%. This sends a favourable message to the market that if property prices are unreasonable and unaffordable by the public, developers will not be able to sell their properties, and both parties will not be benefitted.

What Mr NG Leung-sing has just said is quite right. He has rich experience in this area because he has participated in the work of the Housing Authority for a long time. Public housing should be "no frills" in nature. We should not go too far as to ask for splendid and magnificent housing design and planning. In designing public housing estates, we should utilize our rare housing resources and try our best to enable the grassroots to live comfortably in reasonable living areas. Of course, when the authorities make plans for public housing estates, we also hope that they can consider the developments nearby so that the grassroots can find suitable work in the same district, without having to travel to work in other districts.

6592 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014

Deputy President, our discussions in these two days have rarely touched on transport issues, I would discuss these issues now.

The Government published a paper on the Review and Update of the Railway Development Strategy 2000 the year before last, disclosing to the public the blueprint of local and cross-boundary railway development in Hong Kong in the future. Besides further integrating with the Mainland, the authorities also propose improving the existing railway system. The Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB) considers that this planning direction and objective are correct. With the conclusion of the two consultation exercises, the authorities should speed up its work and immediately announce the results of the consultations, so that a final decision on future railway development can be made. In particular, the development of New Territories North that we are highly concerned about must be complemented by a mass transit system.

We are gravely concerned about two railway projects, namely the Northern Link and the South Island Line (West). These projects have been extensively discussed in the community and residents in the North and Southern Districts are earnestly looking forward to the expeditious implementation of these projects. We hope that upon the completion of the South Island Line (East) late next year, the Government would speedily start the works on the South Island Line (West) to connect the railway networks on Hong Kong Island and facilitate transportation connections on Hong Kong Island to cope with future development. Recently, we learnt that the traffic in the western part of the Hong Kong Island is seriously congested, especially on roads around Pok Fu Lam, which reflects the imminence to make a decision concerning the railway system. I hope the relevant projects would be commenced as quickly as possible.

While railway development is certainly the ardent expectation of the community, we are very much concerned about the recent spate of railway service disruptions, and we considered this situation unacceptable. In the past two to three months, there were a number of incidents involving railway service disruptions, and there were problems with overhead cables, gates and even spare parts. These are unacceptable to us. I hope the Government would enhance communications with the MTR Corporation Limited (MTRCL), so as to monitor and urge the MTRCL to improve its daily maintenance and inspection work, and make more frequent replacement of major and crucial spare parts and components, thereby ensuring that no problems will arise with the daily operation of railway services.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6593

On the other hand, owing to the considerable increase in passengers in recent years, the main reasons being … the railway stations are tightly packed with passengers, which is a great challenge to the carrying capacity of railways. At peak hours, many station platforms are crowded with passengers, and they often have to wait for three to four trains before they can get on board. For the sake of local residents travelling to and from work at peak hours, I believe the authorities must squarely address the issue and think of ways to resolve the situation.

At stations where passengers assembled, especially large interchanges such as Admiralty, Mong Kok and Kowloon Tong, and other stations such as Central, Wan Chai and Causeway Bay, we notice that there are too many passengers waiting for trains and the long queues extended to the staircase near platforms. It is necessary for the MTRCL to implement crowd diversion measures. In addition to increasing train frequency, it should deploy empty trains to large stations at peak hours to divert passengers and reduce overcrowding at such stations.

Deputy President, though "Priority to Railway" is the soul of our transport policies, bus services are flexible and provide direct access to people's homes or workplaces. However, the quality of bus services has generally been declining these few years, and problems such as lost trips and unstable bus frequency have frequently occurred. Even so, the bus companies increase fares every year, which dampened people's confidence in bus services.

In a recent opinion poll conducted by the DAB, it is found that, out of five marks, the Kowloon Motor Bus Company (1933) Limited (KMB), the New World First Bus Services Limited and the Citybus Limited got 3.6 to 3.7 marks, slightly lower than the 3.9 to 4 marks given to a number of major railway lines of the MTRCL. This illustrated that people still have higher requirements of bus services and they hope the bus companies can provide better services.

There are countless problems with bus services. The problem of lost trips is related to the management of bus companies; it is also attributed to an increasing number of vehicles on roads in recent years, which has aggravated the problem of traffic congestion, and disrupted the scheduling of bus frequencies, such that some buses cannot reach the terminus on schedule or pick up passengers at intermediate stations on schedule. Due to the overlapping of bus routes, many buses on the roads have few passengers. We think a "big surgery" is needed to improve this situation.

6594 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014

KMB and other bus companies should quicken the pace of bus route rationalization undertaken in recent years. It is learnt from the experience and lesson of the bus route rationalization in the North District that co-ordination between the Transport Department and the District Councils is needed in respect of bus route rationalization, and a balance must be struck, so as to minimize the impacts of bus route reorganization on local residents. Moreover, the Government should play an important role, such as assisting bus companies in identifying sites for the provision of large bus interchanges, so as to facilitate passengers to interchange at places with convenient transport and reduce the number of buses servicing overlapping routes.

Apart from buses, other auxiliary modes of public transport, such as minibuses and taxis, are also very important. The authorities should seriously consider their respective roles. Owing to an increase in population in recent years with the completion of various housing estates, some of them located at new districts, residents need to use different modes of transport. Even though they mainly reply on mass transport, they also need feeder services, and minibuses play a significant role in this connection. Frankly speaking, the Government has rarely shown concern for the operation of minibuses in the past years. Apart from asking minibus operators to switch to liquefied petroleum gas, the Government has not properly addressed issues such as the number of minibuses, the number of seats and route scheduling.

The DAB has maintained contacts with minibus operators and organizations and is aware of their aspirations. Although we have raised their aspirations to the Government, the Government has not addressed them squarely. For example, minibus operators suggested that after the rationalization of some bus routes, can housing estates not accessible by buses be served by minibuses or shuttle buses operated by the housing estate. This is a pretty good suggestion but the Government has been rather conservative and is reluctant to formulate policies to meet the residents' demand.

In the past years, the seating capacity of minibuses had increased from nine to 14 and then to 16. Can the Government increase the number to 20 in view of the needs? I believe the Government is well aware of the difficulties to offer high salary to employ young minibus drivers owing to the low fare of minibus. Therefore, at present, minibus drivers are generally of older age. We think this situation can no longer continue. If the number of minibus cannot be increased, increasing the seating capacity is a desirable solution. I hope the Government would further consider this proposal.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6595

The $2 concessionary fare scheme is a benevolent measure that is greatly welcomed by elderly people since its introduction. Many elders said that they travel more each month but they spend less. They can now travel around for shopping and entertainment, and they can visit their children and grandchildren. We all find this policy highly desirable. The Chief Executive mentioned in the Policy Address that the $2 concessionary fare scheme will be extended to minibuses, but the measure will only be implemented starting from next year. Can the relevant government departments further negotiate with the minibus industry for the early implementation of this long-awaited benevolent measure?

On the problem of delayed bus trips that I have just mentioned, we must understand that the serious situation is caused by the congested road traffic. We also found that the uneven vehicle flows in the three tunnels is one of the important issues yet to be solved.

Last year, the Government conducted a consultation on diverting traffic among three tunnels and had listened to the views of many people. The opinion poll conducted by the DAB has positive results. We all understand that the Cross-Harbour Tunnel (CHT) and the Eastern Harbour Crossing (EHC) are often seriously congested and they think the Government should do something. But we are worried that it is not easy to devise an option that is satisfactory to all. An option will only be considered "all-win" if drivers are happy with the toll charged, the traffic would not be too congested and the overall traffic flow would be improved. Hence, we are worried that it is not easy to come up with an all-win proposal and we hope the Government would implement the measures in phases.

Two years ago, the DAB proposed a preliminary option of "freezing CHT tolls and reducing EHC tolls". That was a temporary measure to examine whether fare adjustment measures could divert traffic from one tunnel to another. If this was feasible, the Government would take further measures to reduce congestion on the roads. I hope the Government can work out the option as soon as possible so as to kick start the trial. As regards diverting traffic among the three tunnels, we cannot simply start with the CHT and the EHC, and we should also consider how to increase the traffic flow of the Western Harbour Crossing, so as to solve the problem of traffic congestion on the surrounding roads.

Deputy President, if Hong Kong is to achieve considerable development, we must be more forward looking. Very often, we just focus on development 6596 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 without paying due regard to ancillary facilities. Hence, in the previous debates of this Council, the DAB insisted that in developing Northeast New Territories and New Territories North, the Government should focus on developing the transport and road networks, so that residents who move into the areas in future can have smooth transport services and appropriate ancillary facilities. A solid transport foundation can also be laid for the future development of Hong Kong.

Deputy President, I so submit.

MR VINCENT FANG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, in the first session of this debate, I talked about constructing more shopping centres to divert tourists, developing Lantau Island, as well as making use of the "Made in Hong Kong" brand to encourage some industries to locate their production line in Hong Kong. When I shared my views with some officials, their first response was "How can we possibly have land for industrial development when we even do not have land for housing development? Furthermore, those sites are within the country parks, we cannot change the land use. "

Deputy President, I do not know how you would feel when you hear their response. Should there be overall land use planning? Should a balanced planning be undertaken in the light of population growth, housing and economic development? If everybody has a dwelling, but without any financial support, will this be possible? While Honourable colleagues are condemning that the living space per person in public rental housing (PRH) is only 150 sq ft, how can the living environment be improved if not even one square foot of land within the country park can be released for housing development? As a lot of agricultural land has been used as depots with impacts on the environment, can we urge the Government to retain some land for use by the logistics and manufacturing industries as depots, warehouses, as well as for industrial development? I have also received a number of complaints from the industry, pointing out that despite their booming business due to the implementation of various major infrastructure projects, they cannot find any place in Hong Kong to store large steel devices. They are doomed with and without business.

I hope that the Secretary for Development in attendance today would not just focus on identifying sites for housing construction simply because the housing problem is the most important task for the current-term Chief Executive. The Secretary must undertake land use planning for the sake of the overall LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6597 development of Hong Kong and make efforts to facilitate sustainable development in various areas. I would also like to stress that development and conservation can co-exist and some land within the country parks can be appropriately released.

Insofar as housing is concerned, in order to implement the Chief Executive's ambitious plan to provide a total of 470 000 public and private housing units in the coming 10 years, the Government has identified approximately 150 sites for the provision of more than 210 000 units. This sounds really appealing but it turns out that many of these 150 sites are just empty promises, as they still have to go through consultation, studies, as well as the examination of the Town Planning Board (TPB) to see if changes in land use are possible. It is not easy at all to pass through all these barriers. In fact, many applications to change the use of private land fail to get the endorsement of the TPB. I would also like to know if the Government has any effective strategy for ensuring the timely and smooth change in the land use of these 150 sites, so that housing development in these sites can commence. Even if the land use can be changed, the process takes time and cannot be completed instantly. Certainly, the current-term Government will not be able to accomplish this task and must leave it to the next-term Government for follow-up. Of course, things will be much easier if Mr LEUNG Chun-ying can be re-elected, but if he is not re-elected, will the current land and housing policies be overturned and policies be formulated afresh? The public is gravely concerned about the smooth transition of this ambitious housing construction plan, and the Government must provide a satisfactory answer. Even if the transition problem can be solved, the Government's 10-year housing construction plan will be affected by a shortage of construction workers which may adversely affect the construction progress. Therefore, the Government should expeditiously consider the importation of foreign workers to alleviate labour shortage. To increase the number of housing units, especially PRH units with increasing demands, the Housing Department should enhance efforts to combat abuse of PRH resources, and consider tightening the well-off tenants policy as soon as possible, to make more units available for occupation by people on the Waiting List without much delay.

In addition to housing shortage, the existing retail floor areas are seriously inadequate. In my view, among the 470 000 units to be constructed in the coming 10 years, since 280 000 of them are PRH units, it implies that more housing estates will be constructed. The Housing Authority should make plans 6598 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 right now and come up with new ideas to increase the areas of shopping centres. It can also consider allowing small businesses to operate on the ground floors of PRH blocks. Such shop premises are located at prime locations with heavy flow of people. Community facilities are also important, and these facilities may be provided at locations of lower commercial value, so as to increase the areas of retail shops and improve the present situation.

I would like to spend the remaining speaking time on issues related to waste disposal in the area of environmental protection. Yesterday evening, I was interviewed by a few Secondary Five students on their assignment on solid waste levy and waste recovery. They told my assistant afterwards that, though Mr FANG supported environmental protection, he was very critical and he might not necessarily give overwhelming support to the Government's proposals. I have to thank these students for they have grasped my attitude towards waste disposal within just 30 minutes. In fact, I have discussed the directions of waste disposal in this Council for 10 years. I told the students that it was impossible for the waste to vanish completely, thus incineration and tipping were essential measures. Nevertheless, we should first consider recycling useful waste and waste that can be properly treated, for example food waste, as well as other things that can be recycled, and we should only consider tipping or incineration when such waste cannot be reduced any further. Prohibition through levy will only make consumers think that they have already paid the Government to treat waste, and they have already fulfilled their responsibilities. We can never establish the concept of environmental waste disposal this way. Hence, I think "the three Rs": Reduce, Reuse and Recycle must be simultaneously implemented; and we must seek to change the public's ideas of waste disposal by means of education. I also asked the students if the school had told them how to handle recyclable materials such as plastic bottles and whether they had been taught to tear off the label on the bottle and separate the bottle cap from the bottle before putting the bottle into the Green bins. They said that the school had not given them such information. The Government often talks about educating the public; can it simply broadcast some advertisements on the radio? When will the Government start educating the next generation on waste reduction for the sake of environmental protection?

All along, the Government has not had a comprehensive plan for waste disposal and it has only considered imposing a levy and exaggerated its waste recovery achievements. Recently, a lot of facts have proven that the recovery LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6599 rate of 48% as claimed by the Government has been exaggerated. It is unknown how much of the waste has been exported and how much has been recycled, and whether or not some recovered waste has been discarded in landfills.

As the waste disposal issue has been frequently discussed in the Legislative Council, I do not have anything more to say. Summing up, so long as the Government fails to submit a complete and effective waste disposal proposal, I would not support any waste levy scheme or the funding applications concerned.

I so submit. Thank you, Deputy President.

MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the measure of "Hong Kong property for Hong Kong residents", which was trumpeted with much fanfare by LEUNG Chun-ying upon his assuming office, has seemingly become the "85 000" policy introduced in the TUNG Chee-hwa era, that is, "no mention means non-existence". It may due to the fact that the Kai Tak site auctioned in the middle of last year for developing "Hong Kong property for Hong Kong residents" is expected to price up to $15,000 per square foot of saleable area, how then can the general public of Hong Kong afford the completed flat?

As I mentioned before, for an ordinary household to buy a private flat with a saleable area of 300 sq ft, it actually has to spend about eight or even 10 years of household income, assuming that the family spends no money on food, clothing, and other living expenses. The measure of "Hong Kong property for Hong Kong residents" shows that the LEUNG Chun-ying Government can only make empty talks. It has no idea that private housing prices have already risen far out of line with household incomes. I once again call on government officials not to depend on the private market to provide affordable housing for the general public. The Government should seriously consider the strategy of market segmentation to split the private and public housing markets, and it should bear the responsibility of meeting most of the housing needs. The plunge of property prices in 2003 is still vivid in the minds of many property owners in Hong Kong. However, if we fail to adopt a market-splitting arrangement, it will only create confusing policies. It may even dampen the values of private properties without doing any good to help the general public buy a home.

In fact, the most ideal way to provide housing affordable to Hong Kong people is to build more Home Ownership Scheme (HOS) flats, especially in view of the current property price level. As clearly set out in the HOS application 6600 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 criteria, only Hong Kong people can apply for HOS flats. In addition, such prices are set with reference to people's affordability. As such, HOS flats are really the housing that people can afford to buy. Unlike private properties, HOS flat buyers do not have to face fierce competition with Mainland buyers, who would push up property prices. Also, they do not have to compete with investors or speculators who would send home prices soaring. Besides, the Government also has a mechanism in place to ensure that HOS flats are not targeted for speculation. It is undoubtedly a very important foundation for Hong Kong people to settle down and buy their own homes. The Democratic Party requests that the Government should build more HOS flats and look into the possibility of re-launching the Sandwich Class Housing Scheme (SCHS), so that all families with household income less than $60,000 in Hong Kong are covered by different public housing programmes. After strengthening its role in public housing, the Government can roll back intervention in the private property market, a market serving both self-use home buyers and investors, to let it get back on track.

The second point I would like to raise is related to the housing production target set out in the Long Term Housing Strategy. The public have long believed that the Government deliberately underestimated the needs when setting such target, but I do not want to dwell on this point. In my view, even if we maintain the proposed proportion of public housing development, it is still doubtful whether the Government can provide 200 000 flats in 10 years as scheduled. According to the information submitted to this Council by the Government, a total of 79 000 public housing units and 2 100 HOS flats will be completed in the coming five years. In other words, the Government has to provide an average of 40 000 units each year in the five years after 2018. That is a very staggering figure. As we all know, the Government in fact can only manage the production target and supply of public housing. The Democratic Party suggests that the Government should set up a clear mechanism, under which sites receiving no bid from property developers at auction will be resumed for public housing development, such as building public rental housing (PRH), HOS or SCHS flats. By so doing, it will send a clear signal to property developers that they cannot join forces to bid land at a low price.

The third point I would like to raise is related to the redevelopment of old housing estates. As stated in the Democratic Party's proposal submitted to the Government concerning the Policy Address, it is the Government's responsibility to demolish and rebuild those PRH estates with structural problems and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6601 redevelopment potentials, so as to improve the community environment and increase the supply of PRH units. However, as we all know, redevelopment involves complicated relocation arrangements and takes quite a considerable time. Therefore, the Democratic Party suggests that the Government should re-establish a long-term redevelopment plan to expeditiously come up with a list of public housing estates which have structural problems and redevelopment potentials, and to plan in advance with reference to the availability schedule of reception estates, so that residents can make early preparation. Based on this principle, I would also like to remind the Secretary that a 600-unit public housing block of Lower Ngau Tau Kok Estate will be completed next year. It can serve as a reception estate for the phase-one redevelopment of Wo Lok Estate, a housing estate in Kwun Tong which has been built for over 50 years, comprising mostly seven-storey housing blocks with just 16 flats on each floor. I particularly hope that the two Secretaries will seriously consider this arrangement. It can also address residents' years-long demand for improvement in their living environment. Please do not waste this suitable reception estate which can serve the redevelopment of potential public housing estates in that district.

The fourth point I would like to raise is related to the handling of idle land. As mentioned in the Policy Address, several sites in North District and Yuen Long which are used for agricultural or industrial purposes, temporary storage, or which are deserted, have been identified for planning and engineering studies with a view to making them available for housing development. However, I would like to remind the Government that if we change the land use of industrial land, the land shortage faced by manufacturers who intend to return to Hong Kong for development will in fact become more serious. As a result, it will further dampen their desire to return back to Hong Kong. When the Government changes the land use of industrial land, it should consider reserving a corresponding portion of land for industrial purpose, that is, for building industrial estates. This, coupled with an appropriate industrial policy, can ensure that manufacturers will be able to return here to run their businesses and there will be land available for boosting the industrial sector and rebuilding Hong Kong's secondary industries.

I would like to mention in passing the review of the agricultural policy as mentioned in the Policy Address. Apart from providing technical support, the Government has often overlooked the core issue of providing a stable land supply in its agricultural policy. An agricultural policy does not involve short-term arrangement, it needs long-term planning of economic policies for a decade or 6602 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 even longer. Under such conditions, if the Government really wants to promote the agricultural industry, it should consider whether the basic principle of the agricultural policy is to rent out agricultural land owned by the Government. In fact, when the Government promotes the development of Hung Shui Kiu in Northeast New Territories or the future development of the New Territories North, it will also face the problem of agricultural resite. If land policies are not included at an early stage in the discussion agenda, I am gravely concerned that other land development arrangements will encounter greater resistance.

I also worry that the discussion on agricultural policy will just remain at a superficial level, as it will only touch on bits and pieces of technical problems if the practical issue of providing land support is not covered in the agenda.

Lastly, I would like to briefly respond on the Pilot Scheme for Arbitration on Land Premium. Mr Albert HO has just explained in details issues of our concern. In fact, land is Hong Kong's most precious natural resource. Yet, if we speed up land supply by setting a precedent to "cut short" the strict procedure established for years by the Lands Department in assessing land premiums, it may jeopardize the overall interest of the community and even invite the suspicion of a transfer of interest. Besides, as we all know, the number of architects and surveyors are very limited. In our opinion, it is difficult to find experienced professionals who have never worked with property developers. Most of them have intricate business connections with property developers. Therefore, the Democratic Party has reservation on this suggestion. We hope that the Government will withdraw the relevant proposal and launch a public consultation first, so as to avoid the Pilot Scheme for Arbitration on Land Premium from becoming an expedient measure taken by the LEUNG Chun-ying Administration to increase land supply.

Deputy President, I would also like to talk about the development of Lantau Island. Many people said that country parks can be utilized, developed and explored. I would like to first declare that I am a member of the Lantau Development Advisory Committee. However, in deciding whether country parks should be developed, we actually have to consider many other problems. First of all, I totally cannot accept the remarks made by some members of the Advisory Committee dubbed as "LEUNG's fans". They said that developing country parks on Lantau Island can transform the island from "an ugly duckling" into "a white swan". I have openly indicated that reckless development would only turn "a white swan" into "a black swan" or even "a lame duck".

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6603

In my opinion, as in the case of Sai Kung, country parks on Lantau Island are Hong Kong's precious natural resources. They should not be damaged causally. Moreover, if we take a look at the maps and planning information of country parks and their surrounding areas, we would find that country parks are actually very unique as they are usually surrounded by "green belts" which separate them away from residential or other development areas. In other words, country parks are not planned for large-scale development. Besides, as we all know, changing the land use of suitable "green belt" sites for development is a long-established and normal practice. Therefore, the bunch of land-seeking "LEUNG's fans" should really take a look at such basic information. They should not mislead the public and unilaterally claim that country parks should let bulldozers roll in.

Let us take a look at some information. The total area of Hong Kong is 1 100 sq km, 24% of which is developed land, 41% is country park land, while the remaining 35% is all sorts of land (including islands). If we put 10% of the latter (equivalent to 35 sq km) into use, it already amounts to the size of five North East New Territories New Development Areas. This, coupled with the reclamation project under discussion in the central waters between Lantau and Hong Kong Island, can provide quite a large area of land for development. Therefore, I think that we should wait until all land for development is exhausted before seriously considering putting country park land into development. At this moment, I think it is totally inappropriate to do so.

Most Hong Kong people agree with the saying that Lantau Island is Hong Kong's backyard. According to government information, millions of Hong Kong people went to Lantau Island for different activities every year in the past. Therefore, we cannot go along with Mr Franklin LAM's saying that "not many people go to country parks". Nor do we wish to see that country parks are developed into a bustling place like Mong Kok. It is an utterly wrong concept which goes against the preservation of country parks' natural environment. While we were discussing the issue of Lantau Island these days, Mr LAU Ping-cheung claimed that it was feasible to develop country parks, saying that we could go shopping in the Mainland if there was not enough leisure space after development. In fact, all these remarks only show that the bunch of "LEUNG's fans" are living in a world totally different from that of Hong Kong people. They have lost touch with Hong Kong society.

As a matter of fact, we have to understand that Hong Kong's land resources are very precious and every development project will surely invite controversy. 6604 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014

However, as the Chief Executive, it is incumbent upon LEUNG Chun-ying to forge a consensus in the community. No matter how I dislike him, or how unrepresentative his election is, he has the responsibility to forge a consensus for all development projects and social issues, as he now holds the office of the Chief Executive. While the bunch of "LEUNG's fans" are too eager to "dig a fire pit" for LEUNG Chun-ying, he is more than happy to jump into it by ignoring or even challenging other opinions in the community. This only reflects that the Chief Executive is too obstinate. He does not think that he is obliged to mediate and forge a consensus over different controversial issues in the community. This mentality does no help in resolving different social disputes.

Deputy President, the Policy Address also touches on the issue of building safety. As mentioned in the Policy Address, the Government will launch a pilot scheme in collaboration with professional institutes to provide professional and tailor-made advisory and support service to owners' corporations. As we all know, such services have been in existence for a long time. Yet, can the problem of bid-rigging involved in maintenance works faced by residents today be tackled and resolved? The answer is crystal clear. Otherwise, how come there are so many media reports on such problem?

The Democratic Party has three suggestions in this regard. First, we think the Urban Renewal Authority should establish an independent consultancy to directly compete in the market, so as to set effective reference prices via a credible organization and let small property owners access to credible and reliable consultancy services during the tendering process. Also, the Buildings Department and other implementation agencies should follow the latest tendering arrangement of the "Operation Building Bright" to let independent accounting firms or implementation agencies introduce an anonymous system of tendering to make bid-rigging more difficult. As for our last suggestion, I hope that the Government will expeditiously review the Building Management Ordinance, stipulating the request for building maintenance works as an important motion with higher quorum requirement for decision-making, so as to prevent sky-high and unreasonable priced maintenance projects from being passed by a small number of owners at meetings. More importantly, the whole maintenance project should be made widely known to owners of the building, so as to effectively reduce disputes among owners and minimize illegal activities which may occur during the maintenance process.

On environmental affairs, I would like to talk about the setting up of a recycling fund of $1 billion, as suggested in the Policy Address. The LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6605

Government said that manpower is needed in the short term to carry out the relevant works. However, I would like to point out that although this proposal has partly addressed the Democratic Party's request ― as we asked for $5 billion but received a counter-offer of $1 billion ― we think that the amount is not enough to sustain the recycling promotion work. However, as details have yet been provided by the Bureau, I can only briefly express my view. As far as recycling strategies ― resource recycling strategies ― are concerned, I think the Government should consider ways that can really encourage members of the public to consciously practice recycling. The Government should announce the reference prices for each item of subsidized recycling materials (such as plastics) or the amounts of subsidies offered to recyclers, so as to prevent individual recyclers from suppressing the prices of recycling materials to seek higher profits, which will dampen people's desire for recycling. It is particularly important as recycling requires the concerted effort of recyclers and members of the public. Therefore, such policies should be transparent and should not skew towards recyclers.

Secondly, licensing regulations should not be put in place causally. The Government has always wanted to limit the number of subsidized recyclers with a licensing system for easy management. However, such policies would indeed promote monopoly. In the long run, it will only affect the relevant market operation and create obstacles deterring market entry. As a result, it will indirectly benefit the existing recyclers in the recycling market. Therefore, the issue should be handled carefully.

Lastly, I would like to point out that resources recycling and waste management are "one for two and two for one". However, at present the Government has tasked the Environment Bureau to oversee recycling or the final stage of waste management, while tasking the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department to take charge of the initial stage of waste collection. This practice will give rise to inco-ordination between the two departments in their work objectives and affect the overall work efficiency.

Let us take a look at the Public Cleansing and Prevention of Nuisances Regulation. It specifies that the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department cannot allow contractors and their cleaning workers to collect materials with recycle values while collecting garbage. This is where the core of the problem lies. Therefore, I think the Government should expeditiously review the co-ordination between the two departments and set up an effective wastes collection system and mechanism.

6606 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014

In addition, as regards air pollution, I hope that the Government … we have spent lots of money to promote the replacement of Euro III or earlier diesel commercial vehicles and talked about the promotion of electric vehicles, but we all know that the downside of electric vehicles lies in the handling of batteries. Therefore, I think the Government should consider introducing other clean energies such as liquefied natural gas, so that we can have a more forward-looking consideration on this front.

Lastly, I would like to talk about the transport problem. As we all know, the licences for franchised public bus services of the Citybus and the Kowloon Motor Bus (KMB) will expire in 2016. I hope that the Government, when negotiating with the franchised bus operators over their licensing issue, will also consult the public regarding the roles of different means of transportation with a view to exploring their positioning in our future transportation system.

Before the launch of bus route rationalization plans, the Democratic Party was in support of such plans. However, when the plans were being implemented, we actually could not deny the fact that members of the public have received fewer services as a result. Yet, when designing the plans, the Government had not considered fully opening the market of those service routes relinquished by franchised bus companies to other operators, so as to ease the obstacles of bus route rationalization. Therefore, I very much hope that the Secretary will give it a thought. As bus companies have agreed on the needs to relinquish some service routes when implementing route rationalization, should we let other transportation operators run those relinquished routes and help provide such services? It can avoid undermining the services provided to members of the public and create a win-win situation.

On transportation, I would like to remind the Secretary that the number of private vehicles had increased from 380 000 in 2003 to 490 000 in 2012. That was a very staggering increase. Therefore, I very much hope that the Government will expeditiously conduct the Fourth Comprehensive Transport Study, so as to let the community discuss the positioning of various means of transportation and consider whether we should cap the increase of private vehicles to align our road usage density with environmental needs.

Thank you, Deputy President.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6607

MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): Deputy President, as some Honourable colleagues have already discussed the environmental protection and recycling industries, I would like to focus on only one of them due to time constraint.

Deputy President, as the Chinese saying goes, "food is people's paramount concern". We had a lot of deep-fried food during the recent Chinese New Year. In the motion moved by me on 27 March 2013 concerning used cooking oil, I mentioned that Hong Kong produces 22.8 million litres of used cooking oil each year. While some used cooking oil has been exported to places like Spain, Germany and Taiwan, the whereabouts of the bulk of oil are unknown. We are of course well aware that a large quantity of oil has been exported to the Mainland and became gutter oil. More importantly, Hong Kong has indeed failed to properly regulate and make good use of this very important product for recycling.

Deputy President, the Policy Address highlighted that we have just approved a provision of $11.4 billion to help phase out Euro III or pre-Euro III diesel commercial vehicles, and the $1 billion Recycling Fund was also mentioned in paragraph 163. While I welcome these initiatives, we hope that the Government would expeditiously announce the details. I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate the conversion of used cooking oil into biodiesel, and hope that the Government would make use of this mechanism to at least offer appropriate subsidies by drawing from the Recycling Fund. This is because experiences from the United States, European Union, Australia and Switzerland showed that, in order for such initiatives to be successful, considerable subsidies have to be made in this regard, ranging from US$0.3 per litre to the highest US$1 per litre in Switzerland.

Moreover, I also hope that the authorities would consider the duty on methyl alcohol. If such duty is not removed, I am afraid it will be extremely unfavourable to the relevant industries. What is more, I hope that the Government will expeditiously implement or even enhance its pilot scheme. We all know that the Government launched a 16-month pilot scheme in January 2012 to allow certain government departments, including the Drainage Services Department, Hong Kong Police Force and Correctional Services Department, to take the lead in using biodiesel as vehicle fuel. According to my understanding, the result of this pilot scheme is very satisfactory and I look forward to seeing it further extend to other departments, especially those with higher fuel consumption, such as the Food and Health Bureau and Fire Services Department, with a view to increasing the use of biodiesel in government departments. I also 6608 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 hope that the Government will further enhance this pilot scheme so that more market players will follow suit and introduce the use of biodiesel by all means. Given that we can reduce air pollution with $11.4 billion, this is indeed a comparatively lower cost at which Hong Kong's air quality can be further improved.

Deputy President, due to time constraint, I am afraid that I will have to move on to the next topic about public rental housing (PRH). Several Honourable colleagues have just indicated that prevention of abuse is amongst the top priorities as resources are precious. We often talk about the search for land, which has aroused many controversies over environmental protection. For example, the limited PRH flats have not been fully utilized, which is utterly inexplicable. In this connection, I would like to raise a few points. The first one is about the vetting system. From the results of a recent investigation conducted by the Audit Commission and the Public Accounts Committee, Members learnt that many supporting documents required have not been supplied during the preliminary vetting stage. Should this be properly done at an early stage to avoid causing a misperception that there are many eligible applicants?

Secondly, the revalidation check system implemented between 1993 and 2000 to check, from time to time, on the eligibility of the applicants concerned was suspended in 2000. This has created the so-called "inflated" data, causing unnecessary fear. I hope that the authorities would expeditiously reinstate the effective revalidation check system for regular checking so as to reduce the "inflated" data.

The third point is the Quota and Points System (QPS). Given the incentives provided in the design of the QPS, it would be best to submit PRH applications at the age of 18 because applicants will receive an additional 12 points for every extra year they wait. An applicant will only receive three points a year if he is over 18 years of age when he submits his application. The design of the QPS itself has prompted many young people to submit PRH applications even if they do not have a pressing need for housing. As a result, the number of applicants on the PRH waiting list has significantly increased. This again shows that we have not only scared ourselves silly, but have also failed to make good use of our resources. I hope the authorities can expeditiously consider improving the QPS.

Another point I would like to raise is about quality. As a number of Members have said, newly completed PRH units look more and more attractive. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6609

With abundant resources, we should of course do as good as we can. However, according to our observation, PRH production has become a permanent measure. The middle class, in particular, doubt if this has run contrary to the original intent of the PRH system. I wish the authorities would strike a proper balance in this regard.

Deputy President, I am going to jump quickly to the next topic about transportation, and I will just briefly touch on the cruise terminal. The cruise terminal has already come into operation, but in the absence of a monorail system or other effective facilities to link up the tip of Kai Tak with Kowloon East, the existing traffic arrangement is pretty unsatisfactory. It still takes considerable time before the monorail system can be put in place. In that case, should the authorities expeditiously figure out what should be done? Either go for the monorail system and consider the changes to be made or replace it by tramways, or consider introducing water transportation, such as "walla-walla" (small boats commonly used in the past) or water taxi, so that the tip of Kai Tak will not become a dead end and render the entire cruise terminal useless.

Thank you, Deputy President.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the Government has mentioned development and housing problems time and again in this year's Policy Address. But unfortunately, to people with home ownership aspirations, regardless of whether they are waiting for public rental housing (PRH) units or eager to purchase Home Ownership Scheme (HOS) flats or private housing units, they will be utterly frustrated. The Government's current practice can be likened to "drawing a cake to sate hunger", telling us that as advised by the Long Term Housing Strategy Steering Committee, 470 000 housing units will be completed in 10 years and members of the public would have to wait patiently.

I remember that LEUNG Chun-ying once came to the Legislative Council and told us a story about Fa Yuen Street. But regrettably, if the three-member family living at Fa Yuen Street believes in what he said, they should not have another child even after 10 years given the extremely low supply of both PRH units and private housing units in the coming three years. The Government may probably blame this on the Donald TSANG administration. However, has LEUNG Chun-ying not vowed clearly that he was confident in solving this problem before he resumed office? When former Secretary for Development 6610 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 was asked about the so-called "idle land", did we not clearly hear that land worth nearly $200 billion is available? And yet, the Government has instead taken the more difficult path and proposed to secure land worth $60 billion through reclamation. The cost will be even higher if an artificial island is to be built. Members must not forget that even if the reclamation project proceeds smoothly, putting aside the controversies that may arise, it will take decades to complete. Tens and hundreds of thousands of people, including more than 100 000 eligible families or 110 000 single applicants on the PRH waiting list would have no choice but to wait on and on.

The Government has a lot of idle land, including over 900 hectares of land earmarked for small house development and a piece of land reportedly worth over $200 billion for short-term tenancies. Why did the Government leave them unused? Some recent political news revealed that Heung Yee Kuk of the New Territories intends to form a political party, which has prompted the Government to think that the Small House Policy (SHP) could be scrapped. I can nonetheless tell LEUNG Chun-ying that he is just day-dreaming because the issue is just like a time bomb, and the number of time bomb will increase over time. As the number of eligible small house owners increases, the bombs will become more difficult to defuse. The Government has not only gone back on its words, but has also failed to formulate any policy to directly tackle the small house problem. I am therefore extremely disappointed.

There have been a lot of policies and opportunities for the Government to directly respond to or review the SHP and release hundreds of hectares of land, but it has not done so. Has LEUNG Chun-ying promised to provide benefits to the rural forces during the dinner gathering at Siu Tao Yuen? As we can see, there is still trading of small houses and small house concessionary rights, which has enabled a small group of people to make a fortune. Male indigenous villagers who have already settled in the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and other places in Europe still enjoy small house concessionary rights and can trade them even though they have never returned to Hong Kong. Today, small house development is no longer a housing issue of the indigenous villagers in the New Territories, but has become a way through which the minority privileged class makes hundreds of millions of dollars by taking advantage of the loopholes of the SHP. How come the Government is so incompetent?

The Lantau Development Advisory Committee which some colleagues have mentioned is even more disappointing. We do not oppose the need to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6611 develop Lantau and Tung Chung when necessary, or even to build an artificial island to give impetus to certain developments or boost population growth. The only problem is the Government, which is ill-intentioned. What did Franklin LAM, the former Executive Council Member who was forced to step down, say? He said that the use of country park land can be changed. LAM Chiu-ying, another die-hard supporter of LEUNG Chun-ying who is the former Director of Hong Kong Observatory, made it very clear that those people have tumors in their brains. Deputy President, tumors should be removed. Yet, not only is the tumor not removed, the Government has even allowed the cancer cells to remain in the Committee and spread throughout the Committee and the entire Government. What kind of Government is this?

Today, I have displayed two placards in front of me, which speak the hearts of people who genuinely love Hong Kong and call on the Government to stop "blindly scrambling for country park land". Notwithstanding that, in the near future, the Government will again examine land which has yet to be incorporated into country parks, including So Lo Pun, Ha Pak Nai and so on. I am very worried about this. Is the Government at its wits' end on this issue?

People affected by the redevelopment projects consider the Urban Renewal Authority (URA) a failure. Why can't it do better? Why can't it abort the approach of sharing profits with the property developers for each project? Why can't it formulate some co-operation plans on housing production, under which the URA will take the lead and property owners will have complete authority over the entire plan? As the URA only co-ordinates housing production on behalf of property owners, any profits made will be shared among the tenants affected by redevelopment. This is the approach currently adopted in Singapore, and there is no reason the Secretary is not aware of this. If we stick to the current practice, it will only create more URA developments similar to those in Wan Chai selling at $20,000 or $30,000 per square foot. People who trusted the URA and surrendered their flats at that time now have serious resentment, and those who were forced to buy these URA flats in such a distorted property market situation also find them not value for money. This is nothing but the Government's wasted efforts in doing something meaningless.

Many people with income exceeding the limit for the PRH application, especially the young middle class, are living in dire strait. First of all, has the Government considered introducing the so-called middle class PRH scheme? This scheme will charge a higher rent and provide a better living environment, but the tenants are required to move out and purchase HOS flats when their 6612 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 income reaches a certain level after living for a period of time. Will the Government consider this proposal? Or should the Hong Kong Housing Society consider re-launching the Sandwich Class Housing Scheme? This is because as Members may be aware, property developers no longer listen to the Government given that they have control over most of the land, and the Government has no say on the timetable for housing production.

Recently, there is a piece of comforting news about the development of Tin Wing Road. After the re-tender failed, the Government and the MTR Corporation Limited (MTRCL) have indicated their wish to turn the site for building HOS flats. I welcome this decision. I hope that officials from the Development Bureau or Transport and Housing Bureau can make detailed explanation and practical arrangements later on. This is precisely what we have to deal with. Property developers are financially powerful and influential, so if the Government always entrusts developers to take up the production of housing, I believe it has trusted the wrong person.

Lastly, I would like to talk about the relationship between housing and transportation. Under the cruel development approach adopted in Hong Kong for decades, grass-roots residents are always the first to move into the PRH units of a developing area long before railways are built. I nonetheless noticed that the Government is changing this approach. One of my serious concern is the railway. Notwithstanding that the Government is the major shareholder of the MTRCL, people living in remote areas (including residents of the future new development areas in North East New Territories) are subject to high transportation costs. They have paid a price for the privately-operated railway system owned by the Government. Today, grass-roots residents of Tin Shui Wai or Tung Chung generally pay more than $20 for a trip and up to $28 or $29 to go to the urban area for work. In fact, the Government is solely to be blamed for this. If the Government refuses to change such transportation policy which forces the grassroots to move to the remote areas on the one hand and pushes them to a dead end on the other hand, we consider this absolutely unfair to them.

Although the Government has formulated many plans on development, conservation, housing and transport, none of them has been clearly set out with a clear direction. I am extremely disappointed and hope that the Government can positively respond to the humble request of people who have been waiting for a decent accommodation by giving them a comfortable abode.

I so submit. Thank you, Deputy President.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6613

MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the Chief Executive has mentioned in the Policy Address that members of the public must be adequately as well as properly housed. However, it is obvious that many people who have heard this are aware that it is merely an empty talk of Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying, which is "hypocritical rhetoric", sounding as if he has done something simply by talking about it.

Why do I say so? We have seen that, from Donald TSANG of the previous-term Government to LEUNG Chun-ying of the current-term Government, the Government is in fact going from one extreme to another. The previous-term Government has failed to properly identify land for public housing development to address the housing problem of Hong Kong people, yet the current-term Government "blindly scrambles for land", sacrificing Hong Kong people's quality of life in order to increase the supply of residential flats as claimed, in the absence of a well-planned blueprint for the Hong Kong population, and further damages the natural environment of Hong Kong, completely neglecting the work of balancing land development and enhancing Hong Kong people's quality of life.

Deputy President, the Policy Address proposes to increase the domestic plot ratio as well as the development intensity, so that more residential units can be built on the same area of land. The objective consequences, however, are that the traffic and environment will likely be overloaded. Just imagine this: if luxurious flats in the Kai Tak Development Area are to be built higher and wider due to relaxation of the domestic plot ratio, the airflow around the area of Kowloon City will be blocked, and people originally residing in the old district of Kowloon City will become victims of "screen-like buildings" under the indiscriminately relaxed policy, and the additional 6 800 units will bring an extra population of more than 10 000 people against the original planning, which will make it difficult for the existing road transport ancillary facilities to cope with.

Deputy President, in order to "blindly scramble for land" for constructing residential flats, the Government continues to change the use of some community sites and the Green Belt Areas, such as converting the use of community sites to construction of residential flats, thus producing an immediate impact on the residents in the districts. The original "garden view" of some units may immediately become "building view". Some sites on which parks are to be built will become somebody's small flats after the residents have waited for years after 6614 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 years. Sports venues and places where residents may come together, such as community facilities and halls, will also disappear, hence reducing places that can be used for residents' social activities. Furthermore, to change the use of the Green Belt Areas, arrangements such as tree felling are required. It will lead to a loss of buffer between the urban area and the countryside in the long run, thus exacerbating the damages to the ecological environment. While the authorities adopt a policy of "squeezing every inch" in identifying land in an irresponsible manner, Hong Kong people will have to endure the ill effects, and the consequence in return is more public dissatisfaction with the Government.

In addition, as the Government does not formulate a timetable for the incorporation of enclaves into country parks, we can see cases of "destruction first and construction later" everywhere. The village type developments have an impact on the country parks in Hong Kong, and such developments continue to expand. Property developers look everywhere to "enclose" land and acquire concessionary rights of small houses, which has gradually turned developments in the rural New Territories into luxurious housing. Abrupt changes of rural landscapes or overloaded sewage systems have made the rural environment which is greatly treasured by Hong Kong people intolerable. A few days ago, we heard Mr LAU Ping-Cheung, a veteran "LEUNG's fan" and a member of the Lantau Development Advisory Committee, say that the country park areas could be used for housing development, and it would be better or Hong Kong people to go to the Mainland if they wanted to look for recreation in their leisure time. Such remarks are indeed unacceptable to Hong Kong people, and will also have an immediate impact on the immediate interests of Hong Kong people.

With regard to land and housing development, I would like to emphasize again that the public and the Council have repeatedly recommended to the Government that brownfields, that is, uncultivated farmland, or lime fields such as the large number of military sites, particularly those in the urban area, should be appropriately used or developed, but the Government has not done so. Instead, it persists wilfully in developing the North East, the North West and the North New Territories. Although the Government's motive is to enable Hong Kong to receive a larger resident population, many Hong Kong people understand by common sense that land resources are limited in Hong Kong after all. How can it undergo constant development?

The public have repeatedly suggested that the SAR Government should expeditiously set an upper limit on population, formulate policies for sustainable LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6615 development and outline a distinct vision and blueprint for the population, and land development should follow suit. This is what the direction of development should be. However, the Government fails to do so. Instead, the policy is fragmented and segmented. Therefore, we can see that the land development policy of the SAR Government in this Policy Address is full of contradictions.

Deputy President, next, I would like to talk about public transport, since some Honourable colleagues also mentioned this issue just now. As Members have noticed, the traffic condition is exactly like what is written on the card in front of me. The situation in recent years or within Secretary Prof Anthony CHEUNG's term of office is mostly that the MTR Corporation Limited (MTR), the corporation with the largest share in the mass transit system of Hong Kong, has been plagued by frequent incidents, and its service quality has been declining. However, whether it is under the previous Fare Adjustment Mechanism (FAM) or the new FAM, we continue to see the MTR "making profits every year, increasing fares every year", although its service quality fails to meet the demand of Hong Kong people. I hope and strongly demand that the Government play its supervisory role properly, and I urge the Secretary to conduct reviews. As the largest shareholder of the MTR, the Government should demand the MTR to expeditiously conduct a comprehensive review on its maintenance work in order to avoid similar incidents from recurring frequently in the future.

Since the Government completed the third study on the mass transit system throughout the territory in 1998 and set the major policy direction of using railway as a priority, we are aware that the MTR has become a giant after operating for more than a decade. The railway network is increasingly expanding, and its market share continues to increase. At the same time, the room of survival for buses, minibuses, shuttle buses, taxis and so on is gradually shrinking. The minibus trade even "screams for help", as members of the trade feel that it has become a sunset industry, although this is not what Hong Kong people wish to see.

In view of the several incidents in the past, particularly the catastrophic one in mid-December of 2013, in which the Tseung Kwan O Line suspended for five hours, Hong Kong people are naturally worried that under the major policy direction of according priority to the railway, several means of transport under the mass transit system will come to a standstill when a railway incident occurs. Therefore, I urge the Secretary and the Government to conduct a review.

6616 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014

The Government would certainly say that the Chief Executive has mentioned in his previous Policy Address that his solution is bus route rationalization. I have participated in considering and handling the bus route rationalization in the North District myself. We only need to ask passengers and members of the public to realize that the objective consequence of the bus route rationalization is that grass-roots residents living in the most remote districts and mostly in need of point-to-point bus services will suffer most, which is absurd.

Members of the public believe that this is a bus route reduction plan rather than a bus route rationalization plan. Bus companies should "offset subsequent losses with the initial profits", that is, using money-making bus routes to subsidize bus routes in actual demand. But now the bus companies are cutting down bus services which are in demand. In the future, such a situation will break out in various districts. How can we allow bus companies or the Transport Department to see such a situation, that is, only bus companies "gain all advantages"? How can we allow passengers to spend more time in taking more circuitous routes and pay more fares on a bus ride? Presently our rail network is increasingly overcrowded due to a growing number of individual visitors and the excessive foreign population. Taking a bus would be another option, but bus routes have been cut down. This is not what Hong Kong people wish to see. For this reason, I urge the Government to tackle the issue properly. Just now some Honourable colleagues mentioned one of the aspirations from the minibus trade, that is, to increase the number of seats on minibuses, which is certainly one of the solutions.

Deputy President, I wish to talk about environmental protection in the final part of my speech, for the Policy Address this year mentions quite little about environmental issues. As Members all know, when our Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying says nothing about something, it is tantamount to not doing it; or when he does not say anything, it does not mean he is not doing anything. The less he speaks with his double or triple negative "hypocritical rhetoric", the more he is likely to do something. Probably he is concerned that the opposition voice would be too enormous, and he will need to take the responsibility himself if it is written down in the Policy Address, which is not his style.

About environmental policy, I would like to point out that the issue will continue to be very controversial. There is one point mentioned by other Members, with which I do not concur. I will be in support of waste reduction at LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6617 source, and imposing volume-based waste charging is a necessary policy. Why can't Hong Kong make it when Taiwan and Seoul of South Korea have succeeded?

However, the Neo Democrats stress that we are not supporting the volume-based waste charging unconditionally. The SAR Government must properly set up ancillary facilities for waste recovery and improve the food waste recovery facilities to assist the waste recovery industry, which is the first condition. The second condition is rates reduction to avoid double levies. The third condition is subsidizing the grassroots. The volume-based waste charging cannot gain support from the public, the business community and the political parties and become a movement of all Hong Kong people unless these three conditions are fulfilled. Only in this way can the policy direction of municipal solid waste be implemented.

At present, we are not pleased to see that the Government only emphasizes repeatedly the end-of-pipe treatment instead of implementing food waste recovery and volume-based waste charging and proposes rashly the extension of landfills when we are still discussing the expansion of the plastic bag levy. The extension of landfills is rashly proposed as well. I know that Secretary WONG Kam-sing is in agony. However, which city will plan to construct its largest private housing estate with 50 blocks of 50-storey buildings, which is as large as two Taikoo Shing in Hong Kong, in the vicinity of an operating landfill? Deputy President, this is not only an issue concerning the environmental policy, but also an enormous failure of urban planning.

Therefore, it is not my wish that the landfill in the South East New Territories will continue to expand. It has been in operation for more than two decades, and in fact it should be shut down upon completion of its duty and mission. Recently an issue has emerged, that is, the waste recovery rate is worse than before. I am not certain whether it is an error in computation. If this is the case, how can we convince the public to support this environmental policy of the Government, which repeatedly emphasizes the end-of-pipe treatment?

In this connection, Deputy President, I hope that the Government can listen more to public opinion in respect of environmental protection, transportation, housing and land before formulating policies, so as to gain public recognition. If you merely talk about "adequately as well as properly housed" repeatedly, you 6618 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 can no longer deceive anybody. LEUNG Chun-ying, please listen to public opinion.

Deputy President, I so submit.

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I believe the Chief Executive himself will admit that he is the Chief Executive of housing. As a professional surveyor, he has repeatedly emphasized before taking office that land is not lacking in Hong Kong, but only improperly distributed, which is a planning issue, and therefore he should be able to tackle it upon taking office and build more housing for Hong Kong people. Certainly this is also one of our deep-rooted conflicts. At present many young people are unable to purchase flats or secure public housing, and they have difficulties in getting married or having children since the housing problem, the most basic issue in people's livelihood, cannot be resolved. Yet the increasing number of "sub-divided units" and the poor living environment are grossly incompatible with Hong Kong's reputation today as a world city of the 21st century.

Well, the Chief Executive has taken office, and we think that he would strive to catch up with the issues left unfinished over the years, and could expeditiously build as much public housing as possible so as to enable the poor to "secure public housing", as the property market in Hong Kong is fundamentally distorted. The Hong Kong Government has been controlling the "flour", that is, land supply, to implement the high land price policy over the years. This is in fact an indirect tax without the Government imposing high tax rates, for even when we simply buy a pineapple bun in our daily life, one third of the price is likely to be payment for rent and for the Government Rent. This is what everybody must pay, which is conducive to enriching the Government revenues. Therefore, the Government and property developers are making money under the high land price policy while the general public is living in misery. We notice that the grassroots pay their rents with one third of their income. The situation of the middle class is very much the same, as they are paying their home mortgage with the same proportion. Nowadays, however, the level of property prices and rents is as uncontrollable as a runaway wild horse. The proportion of one-third will not do. Instead, it accounts for half of their income, and sometimes even half is not sufficient. What are they going to do? It is simply impossible.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6619

As such, I thought that LEUNG Chun-ying would make up his mind, but let us look at his Policy Address this time. How many housing units will actually be constructed after what he has said repeatedly? Certainly, he explains that it takes time to develop housing, yet it turns out that merely 20 000 public housing units per year in average will be constructed according to this long-term housing plan, and 200 000 units will then be produced in 10 years. For Home Ownership Scheme, there will be an average of 8 000 units per year. If 200 000 public housing units can be supplied in 10 years, but today there are already 240 000 cases on the waiting list, can you not say that it is an unbalanced situation? In addition, each year approximately 60 000 new cases are added to the waiting list. Can you tell us how we can catch up with the situation? Is he deceiving the public when he continues to talk about securing public housing in three years now? Is there any specific target which can clarify how soon Hong Kong people eligible for public rental housing can secure a housing unit? How soon can the waiting list be cleared? The Government has neither a specific target nor a timetable at all.

"Sub-divided units" is a major problem. The Policy Address mentions about banning "sub-divided units". Will the Government provide other accommodation for rehousing if it intends to ban sub-divided units? The Government says that it will strengthen inspection. Well, let us see how inspections are done. The Buildings Department has inspected more than ten thousand "sub-divided units" over the past few years, but how many prosecutions have been issued? Out of the 1 000-odd demolition orders issued, merely a few dozens of cases have been prosecuted. This is futile. Even if they are to be demolished, the Government is unable to deal with them and will only act in a perfunctory manner, as there is actually no solution. Does the Government have any plans to construct interim housing in the urban area? Are there any plans to build singleton hostels in the urban area, such as the type of housing provided by District Offices in the past? Now it has come to a full stop, and nothing will be provided. What should they do? Where can they go? The Government will not enforce the law at all. It simply "turns a blind eye", allowing them to "sub-divide", hence there are "sub-divided" factories, "sub-divided" shopping malls, "sub-divided" chicken sheds, pig sheds and pigsties everywhere in the New Territories. What about unauthorized building structures? Feel free to build it, no problem. This is the current living condition of our Hong Kong people.

6620 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014

Rents are constantly on the rise. At the recent Question and Answer Session, the Chief Executive has stated very clearly that rent control will induce property owners to freeze their properties, thus there will be even less rental flats, which in turn will lead to an increase in rent, therefore it is "a vain effort" to impose rent control. Does he have any evidence? Is this merely a casual remark or what he thinks so, or does he have any data indicating such a situation? The scope of the previous rent control was in fact very small. It covered essentially pre-war buildings and a small number of post-war buildings, which accounted for a very small proportion of the overall market, and the rent control was abolished long time ago. Thereafter there was the security of tenure for tenants to prevent property owners from driving away their tenants easily. Today, however, the Government has no intention at all to make such an effort. To be honest, he is not willing to implement rent control, arguing that rents will turn even worse once rent control is imposed. Yet we notice that rents indeed have risen terribly over the past few years. Between 2009 and 2012, the rents of Category A private housing have increased by 48.5% within these three years. The figures are provided by the Rating and Valuation Department, and Category A refers to private housing of approximately 40 sq m or below. Currently the average per-square-foot property price of 85 large private housing estates is $23, yet how much is that for "sub-divided units"? It is usually $30-odd for "sub-divided units". What should the poorest people do? They live in the harshest environment, but the per-square-foot rent that they have to pay is the most expensive. We once conducted a simple study and found that within the 20-year period between 1993 and 2013, the overall progress of GDP in Hong Kong remained stable in general, yet rents continued to rise. The year 2004 happened to be a crossover point. Since rent control was abolished in 2004 and the Landlord and Tenant (Consolidation) Ordinance was amended, rents has been soaring continuously. The prima facie evidence indicates that rents cannot be controlled without rent control. For this reason, Deputy President, I feel that the Government has totally overlooked the problem.

With regard to land supply, Mr LEUNG Chun-ying has explicitly stated before he took office that 7% of land in Hong Kong is for residential purposes and only 20% has been used for other development, therefore there is still a lot of land available. Yes, this is an issue of land distribution, but why is the information regarding land distribution not available to the public? Why do the media and the Legislative Council have to ask point by point every time like "squeezing toothpaste" before some of the answers are squeezed out, but not all of them? After squeezing out some, we discover that actually part of the land LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6621 has been retained for rural development and construction of small houses. When we squeeze a little further, we find that in some cases an extensive area of land is used for burial. Squeezing a little further, we find that some places such as private sites and some clubs are actually so large, and the conditions are so generous, although they serve only a small number of people. Why do we not commence from those places? Why do we not focus on dealing with "brownfields", such as sites that have become waste disposal fields, scrap yards, vacant school buildings and land for short-term leases, and so on? Why are they left undeveloped?

Recently there have been suggestions that the sites for Civil Servants' Cooperative Building Societies can also be used for development. These sites can provide 20 000 public rental housing units of 500 sq ft, but the Government has yet to take action. Is it true that land is inadequate? Now even reclamation is recommended, and the construction of artificial islands as well. Deputy President, this is really terrible. The scale of recommendation is so amazing that even artificial islands are to be constructed in Hong Kong. We have plenty of land, as Mr LEUNG Chun-ying points out, yet instead of developing the 70% or 80% of land, we opt for piling up soil in the sea to create land. The Government says there will be reclamation in Ma Liu Shui, and previously it has also mentioned about reclamation in Wu Kai Sha, but the Government recoils a little due to strong opposition. The Government merely consults the public about how the land should be used upon reclamation, and after the consultation it only mentions about public opinion on what can possibly be done, which is simply self-deceiving. The North East New Territories Development Plan is also an unjust development scheme. On the surface it is to develop additional land for housing. In reality, whether it is the development by the Urban Renewal Authority or the so-called development of new towns, every time it is the poor who originally reside in these areas are displaced to other areas. They will lose their own homes, their original communities, their neighbourhoods as well as their original life style, and in return they are replaced by luxurious flats, shopping malls and chain stores.

What about the agriculture, farmland and farmers? They are not important; they can simply be cleared, shovelled and piled up with concrete. Is it totally unnecessary for us to concern about it? Is it totally unnecessary for us to take notice of such a lifestyle as we do not have any agricultural policy? Promotion materials produced by us aim to pursue green living, but is the current living on those areas green living? The Government gets rid of them, and then 6622 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 develops green living with low density luxurious flats on those areas, which is ridiculous. Let us think about it. The Government has actually dealt with quite a number of issues in this way. For a development project as big as Kai Tak, merely 3% of land is used for the construction of public housing. We have recently discussed at the Public Works Subcommittee over the site on Anderson Road, of which 80% will be used for the construction of private housing, and 20% for Home Ownership Scheme. Moreover, there is a large amount of land basking in the sun, including the land in West Kowloon. There are many pieces of land in West Kowloon basking in the sun, yet we prefer driving people away and destroying their home rather than developing them. We prefer reclamation, invasion of country parks and the Green Belt Areas, and we continue to build luxurious flats, but can we help Hong Kong people by building more luxurious flats?

(THE PRESIDENT resumed the chair)

President, I hope the Chief Executive, who regards housing as a top priority, can deal with the issue in a serious manner. It is true that housing problem is not simply a supply issue, nor is land purely a supply issue. After all, this is a distribution issue. If he continues to distribute the vast majority of benefits generated from these resources to consortia, with only a very small proportion distributed to the general public, the waiting time for people to secure public housing will indeed grow increasingly longer.

Thank you, President.

MISS CHAN YUEN-HAN (in Cantonese): President, I would like to discuss the relationship between development and conservation in this session.

The organizations to which I belong and I have no objection to the development. On the development in Tung Chung, Hung Shui Kiu, Anderson Road, and even the North East New Territories New Development Areas, we will offer our support. However, we believe that, in the course of development, the Government lacks macroscopic thinking. Basically it does not have any value as a foundation when addressing the issue of land, which is exactly what I wish to discuss today.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6623

Two days ago, Mr LAM Fan-keung, member of the Lantau Development Advisory Committee, described Lantau Island as an ugly duckling on a television programme. This remark irritates me quite a bit, and I am not certain whether it is annoying or ridiculous. Therefore, I have written in my column today that Lantau Island is a white swan, not an ugly duckling; nor is it a "small toe". His remark is indeed very annoying, for Lantau Island is such a beautiful place with an extensive area of country parks, crystal clear water and green hills, which is actually a back garden in this concrete jungle of Hong Kong. To people like us who love nature and enjoy hiking, Lantau Island is simply a white swan that we love and treasure very much. However, Mr LAM describes it as an ugly duckling. In my opinion, this reflects that when it comes to the consideration of the land issue, there are in fact two viewpoints, and this is also the topic that I intend to discuss today. Mr LAM's remark has in fact represented the current thinking of many people, including our SAR Government, of course. My question is, must a piece of land bear economic development benefits in order to be qualified as beautiful? Must a piece of land be developed with premises in order to be qualified as beautiful? The land on Lantau Island bears no economic benefits, and therefore it is certainly ugly, is it not? I would like to point out that this is simply a kind of distorted thinking, and an irresponsible way of thinking as well.

President, the SAR Government must think seriously about how land should be treated. I would like to point out to the Government, "While water can carry a boat, it can also overturn it". Under the leadership of Donald TSANG, the previous-term Government did not develop any housing during his seven-year governance, for he feared the occurrence of negative equity. Therefore he postponed all planning, which has resulted in the three Secretaries currently present in this Chamber, including the Secretary for Development, the Secretary for Transport and Housing, and the Secretary for the Environment … I fully understand that, on the one hand, Hong Kong people believe that housing, the issue with top priority, is of great importance, and therefore they demand an increase in housing supply. This is a point that we are aware of and understand. However, on the other hand, the supply in the entire property market is seriously out of line with the demand due to the policy of the previous-term Government, resulting in a shortage of housing supply. Frankly, the general public is very dissatisfied with such a situation, yet I still believe that, even when faced with such a difficult situation, the Government cannot simply say that mass construction of housing will be enough. Frankly, I opine that the Government and the whole society need to consider a number of issues in the course of 6624 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 development. For instance, how is the overall environmental ecology in Hong Kong? How is the economic ecology? All Secretaries should master all the relevant information. Quite honestly, I think it is rather unrealistic to solely focus on housing development. If the Government does not face up to the existing environmental ecology as well as the economic ecology in Hong Kong, major problems will then emerge.

Here I would like to discuss another viewpoint with Members. In my opinion, in addition to tackling issues relating to ecological environment, we also need to take another important issue into account in the course of development, that is, seeking the supply and development mode of organic and sustainable land. When faced with these issues, the Government's stance will easily vacillate if it fails to consider on the basis of specific and existing convictions.

I have been participating in land planning since 1995 or 1996, as Kowloon East, my old constituency, had an airport of 30-odd hectares. It has been nearly 20 years since then, and I have recently returned to the District Council, as always, to participate in district development work again. I have once participated in the development of Kai Tak River, which was initially a stinking nullah. Many people said that it needed to be covered up. Later, when the concept of ecological environment was becoming a public concern, some government officers, such as Mrs Carrie LAM, the former Secretary for Development, offered their support and gave us an opportunity to discuss again with people in the district and the District Council on how we should develop this nullah. Recently Kai Tak River has become very beautiful, and will become more beautiful than the Cheonggyecheon in the future. My question is, what do we wish to leave for our future generations? We certainly wish to leave our housing and all kinds of development. However, when we encounter plenty of old and beautiful things in the course of development, why can we not retain them?

The recent Tai Hom Village Development Project is another example. Tai Hom Village covers an area of 7.2 hectares, with a large shopping mall, Hollywood Plaza, behind it, indicating that the site was formerly used for film making. There are three pieces of antiquities and monuments inside the Village, namely the former residence of Roy CHIAO, the former Kai Tak Hanger of the Royal Air Force and the old pillboxes during the Japanese occupation period. They are three pieces of treasure. To what extent should it be developed in the present situation? In the previous phase we have encountered some good LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6625 government officers who understand that, in the course of development, cultural characteristics need to be retained while housing is being developed. Moreover, the environmental ecology must be taken into account, and the beautiful ideas from people in the district regarding the amphibious culture of Wong Tai Sin must also be considered. Finally, two Deputy Directors, Ophelia WONG, Deputy Director of the Planning Department, and Amy CHENG, Deputy Director of the Housing Department ― I may be wrong about her name ― led nine government departments to hold meetings with us. We are very pleased with it, and despite the fact that a lot of time has been spent, we think it worthwhile as planning needs to take the housing problem into consideration, be able to retain cultural characteristics and meet the demand of the residents as well. Why should we not do so? I think this is very important. We cannot simply draw a line on the map to erase something and thereafter pretend that nothing has happened. This is not right. If we can adopt an organic development mode, combined with the wisdom of people in the district, any problems can then be resolved.

Mr CHAN Kam-lam mentioned the issue of Wah Fu Estate just now. Mr KWOK Wai-keung said that Wah Fu Estate needed to be rehoused in the original district, which would constitute a major problem, and therefore Mr CHAN particularly responded to this point. In fact, Mr KWOK Wai-keung should think clearly about it. Choi Hung Estate is also facing major problems, but he adopts a negative attitude on the issue. I certainly agree that the simplest and the best way is to have a piece of land falling from the sky, so that we can develop housing thereafter to receive residents of Choi Hung Estate and rehouse them in the same district. The reality is not so. However, it is not impossible to solve the problem. As what I have just said, Tai Hom Village covers an area of 7.2 hectares. How much effort will it take in order to extend the number of housing units from 1 600 to 4 200, retaining the cultural characteristics and conserving monuments at the same time? For all these problems, we still have to address them one by one.

I mention this in order to point out that the Government should realize that these are not simple problems. Regrettably ― I am not certain whether it is my questions that have induced the government officers of the Development Bureau to walk out of the Chamber ― in the case of the current North East New Territories New Development Areas, obviously Shek Tsai Leng is available to rehouse 1 000 elderly people but the Government ignores its existence in the course of planning. Thereafter we have been discussing with the Development 6626 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014

Bureau as well as the Labour and Welfare Bureau, and Secretary Matthew CHEUNG of the Labour and Welfare Bureau even visited the district with us. The result appears to be quite satisfactory and thereafter problems have been resolved one by one. It is necessary for the Government to tackle problems in this way. Even though the Transport and Housing Bureau and the Labour and Welfare Bureau are facing great difficulties, they cannot move all of the 1 000 elderly people away. It should not be handled like that. I agree that there will be difficulties throughout the process, but we cannot deal with it in such a simple way in the face of the difficulties. Hence, I would like to say that there are five famous traditional soy sauce factories in the district. How does the Government consider these issues in the course of development? These questions demand our thinking rather than simply saying development repeatedly, with housing development in our mind now, without taking any other things into consideration.

As I just mentioned, I am also aware of the existence of difficulties since I have been participating in land development for nearly two decades, and have seen many difficulties prevailing among the Bureaux, and between the Bureaux and the Departments. But I do not believe that there is really no solution for the problem. The point at issue now is that we may have to take one more step and give a little more thought.

In respect of living, we do need basic housing. The significance of housing is tantamount to a snail needing a shell. However, we also need air, fun for life, possession of all kinds of memories and so on. We should not tolerate the past practices any longer. In each course of redevelopment of old districts, the original economic system, the original social network and all existing things are eradicated. Therefore, I earnestly hope that the Government can adopt people-oriented values. If the Government does not adopt such values in the course of development and housing construction, very frankly, there will be serious problems.

On Saturday, two institutes will jointly hold a seminar entitled "Beyond the Housing Policy of LEUNG Chun-ying". When this topic was initially proposed, even some professors said that ― I have a feeling they are quite probably "LEUNG's fans" ― the topic was excellent. It can tell the Government to move on, enabling the Government to understand the truth that predecessors plant the trees for descendants to enjoy the posterity, and allowing it to realize that if it continues to pursue development with a unitary thinking, it may eventually become predecessors developing but descendants reviling. I do not wish to see LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6627 that; neither do I wish the government officers ― Mr WONG Kam-sing may not be the Secretary by then ― to feel helpless when faced with the problem of screen-like buildings and air pollution. By then, regions in China such as the Pearl River Delta and the Yangtze River Delta, on the contrary, will have commenced to focus on development of green economy, instead of simply pursuing development. How do we strike a balance between development and conservation? This is an issue that the Government must think about.

President, I so submit.

MR CHUNG KWOK-PAN (in Cantonese): President, this time I focus my speech mainly on areas regarding environmental protection.

As Members all know, at present approximately 13 400 tonnes of waste are sent to three landfills every day, and the landfills will reach their saturation by 2020. For this reason, Secretary WONG Kam-sing has strived to lobby us recently to approve the funding for the extension of landfills and the implementation of other policies, including waste reduction at source. As far as I know, waste levy is the only approach adopted currently by the Government to reduce waste at source, but I believe that waste levy will be totally futile.

In order to dispose waste comprehensively, we opine that we should commence from the directions of waste reduction at source, waste recovery and recycling. However, it appears that presently the Government only knows how to charge by means of administrative approach, believing this can force people to resolve the problem of waste reduction at source. In doing so, charges will be imposed on recovering glass bottles as well as electronic products. Can these problems be solved simply by imposing charges? Can this enable people or suppliers to reduce the quantity of materials used and produced? This may probably reduce a proportion of the quantity. But in fact, if we intend to legislate on waste levy and charge the public, we opine that the Government should first refund the rates to everybody. If the issue is not properly handled, the Liberal Party will not support it.

Moreover, as for waste recovery and recycling, in fact the two issues can be discussed in yesterday's session of economic or industrial development. If we can handle it properly, it will definitely become a new industry. However, if we simply rely on the industry's own development now, most practitioners will 6628 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 only recover more valuable materials such as waste papers, metals, plastic bottles and so on, and despite the fact that other waste such as food waste, glass bottles, construction waste and electronic equipment account for a large proportion of all recovery materials, nobody shows any interest in them.

The most ironic part of the current waste recovery and separation system is that the three-coloured bins have been set up and many people separate waste products into three categories in compliance with the rules, yet, worst of all, waste recovery operators mix all waste of the three-coloured bins together before transporting it to landfills for disposal. In the absence of supporting measures or comprehensive policies as a backup behind these recovery efforts, I believe this is simply a waste of our time. Last year some Members and government officers made a duty visit to South Korea. I was not among them, but they will travel to Europe next month. In fact, they have seen successful implementation of waste recovery and disposal policies in some countries. Why do they make such duty visits repeatedly? Probably after they duty visits in Asia and Europe, they may visit North America next time, and continue to conduct studies upon returning to Hong Kong, without doing anything at all. Can it be like that? For instance, South Korea, as I just mentioned, has established a mature system for construction waste, kitchen waste, electronic equipment or packaging waste in order to recover and recycle such waste. I do not think that it would be a problem to learn from the practices of these countries. I wish that when the other Members and government officers return from this duty visit in Europe, they will not linger on at the study stage any longer, without knowing what they are waiting for.

There is one good point in the Policy Address this year, that is, the establishment of a waste recovery fund. As I mentioned just now, if we simply rely on the industry to develop waste recovery and recycling, I believe the threshold will be very high and the profits are low, as we can see now. The payback period is relatively long, and therefore it is not appealing enough. If the Government introduces supportive policies or even establishes a waste recovery fund to help waste recovery operators develop the industry, I believe this would be ideal as a starting point, and I hope the waste recovery fund can function effectively.

As far as I know, Secretary WONG Kam-sing may again submit the application for landfill funding, together with the proposal for constructing LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6629 incinerators, to the Legislative Council at the end of this month, hoping that it can gain support and be passed. However, I would like to ask this question: As Mr LEUNG Chun-ying opposes the construction of incinerators in his election manifesto, and therefore I am not sure whether Secretary WONG has obtained approval from his boss to propose the construction of incinerators? If the Chief Executive opposes the construction of incinerators, that is, he does not support or has not considered it, whereas Secretary WONG proposes to construct incinerators, can it be truly implemented in the end? Does the Government really intend to do that?

Miss CHAN Yuen-han, who is not present in this Chamber at the moment, has also been very annoyed with the Chief Executive recently for failing to implement what he has mentioned in his election manifesto. However, the construction of incinerators is a policy that the Chief Executive has indicated that he will not do, but now it has turned into something that he will do. Therefore, we need not to be too concerned about whether the policies mentioned in the manifesto would be implemented or not. I personally, plus the Liberal Party, support the construction of incinerators. In this connection, if the Secretary submits a proposal for the construction of incinerators to this Council, we will support it, no matter whether the Chief Executive has mentioned it in the manifesto or not.

President, I so submit.

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

(No Member indicated a wish to speak)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): If no Member wishes to speak, I will invite three public officers to speak.

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): President, I am very grateful to the Members for their views on the housing and transport policies.

6630 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014

As regards housing, it is apparent from Members' remarks that everyone is deeply concerned about the adequacy of housing supply in the future, the difficulties in identifying land and the pressure of rental increase faced by the grassroots and even the sandwich strata in the middle class in recent years.

The current housing problem in Hong Kong is complicated and serious. Mr Frederick FUNG said just now that he could not remain calm whenever the housing problem was brought up. I have also paid close attention to the housing problem all these years and I am also filled with feelings about it. I can also lose my calmness and let my emotions overcome my senses when dealing with it. However, I know that we do not have a magic wand and ultimately we have to resolve this deep-rooted problem. In doing so, we need to be calm, adopt a multi-pronged and step-by-step approach and our goal cannot be achieved instantly. The Government has set down a clear policy objective for housing. To put it simply, it is to assist grass-roots families in moving into public housing, expedite the construction of public housing, resume the construction of HOS housing, rebuild the progressive housing ladder, encourage the turnover of public housing flats and maintain the healthy and stable development of the private property market.

After the Government of this term came to power, it has introduced demand-side management measures to stabilize the property market and curb its exuberance and the effect of the measures is being felt but of course we can never let our guard down. I am grateful that many Members and parties and groups are supportive of these measures. Mr Abraham SHEK is not present at the moment but he said earlier that according to the statistics of Demographia, Hong Kong is the most expensive city in the world to live in with respect to housing costs, the figures of which I totally agree to. But the high cost of living in Hong Kong is not resulted from the two rounds of demand-side management measures introduced by the Government in the past year or so. Let us take a look at the figures. After the introduction of the second round of those measures in February, between March last year and January this year, the change in property prices was about 0.2% a month in general, a much smaller change rate comparing to the past. Hence, I hope he can understand that without the two rounds of measures, according to the statistics of Demographia, Hong Kong will become an even more expensive city to live in. However, once again the Government stresses that these are extraordinary measures taken under exceptional circumstances. When there are substantial changes in the market situation and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6631 external economic factors, we will make adjustments promptly, including relaxing or even withdrawing the measures and that is why we propose to make the adjustments by means of subsidiary legislation through negative vetting.

At the same time, we also know that the only cure for the severe imbalance between supply and demand at present is to increase housing supply. The Chief Executive has announced in this year's Policy Address his acceptance of the new supply target of 470 000 public and private housing units over the next decade, and the ratio of public housing, including public rental housing (PRH) and HOS housing for sale, will be raise to 60%, that is about 280 000 units, 200 000 of which are public housing units and 80 000 HOS housing units, representing a 36% increase in total over that promised by the Government last year.

The resumption of HOS housing construction is one of the Government's major objectives of the housing policy this year. At present, the Housing Authority (HA) has set the income limit for households applying for HOS housing at $40,000, which basically covers 70% of all households not owning a flat now. Given the short supply of land at present, it is afraid that it will be difficult to provide another form of subsidized housing on top of the HOS housing for households with higher income.

There is a general support for the supply-led strategy in society but some Members are worried if the Government can attain this new supply target while some consider that the target of 470 000 units too conservative. The Government's stance is that it will neither underestimate nor overestimate the overall demand but will keep it under regular review. The construction of 470 000 housing units in the next decade will pose a tremendous challenge to the Government and society. Whether we will attain the goal depends on a few factors: first, whether the land needed can be identified in time; second, whether the planning and other procedures required can be completed in time; third, whether there is sufficient manpower in the construction sector to carry out the works; and fourth, the support from the people in the community, the District Councils and the whole society. Of course, the HA also needs sufficient financial and manpower resources to engage in such a large-scale construction of public and HOS housing.

I wish to reiterate that the Government is not trying to "snatch land recklessly" but it is eager to meet the public's urgent needs and through increasing land and housing supply to fundamentally resolve the long-standing housing 6632 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 problem, improve the public's living environment and give our younger generation a brighter future. All construction projects have to meet the various planning requirements regarding, for example, the environmental, traffic and social facilities. The development of housing and conservation of the environment can be compatible. We will exert our utmost to reduce the impact of a significant increase in housing construction on the community and will fully consider the views of the local residents. I agree that society cannot aim solely at building houses but our present plight cannot be eased without houses and the key is how to strike a right balance, paying equal attention to the needs of various parties and also balancing the short, medium and long-term needs of society.

Although the redevelopment of old PRH estates is a feasible way of increasing the supply of public housing, we have to understand that redevelopment takes a longer time and it is subject to the availability of suitable public housing resources for rehousing the existing tenants. At present, apart from Wah Fu Estate which is under consideration, the HA has also conducted detailed review on other old PRH estates in accordance with the "Refined Policy on Redevelopment of Aged Public Rental Housing Estates" and completed the preliminary review of the redevelopment potential of 22 estates. The HA needs to conduct the relevant technical and feasibility studies later on. Any redevelopment plans of aged PRH estates require full consideration of the conditions of the affected tenants. We will publish the details promptly and consult the local residents.

Mr Tony TSE opined that we need to pay attention to both quantity and quality. The Government totally shares his view. But we do not intend to set a rigid target ratio between the housing expenses and the living space per capita. Of course, making a comparison with other cities and places on a par with our development level will be helpful to our review on the work and effectiveness of our housing policy from time to time.

The exuberant property market, sky-high property prices and ever increasing rents in recent years continue to add to the burden of housing expenses of many grass-roots and even sandwich class households. The Government is very much concerned about this. Comparing to 2012, the rate of rental increase last year seemed to have eased off a little. A number of Members have requested the Government to reinstate or introduce a certain form of rent control to protect the grassroots, especially the tenants of sub-divided units whose living environment is extremely poor. Society is divided over the issue of rent control. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6633

Those who agree consider that the ever increasing rents exert great pressure on the people in the middle to lower social strata who cannot afford to buy their own home while those oppose worry that rent control will discourage landlords to let out their flats, which will in turn lead to the decrease in the number of flats to let and pushes the rent up, resulting in just the opposite effect. We understand that rental increase adds to the burden of the public but we do not wish to do a disservice out of good intention by hastily implementing rent control. The Government must take the time to carefully consider the pros and cons of rent control. We will conduct a study and analyse the effect of our rent control in the past and consider the relevant experience in overseas countries.

The Long Term Housing Strategy Steering Committee has completed the report on the views gathered during its public consultation exercise and will submit the report to the Government soon. The Government will thoroughly consider its recommendations so as to formulate a long-term housing strategy and it is expected that the results will be published within this year.

President, the Government's transport policy is to develop a transportation system centred on public transport. The railway, being a safe, reliable, fast and environmental friendly form of mass transit, has become the backbone of the public transport system in Hong Kong. At present, new railway lines are being constructed at full speed. They include the West Island Line, South Island Line (East), Kwun Tong Line Extension, and Hong Kong Section of Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link, which will commence operation in the next few years. The Shatin to Central Link is scheduled for completion in phases in 2018 and 2020. By that time, the railway network will cover areas inhabited by over 70% of the population in Hong Kong. With the completion of the new railway lines, we hope that the problem of crowdedness in train compartments will be eased. Meanwhile, the MTR Corporation still needs to enhance the passenger flow in the compartments and platforms and improve the management measures.

Even though the railway is the backbone of the public transport system, it does not mean that we allow the railways to dominate the whole system. Franchised buses continue to be an important part of the mass transport network and other means of public transport such as the minibus and taxi will continue to provide a diversified choice for passengers.

6634 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014

The Government is deeply concerned about the frequent suspension of the MTR service caused by the breakdown of trains. I have required the MTR Corporation to conduct a comprehensive review of the operation and maintenance of the existing railway systems.

The consultancy report on the review and study of the future railway development will soon be completed. After considering the overall recommendations of the consultant, the Government will formulate the blueprint for the post-2020 railway development on the premises of meeting the transport needs, being cost-effectiveness and dovetailing with the development needs of the new development districts. It will be made public as soon as possible in response to the concern of various parties. Later this year, after formulating the strategy for the post-2020 railway development, we will launch a study on the long-term development and layout of public transport in the light of the planning and completion of various large-scale transport infrastructures. The study will cover various modes of public transport, including the light rail system, and formulate the future public transport strategy. The Government will also review the issues of road congestion and parking demand.

In respect of the franchised bus services, our essential tasks for this year remain to reorganize and improve the arrangements of bus routes, enhance bus network efficiency, relieve traffic congestion and reduce air pollution on the road. Over the past year, the Government and bus companies have completed the rationalization of bus routes through the area approach in the North District and Tuen Mun and the overall experience has been positive. Last year, we cancelled or combined 15 routes of low usage rate, I stress, routes of low usage rage, and introduced seven new ones. We also adjusted the frequency and alignment of about 190 routes according to the actual situation, some to a larger extent and some smaller. Depending on the actual situation of the relevant districts, we will continue to implement the rationalization of bus routes through the area approach in the Yuen Long/Tin Shui Wai, Tai Po, Tsing Yi and Sha Tin/Ma On Shan Districts. To tie in with the reorganization scheme, we will consider setting up bus-bus interchanges or enhancing the existing facilities at more locations, and encouraging the bus companies to provide more appealing interchangeable route combinations and interchange concessions schemes.

At the same time, the Government will step up the monitoring of the franchise bus services, including investigation on lost trips and delays, and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6635 formulating viable measures to improve the current monitoring system so as to ensure that the bus services are appropriate and efficient. We will continue to properly monitor public transport fares.

Someone has proposed to introduce a fuel surcharge for taxis. The Transport Department is studying the pros and cons and feasibility of the proposal with reference to overseas experience. The study is expected to finish within this year.

In various places in the world, the use of bicycles is becoming an increasingly popular mode of transport, in particular among the younger generation, and Hong Kong is no exception. We are comprehensively reviewing our policy on cycling, taking into account the overseas experience. We hope to set a clearer direction within this year. We will keep striving to provide a bicycle friendly environment in new towns and new development areas through provision of bicycle tracks and ancillary facilities at suitable spots and implementation of safety measures to enhance cycling safety.

As regards the promotion of electric vehicles, the Secretary for the Environment will respond later on.

President, the housing and transport policies are closely related to people's livelihood. This year's Policy Address has sufficiently shown the importance this Government has attached to the work in these two aspects and I hope that Members and society will support its work.

With these remarks, President, I appeal to Members to support the Motion of Thanks.

SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President and Honourable Members, I am very grateful to the speeches given by Members on land, infrastructure, heritage conservation and construction. My elaboration and responses are as follows.

In the Policy Address, the Chief Executive announced his decision to adopt a new housing target of providing a total of 470 000 units in the coming 10 years. Achieving this target is undoubtedly a difficult challenge to both the Government 6636 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 and the community. In view of the long queue for public housing and Hong Kong people's aspiration for better living conditions and space, the Government must adopt a multi-pronged approach to increase land supply.

In the Policy Address, there are six new initiatives that are related to land: first, taking forward a new round of land use review to meet the new housing target; second, duly increasing development intensity; third, relaxing the Pok Fu Lam moratorium; fourth, introducing a pilot scheme for land premium arbitration; fifth, developing Lantau, and sixth, exploring the development of underground space.

A number of Members criticized that the implementation of the initiatives proposed in the Policy Address takes long time, and some even likened the initiatives to "drawing a cake to sate hunger". I nonetheless considered these criticisms a defiance of facts and unfair. In the Policy Address, there are short-, medium- and long-term initiatives on land supply. For the long-term initiatives, if we still refrain from embarking on the relevant study and planning, the shortage of land and housing as well as soaring property prices over the past few years will remain unresolved. Being a responsible government, we should not be short-sighted. Instead, we should be open-minded. If we do not embark on long-term study and planning now, nothing can be done by then. As we all know, reclamation, rock cavern development and the development of new development areas or new towns takes long time. Even the development of "brownfield sites" requires comprehensive planning and engineering study. In the face of the pressing housing needs of Hong Kong people at present, the most expedient and effective way to increase land supply in the short or medium run is to make the best use of the existing urban land lots and new towns, as well as infrastructure in the vicinity.

As a matter of fact, there are not many easy options to expeditiously increase land and housing supply in the short or medium term. We have continuously conduct various land use reviews, which include reviews of "Green Belt" sites in the fringe of developed areas, close to existing urban areas and new towns; reviews of Government, Institution or Community sites, industrial sites and other non-residential zones, as well as reviews of Government land being vacant, under short-term tenancy or in other temporary uses, with a view to identifying land suitable for housing development. Furthermore, decisive actions have been taken to expeditiously convert land, where the original intended use is not required anymore, for housing development or other uses that meet the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6637 more pressing needs in the community. For example, we have converted the site in Tai Po originally reserved for private hospital to public housing development.

The ongoing land use reviews have borne fruit. In the past year or so, we have identified about 80 sites, with a total area of over 150 hectares in various districts which have potential for housing development and could be made available for in the coming five years for the production of some 89 000 flats. Together with the outcome of various land reviews mentioned in the 2013 Policy Address, we will have about 150 sites. On completion of the study on the development parameter and the sites, consultation on the relevant sites will be carried out in various districts. We have announced the distribution and number of the sites, and will subsequently liaise with the District Councils (DCs) and local people concerned. Also, we will apply to the Town Planning Board for amendment of the statutory plans, which include changing of land use and increasing in development intensity, in order to make the best use of the sites for housing development. If everything goes smoothly, those 150 sites can be made available for development in the coming five years from 2014-2015 to 2018-2019, for providing over 210 000 public and private flats.

President, I must stress that the Government does understand that the public may have concerns about the proposed rezoning of sites for residential use and the proposed increase of development intensity. However, the proposals are made after due consideration and we will, as in the past, go through the necessary town planning procedures step by step, consult the respective DCs and relevant stakeholders, and take into account the practical planning circumstances and considerations of individual sites to ensure that the provision of additional housing sites or the increase of development intensity will not bring about unacceptable impacts on transport and the environment.

President, although I am supposed to discuss the policies and initiatives today instead of debating with Members on particular sites, I do wish to take this opportunity to make some clarifications in response to Mr Christopher CHUNG's repeated questions on the site next to Tung Tao Court in Shau Kei Wan and Dr Kenneth CHAN's unfounded allegation of the same site made this morning. We certainly know that there are culverts beneath the site, and as a matter of fact, we will set out in the land sale conditions to be announced later the parts to be classified as drainage reserve or non-building area. When we drew up the land sale conditions, consideration has also been made to the impact of the relevant building on air ventilation and landscape in future due to the constraints. I have 6638 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 visited the site for more than once and after thorough discussions within the Government, it is considered that we do not have many choices given the tight supply of land and housing at present. In fact, of the urban land lots previously sold, some are even smaller than this one but still received warm support. President, considering that many people are still living in sub-divided units or units of poor environment in the urban area, urban lots where housing units can be produced for small families or young people would be welcomed in spite of the small size. After all, they are still better than the sub-divided units.

In the course of rezoning particular land in various districts, we have come across the concern of local people and heard different voices. Their concerns can be divided into two major categories. The more objective category is concerned with the impact on, for example, air ventilation, air quality, transportation, water supply, sewage disposal and infrastructural capacity. Other concerns belong to the more subjective category, such as visual impact. Regarding the more objective concerns, we will solidly carry out the relevant research to ensure that the rezoning will not, as we have just said, bring about unacceptable impact before we start. As for the visual impact, we should not easily accept objecting views and abort the development of the lot merely because of the visual impact. After all, land is a precious resource in Hong Kong.

President, overall speaking, if those 150-odd sites can all be used for housing development and there is timely provision of the necessary infrastructure facilities, coupled with the production of 179 000 public rental housing units and 17 000 subsidized flats on land already identified within 10 years, together with other private housing sites which do not require amendments to the statutory plans and other sources of private housing land supply, such as railway property developments, we can hopefully provide, with the full support of the community, sufficient land to meet the housing supply target for the next decade.

President, Mr Frederick FUNG and a number of Members opine that instead of adopting a difficult rather than an easy approach, we should withdraw the military sites and land zoned "Village Type Development". President, I wish to point out that the size of the military sites for the Liberation Army has been greatly reduced when compared with that before 1997. In fact, before the reunification in 1997, a number of sites originally reserved as military sites in different parts of Hong Kong have been surrendered to the HKSAR Government. Since the remaining military sites have to be reserved for defence purpose, there is no rezoning plan at all. Land under the "Village Type Development" zoning LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6639 on statutory plans scatters across the territory and is mainly located in recognized indigenous villages in the New Territories. In general, the main planning intention of land zoned "Village Type Development" on existing statutory plans is for small house development by indigenous villagers in existing villages and recognized indigenous villages. Given the infrastructure and other logistics constraints, and their sporadic locations, the relevant sites are generally not suitable for large-scale development. Worse still, many of them are currently passageways or surrounding areas of the existing small houses, and therefore not every one of them is suitable for development. We recognize that the small house policy has been implemented for four decades and there is a need for review, but such a review will inevitably involve complicated issues in various aspects including law, environment, land use planning and demand on land, all of which have to be carefully examined and communication with different stakeholders is warranted.

President, Mr Frederick FUNG mentioned the redevelopment of Kowloon City in his speech, whereas Dr Kenneth CHAN mentioned the use of brownfield sites. President, I must point out that the issue is not as simple as they perceive. Take the redevelopment of Kowloon City as an example. After the relocation of the airport, we can still find many vehicle repair workshops and other facilities in the "13 Streets" in Kowloon City under discussion, which I have visited many times. Thus, when the area is developed, consideration should be given to the handling of these vehicle repair workshops. Apart from the practical need to maintain the relevant industry, the job opportunities that have been created should also be taken into consideration. In Kowloon City, for example, we have launched the urban renewal plan and established the Kowloon City District Urban Renewal Forum, with a view to exploring the priority of renewal and redevelopment of the area by adopting a comprehensive, integrated and public participatory approach. The Forum submitted a report to the Development Bureau in late January, and the proposals will be carefully studied and seriously considered. We will adopt any proposals so long as they are acceptable.

For the "brownfield sites", as I have explained in various occasions in this Council, land currently used for storages, waste recycling yards or other purposes in the New Territories cannot be used for housing development even after clearance. There must be comprehensive planning and engineering study, meaning that apart from housing development, the Government must also provide the necessary transport, infrastructure and community facilities. The availability of job opportunities is also important. Furthermore, different land lots may be 6640 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 used for different purposes. Apart from storage purpose, the land may also be used to provide support services for a number of industries, including logistics, recycling and vehicle repairing. Before we proceed, consideration should be given to the local economy and employment, and how the different economic activities and employed workers operating currently on the sites can be properly taken care of in the course of formation and clearance. It is therefore not a matter of simply obtaining land for housing development. Public participation is necessary in various stages. Therefore, the time required is more or less the same for the development of a new development area. As a matter of fact, we have already embarked on the engineering study at various stages. The Hung Shui Kiu New Development Area, for example, has 200 hectares of "brownfield sites", and there are some in Yuen Long South. I am not going to name them all. I can only say that we have done our best in this respect and are proceeding in a gradual manner. It is nonetheless unrealistic and impracticable to seize the "brownfield sites" for development, and neglect or use them to substitute other ongoing projects.

President, through the Pilot Scheme for Arbitration on Land Premium, we seek to break the deadlock between the Government and landowners on land premium. It is hoped that the Pilot Scheme would facilitate early agreement on land premium payable, thereby unleashing the development potentials of private land and expediting the supply of land and housing. Implementing by way of a pilot scheme shows that we are addressing the issue very prudently. The Development Bureau is finalizing the details with the Lands Department and the Judiciary, aiming to announce the framework of the arbitration mechanism and other relevant arrangements in mid-2014. We understand that some members of the public, including Members, have expressed concern over the Pilot Scheme, worrying that the Government will transfer benefits to the property developers. I can assure Members that when we come to the details about the qualification of the arbitrators, composition and rules of the arbitration mechanism, we will be very careful. Furthermore, we will refer to the relevant information, including the Administered Arbitration Rules of the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre and the Model Law on International Commercial Arbitration promulgated by the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law, which has adopted a transparent approach by making the arbitration results public. We aim to introduce a credible mechanism with high transparency, with a view to appropriately unleashing the development potential of private land, thereby expediting the supply of land and housing.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6641

President, just now Mr Vincent FANG and a number of Members from the business sector mentioned the increase of commercial land supply in a holistic manner. This is actually what the SAR Government has been doing. But due to time constraints, I do not think I can give an account of what we have been doing. In an article published on "My Blog" on 17 November 2013, I have set out the measures in this regard, including energizing Kowloon East; New Central Harbourfront; relocating government offices and rezoning "Government, Institution or Community Sites"; developing North Commercial District on Airport Island; extending Tung Chung New Town, as well as development New Development Areas, cavern and underground space. Interested Members may read the article and I am very willing to answer Members' questions on other occasions.

Many Members are also very concerned about the manpower of the construction industry. When the construction of major infrastructure works and other activities approach their peak, the demand for construction workers will gradually be keener in the next few years. Meanwhile, the construction industry is also facing problems such as ageing workforce and skills mismatch. We have been working on a series of measures to meet the challenges since 2008-2009, which include obtaining approval of two commitments totalling $320 million in 2010 and 2012 to support the latest effort of the Construction Industry Council (CIC) to enhance training for local construction workers, and to enhance promotion and publicity activities to attract more people to join the industry.

After years of hard work, the Enhanced Construction Manpower Training Scheme, launched in 2010, is expected to achieve its target of training about 6 000 semi-skilled workers by the end of this year. The CIC has collaborated with contractors to launch the Contractor Cooperative Training Scheme, under which contractors hire trainees and train them on site. This has enabled the trainees to get familiarized with the working environment and to acquire early on-site experience, thereby enabling them to stay and develop their career in the industry after training. Furthermore, through legislative amendments, we are taking forward the implementation of "designated workers for designated skills" and registration by skills requirements, with a view to raising the workers' status and providing them with a clear career path. Also, promotion and publicity work has been stepped up to enable more young people to learn about the working condition of the construction industry.

6642 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014

The "Build-up publicity campaign" launched by the CIC has received warm support, and the latest publicity campaign include a new series of TV drama titled "Dreams come true", which showcases the public the youthful, energetic and professional image of the construction industry.

Concerning the Supplementary Labour Scheme, as a result of the flourishing construction industry, construction output will be huge in the future. As we have just said, there will be great demand for workers. Worse still, it takes long time to train up construction workers, and as discussed earlier, the CIC would only train semi-skilled workers who need guidance and training provided by skilled workers, as well as more practice to reach a higher level of productivity. In the years to come, we project that the manpower shortage in the construction industry is likely to persist. Subject to the principle of not affecting the employment of local workers and their reasonable wage levels, we should make good use of the existing Supplementary Labour Scheme and import skilled workers in a timely manner, so as to cope with the surge in manpower demand in the short term and reduce the increasing workload of local workers. The Scheme not only ensures the timely completion of various projects, but also provides ample time for us to adequately train local skilled workers.

President, last of all, I wish to stress that in the face of land and housing supply shortage, there are not many easy and viable options to increase housing and land supply in the short term, and society has to make difficult choices and trade-offs. I particularly hope that the respective District Councils and local people can take into consideration the overall interests of the community. We will explain to the public by all means and listen to local views with an open mind, so as to ensure smooth implementation of the proposals to identify land sites for housing production, and break the deadlock caused by the limited housing land.

Thank you, President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for the Environment, you have about four minutes to speak.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6643

SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Cantonese): President, and Members, thank you for speaking on the subject and expressing your opinions. I think Members' views cover four major aspects, including waste management, air quality, nature conservation, also water quality, and energy, including outdoor lighting.

From speeches delivered last night and today, I think we are most concerned about waste management, the very challenging issue for Hong Kong at the moment. We should understand that the Government attaches great importance to the four areas mentioned. Of course, judging from the urgency, we need to work on waste management. Last year, the Government published the Blueprint for Sustainable Use of Resources, which comprehensively analyses the problems we are now facing and sets out our strategy for the coming 10 years. It is a multi-pronged approach with multiple nuclei emphasizing waste reduction at source. There are five major aspects, but I will just make it very brief today as I do not have much time.

Firstly, regarding waste reduction at source, it includes quantity-based charging for municipal solid waste. We are all aware that the relevant consultation exercise has just finished and the committee concerned is now working on the conclusion with a view to fully collating demands, including the associated supportive measures, from different parties. Of course, the waste reduction we propose means not only quantity-based charging for waste alone, but also other supportive measures, including Community Green Stations or Producer Responsibility Schemes, and so on. It is an all-inclusive approach. Secondly, in respect of food waste, we are doing proactively. Apart from promotion with the character "Big Waster" in the Food Wise Hong Kong Campaign, we will soon draw up comprehensive strategies and plans about organic waste in order to show our work in this aspect. Thirdly, it is about recycling, which people are very concerned about. The Recycling Fund is a policy supported by people. The Steering Committee to Promote the Sustainable Development of the Recycling Industry led by the Chief Secretary for Administration will make a full examination on the issue from multiple perspectives. It is going to involve studies ranging from the land issue to assistance in providing training to the industry, as well as relevant port facilities and the fund. So this is an all-rounded way to do it, and we will work closely with the industry for a system in support of them.

6644 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014

However, we have to understand that different recycling materials have different handling methods. We have to handle them properly. Implementation of infrastructures to handle our end-of-pipe waste treatment forms an integral part when pushing forward the first three important jobs. I am aware of Members' major views, and understand the need and urgency to put forward the "3+1" waste management proposal. I therefore will deliberate with Members about this in the coming few months. We made a lot of efforts last year to minimize the effect of these waste handling facilities on the environment of the surrounding areas. We hope that the environment will be better. Today, as there is not enough time, I will not go into details. But I hope Members can understand that the Government knows the practical needs of the society and will minimize the impact brought about by such work.

In addition, about nature conservation, Members have mentioned that we will strike a balance between nature conservation and development. As for energy, we will commence a large-scale consultation exercise this year, including fuel mix for power generation and future electricity market development. President, as time is limited, this is all for my speech. Thank you.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The second debate session has ended. We now proceed to the third debate session. The debate themes are "Poverty Alleviation, Welfare, Medical Services, Public Health and Elderly Care". This session covers the following six policy areas: Poverty; Welfare Services, including social enterprise and family matters; Support for Ethnic Minorities; Health Services; Food Safety and Environmental Hygiene; and Elderly Care. Members who wish to speak in this session will please press the "Request to speak" button.

MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): President, the popularity rating of the Chief Executive, LEUNG Chun-ying, has been dropping to the extent that even Beijing has lost confidence on him. In a bid to turn things over, the Chief Executive tried to salvage the situation through the Policy Address. But regrettably, not only has his personal popularity rating failed to improve after the announcement of the Policy Address, the support rate for the Government has not improved either. During his election campaign, LEUNG tried to appeal to the grassroots by visiting grass-roots communities in order to foster close affinity with them. As a result, his popularity rating shot up. Coupled with his use of sly tactics to attack his opponent, LEUNG managed to gain an upper hand in the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6645 latter stage of the election campaign. Originally, he hoped that the Policy Address could help turn things around and improve his low popularity, but much to his surprise and disappointment, the outcome was exactly the opposite of what he expected.

Undoubtedly, the Chief Executive and the Government could try salvaging their reputation through the Policy Address, yet this is just one of the effects, and never the intended objective. By presenting a policy address, the Government's objective is to let people grasp the focus and direction of the Government's administration, as well as its priorities of work. It is the Government's planning blueprint from now to the future.

But considering from the several aspects mentioned above, this Policy Address, as the second one from LEUNG Chun-ying, is on the whole incomplete, non-comprehensive and partial, while lacking long-term development objectives in respect of several policies. All in all, this Policy Address is "fragmented" and falls short of the expectation of a policy address, and it has utterly failed to address people's demands properly. Hence, I consider this Policy Address an absolute failure. Apart from lacking public support, this Policy Address does not deserve a vote of thanks from this Council. Therefore, President, I will vote against the original motion. As to other amendments, I will vote for most of them. However, I will vote against the proposed amendment to amendment.

President, while one can say that poverty alleviation is the top priority in the second policy address of the Chief Executive, regrettably, it is very disappointing. The Policy Address has announced the introduction of a Low-income Working Family Allowance (LIFA) next year, together with the eligibility criteria. Originally, this policy concept has all along been a demand of the grassroots. Hence, it should have been well-received because this policy is made in response to public demand. Yet regrettably, as a common saying goes, "The devil is in the details". The proposed implementation details have turned this policy into something not of much help but not to be discarded. In other words, this policy is only better than nothing.

According to the Policy Address, the beneficiaries of the LIFA must meet specific requirements on working hours, income, and so on. One can say that these are stringent requirements for the beneficiaries. If the policy is eventually implemented in its original form, I think not many people can be benefited. As 6646 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 such, it cannot effectively help the needy families, achieve the effect of poverty alleviation, and improve or resolve the long-standing problem of wealth gap in Hong Kong.

According to the Policy Address and Mrs Carrie LAM, the Chief Secretary for Administration, household applicants of the LIFA must meet four criteria. The most important one is that an applicant must work 208 hours a month in order to obtain the normal rate of allowance, or else, a reduced rate would apply, or the allowance would be withheld totally. Secretary Matthew CHEUNG has stressed time and again that this approach is intended to encourage "work more, earn more". Of course, President, these are nothing but high-sounding words. Has the Administration given due consideration to our original intention of helping low-income working families? If that is the case, why is a line drawn on the number of working hours, instead of the level of income? By drawing a line on the number of working hours, it is clear that this policy has not taken into account the serious fragmentation of jobs in society now, such that the burden of small number of working hours is put on the individuals arbitrarily, while other factors such as the instability of jobs in different trades are ignored.

On the other hand, the method of calculating working hours and income under this policy is not consistent. Although two or more members in a family are working, only the working hours of one member will be calculated. In other words, working hours are calculated on an individual basis. On the other hand, income is calculated on a household basis. We consider it a blatant violation of the principle of fairness. Moreover, it highlights the fact that LEUNG Chun-ying's Government has rolled out policies haphazardly only for the sake of doing something, rather than taking care of the genuine need of the grassroots.

In fact, the Government's duty is to take care of the families in need, instead of giving out attendance bonuses. The Government is duty-bound to help the disadvantaged families. The objective of introducing the LIFA as demanded by the Neighbourhood and Worker's Service Centre (NWSC) is to alleviate the problem of working poverty. Hence, the NWSC opines that the focus should be on the need of the working poor. For example, the lower the income of beneficiaries is, the higher the amount of subsidies should be.

Under the Government's proposal of introducing the LIFA, the focus is on working hours, while the spirit of "work more, earn more" is stressed. However, this is against the original intent of legislating for standard working hours or LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6647 maximum working hours. Does it mean that the Government has no real intention to legislate for standard working hours and is trying to delay the matter further, so much so that the number of working hours is now used as the criteria for calculating LIFA payment? Is it the Government's hidden agenda not to legislate for standard working hours? In fact, as we all know, prolonged hours of work is hazardous to health. Moreover, it is a major reason leading to disharmony in family relationship. For example, cross-district workers must spend a long time on commuting. When the working hours are long, they have little personal time left. As such, how can they spend time on parenting education, self-education or skills enhancement? Regarding all these long-standing problems, no solution has been proposed in this Policy Address at all.

As to grass-roots workers' reason for demanding the LIFA, apart from short working hours, it is because they are receiving low income. But the Government says that they must work at least 208 hours a month before they can apply for the allowance. Let us look at this. If a worker works 208 hours a month, he is working about eight hours a day on average. If he works eight hours a day and remains a low-income earner, it means his salary is on the low side. As we all know, over the past three years, notwithstanding the protection of the statutory minimum wage, which has increased from $28 to the current level of $30, the rate will only be reviewed every two years, and it can never catch up with the rate of inflation. In fact, commodity prices have been increasing sharply, resulting in a heavy burden of livelihood expenditure for the grassroots, especially in respect of rental. Together with the spiralling food prices recently, their livelihood expenses have increased substantially. Under such circumstances, if the rate of statutory minimum wage is still reviewed once every two years, it can never catch up will the spiralling living index. Hence, it is our earnest hope and strong demand that the Government should conduct the review annually so that the living quality of the grassroots will not be lagging so far behind and have at least some safeguard.

President, under the proposed policy, extra subsidies would only be given to households with children. Households with children with special educational needs are ignored. The Government should provide extra subsidies for these families because they have to spend additionally on medical expenses, fees of professional services, and so on, in order to tackle the children's learning difficulties.

6648 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014

Moreover, the idea behind the Government's policy has also failed to take into account the needs of low-income households with elderlies. For example, if an elderly member of a household is receiving the Old Age Living Allowance (OALA), the amount of subsidy will be included as part of the household's income. As such, it is very likely that the household may become ineligible for the LIFA. As this arrangement is unfair in our opinion, we hope the Government can revisit the matter and exclude the OALA from the calculation of household income. Otherwise, it will give rise to conflicts and division in households with elderly family members. The worst part of this is that disputes will be resulted and the relationship between the two generations will deteriorate. I hope the Government can understand this and revise the proposal accordingly.

Furthermore, President, we, as well as various women groups, have been asking the Government over the years to increase the provision of child care services so as to allow women the choice of employment. But regrettably, for a very long time in the past, the Government provided very little support on child care services, and it was unwilling to make additional resource provision. Notwithstanding the launch of the Neighbourhood Support Child Care Project in recent years to resolve the child care problem through encouraging the provision of child care services in the form of mutual assistance by volunteers in the community, it demonstrates a lack of commitment on the Government's part on child care services and women development. In the Government's view, "productivity" has a very narrow meaning. Only people who are engaged in paid jobs or remunerated economic activities would be regarded as being productive, while women who are homemakers or engaged in household chores, or those participating in community activities, are discounted. The Government has all along neglected the so-called non-productive women homemakers.

According to the report Hong Kong Women in Figures 2011 published by the Women's Commission, there were over 704 000 full-time homemakers in Hong Kong in 2010, of which 97.8% were female. Has the Government ever considered what can be done to help these women take up employment or regarded women who work as homemakers as possessing productivity too, so that they can live in dignity? Instead of doing so, the Government is still clinging strongly onto the concept of "men as breadwinners and women as homemakers". As a result, female homemakers are still living under restrictions or even in bondage. In the end, women in society as a whole are living in poverty. President, why do I say so? I say so because according to the statistics in 2011, the number of female CSSA recipients was in general greater than that of male LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6649 recipients over the past decade. In fact, that is one of the reasons. There is no way to improve women's social status or help the overall development of Hong Kong's economy unless women are genuinely in possession of productivity.

Hence, it is our expectation that more can be done by the Government in this regard so that this group of women are respected while their productivity can also be released for making contributions to society. In the past, many women have in fact avoided motherhood or rearing more children due to the aforesaid situation, which has given rise to the imbalance of Hong Kong's population. That is why we have to discuss the issue of our population policy today. I think this is one of the reasons why the Government has invited trouble for itself.

President, in 2012, there were only 720 places of child care services, 5 400 places of after-school care services for children aged six to 12 under the After School Care Programme, and 4 400 places under the After-school Care Pilot Scheme funded by the Community Care Fund. In total, there were only about 10 000 places. But what is the total number of children under the age of 12 in Hong Kong? The number is close to 600 000. Moreover, there are some 700 000 homemakers, and as I said just now, most of them are female. It just shows how big the service gap is.

It is our earnest expectation that the Government can do more to improve the situation, including the formulation of a family-friendly labour policy and protection of casual workers. These are the problems we have been talking about over the years, yet nothing has been done by the Government in these areas. Specifically, we have been asking the Government to amend the "418" rule under the Employment Ordinance, that is, a worker must be employed continuously for four weeks, with at least 18 hours worked in each week, before he is entitled to the protection under the Employment Ordinance, and to formulate standard working hours. The Government has refused to do anything. All these would have impact on the development of families and women, yet the Government has made little efforts in this aspect.

We have been asking the Government to implement the principle of gender equality so that women have the autonomy to choose between taking up employment and being a homemaker. It will be conducive to the sustainable development of the quality of both society and families. We very much hope that more can be done by the Government in this regard.

6650 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014

We have suggested to the Government that insofar as women's development is concerned, a three-pillar approach should be adopted. These three pillars are, first, child care services; second, a carer allowance; and third, a family-friendly policy. As evidenced in overseas experience, while the support for women employment can be enhanced through increased provision of child care services, a carer allowance can be granted to full-time homemakers as a compensation for the financial burden they must bear as a result of sacrificing their jobs, as well as a recognition for the work of carers. Those are vital and indispensible elements under the three-pillar approach. In addition, it is necessary to implement policies for promoting harmony in families. We hope that proposals in relation to paternity leave, standard working hours, holidays for family carers and the provision of workplace child care facilities will be implemented as soon as possible. I think these policies can release the labour force of women while enhancing the quality of family life.

President, I would like to spend some time on the housing problem. Perhaps you may ask: Why do I make these remarks in this session, and not the last one? The most important reason is that I consider poverty the root of the housing problem, which is the theme of this session. Why do I say so? As we all know, whenever the housing problem is mentioned, the focus is invariably the housing need of the grassroots. We seldom come across any housing problem encountered by top wage earners, male or female alike. Why? Because they are wealthy, and housing is not a problem at all. But housing is a common problem for grass-roots workers as they are poor. Without money, they only hope that they can rent a place with cheap rental. But regrettably, there is a shortfall in supply. Hence, they have to settle for housing in deplorable conditions such as "sub-divided units", and some homeless people even become street sleepers. These things happen mainly because these people are poor or their income is excessively low.

In this regard, I hope Secretary Matthew CHEUNG can relay our views to the Chief Executive. Meanwhile, he can also put pressure on the Chief Executive, for instance, by telling him that he should either resolve the housing problem or increase the expenditure on social welfare. Why do I say so? Because currently, the Government has a policy on rent subsidy, under which a rent allowance would be provided by the Social Welfare Department to CSSA recipients. However, can the problem be resolved by the rent subsidy? In fact, it cannot. Why? Because property owners know how much rent subsidy is received by the CSSA recipients and they will increase the rent accordingly. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6651

Hence, the ultimate beneficiaries are the owners, and not the CSSA recipients. As such, Government expenditure will just keep rising. The problem can only be resolved by increasing housing production.

Apart from increasing housing production, it would be most important to impose rent control. In fact, the Chief Executive has also responded to a relevant question I raised in this Council previously. As stated by the Secretary for Transport and Housing just now, society has diverse views on rent control. But on the last occasion when the Chief Executive appeared before this Council, he responded to my question directly by saying that rent control should not be imposed because it would result in an even heavier impact on the market as a whole. In this regard, I would like to ask Secretary Matthew CHEUNG to tell LEUNG Chun-ying that instead of jumping to a hasty conclusion, he should conduct some studies first before coming to a final decision. Rent control was been imposed in Hong Kong previously, and none of the effects he described were resulted. Why can't he conduct some studies first in order to gauge the situation? The grassroots are having a hard time due to the absence of rent control. At present, the period of tenancy for "sub-divided units" is neither two years nor one year, or even six months, but as short as one month only. Why is that so? Because the owners can then keep increasing rents. Even without actual rent increase, the tenants are constantly under the threat and intense pressure of imminent rent increase. Hence, from the perspective of the poverty problem, I hope the Secretary can relay to the Chief Executive our request that he should revisit his stance on rent control. Instead of rejecting our proposal hastily, we hope that he can do his best by conducting some in-depth studies on the matter and hold further discussions with the community. Can he do that?

President, I would also like to speak on the constitutional reform. Perhaps you will say that this subject is related to the next debate session, rather than the current one. Nonetheless, I would like to say a few words here because there is indeed a relationship between constitutional reform and poverty. At present, the Government is not formed by general election and hence, its policies cannot meet the demand of the public. President, I would like to give an example. During the old days of the Regional Council and the Urban Council ― as we all know, the Regional Council and the Urban Council were formed by elections, and had the power to formulate policies on their own ― many policies formulated then were in line with people's aspiration, such as the policy of small-class teaching, the policy on public markets, and so on. The operation of markets was much better at that time than it is now. At present, high vacancy rate prevails in most 6652 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 markets. Why was that so? Because members of the two municipal councils were willing to listen to people's views, and they would visit the districts to inspect the actual situation personally.

A government formed by general elections will be accountable and representative. Contrary to our current situation, this government will neither formulate policies against public aspiration nor merely pretend to act according to the people's wish. Instead, its policies can bring genuine benefits to the people. I hope democratic universal suffrage can truly be implemented in Hong Kong so that the problem of wealth gap which has been troubling Hong Kong since the reunification in 1997 can be resolved. Yet, it cannot be achieved if we do not have a democratic political system or a government with the people's mandate.

Even though the Chief Executive elections in the future may be held on the basis of "one person, one vote", I think the same problem will result if there is pre-selection or no civil nomination, as the elected Chief Executive will be more or less the same as the incumbent. If the Chief Executive is not genuinely nominated by the people and elected by the people, how can a government with the people's mandate be formed, and how can it be accountable? In future, policy addresses drawn up by such a government will be the same as what we have now. The proposals are all gestures without bringing real benefits to the people. Hence, if Secretary Matthew CHEUNG sincerely wants to resolve the poverty problem, I hope he will support having a government elected by the people. Otherwise, no matter how much effort he makes, the poverty problem as well as the heaviest yoke of disparity between the rich and the poor will just remain unresolved.

President, although I have spoken slightly out of the scope of this debate session, I hope you understand that these points do not stand alone, but are united and related under the same theme.

President, I so submit.

PROF JOSEPH LEE (in Cantonese): President, in this session, I will mainly talk about the healthcare and elderly policies. Undeniably, this year's Policy Address has included some proposals on healthcare services. The Government has, for example, undertaken to construct new hospitals and provided subsidies for people from age groups with higher risks to undertake colon cancer screening. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6653

However, these proposals only target at treatment. Instead of going to the crux of the problem, the Policy Address has only put forward piecemeal proposals, which are nonetheless replications of previous proposals. What is the crux of the problem then? It is positioning. What is the existing policy on the positioning of Hong Kong's healthcare services? It used to be pretty clear with the implementation of the dual track system as mentioned by the Secretary. However, there is no mention of it this time. What is a dual track system? In view of their satisfactory performance, there is a greater coverage of public healthcare services in this Policy Address. How about private healthcare services? If we continue to stick to the dual track system, people may ask in future: How should I choose between public and private healthcare services? This is indeed a great problem.

Apart from repeating old proposals and adding two new proposals, another serious problem with the Policy Address is the creation of too much hope in respect of medical treatment. People hope that the Government will inject more resources into tertiary treatment, but greater hope will only generate incessant demand. Secretary, such management approach is wrong. If the Secretary wants to do well, he should properly manage hope and demand instead of creating hopes incessantly, which will only give rise to bigger problems. I am therefore disappointed about the public healthcare proposals contained in the Policy Address. They have failed to go to the crux of the issue as they merely repeat the same old stuff.

Secondly, it is manpower planning. It is interesting to know that the Policy Address has mentioned manpower shortage, showing that the Government is well aware of this. Coupled with the ageing population, there will be a strong demand for healthcare supporting facilities in the next five to 10 years to enable people to stay healthy and continue to receive treatment. This requires manpower planning but it is only mentioned briefly in the Policy Address, which states that a committee will be set up to conduct a review, after which a report will be submitted.

The Government is also aware that there is a shortage of nurses, and the Hospital Authority (HA) will continue to train up nurses. However, this has run counter to the general direction. In fact, in the past 25 years, the majority of nurses in Hong Kong were trained by local universities. This time, however, the Policy Address indicates that the training of nurses will be taken up by the HA. Is this proposal too hasty and short-sighted? Due to the lack of manpower, the 6654 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014

Government has made use of HA's resources to train up nurses. This reflects that the Government has failed to see the importance of manpower planning. People from the nursing or healthcare service fields have all along demanded the formulation of some manpower indicators, but the Government has refused to look seriously at the matter. Is there any indicator in the public healthcare sector? There is a set of indicators in the private healthcare sector because all services are paid. In that case, how can we strike a balance between the public and private healthcare sectors? This also involves the issue of positioning and the dual track system with both the public and private healthcare sectors. Apart from manpower planning, it is also imperative to consider the entire policy and the future co-ordination of primary, secondary and tertiary healthcare services. But again, the Policy Address is silent in this regard. It has merely passed the ball to the HA, stating that the HA will train up nurses. The healthcare sector is therefore disappointed. The Government may say that the education issue has yet to be discussed. So, is it too hasty for the Government to pass the ball to the HA and entrust it to train up nurses, instead of providing more subsidized university places? If my memory does not fail me, the University Grants Committee has provided grants for first-year-first degree places over the past decade or so, but there has not been any increase in the amount of funding. Does the Government intend to resolve this manpower problem with such a piecemeal approach? Obviously, the Policy Address has not formulated any long-term and detailed measures in respect of manpower planning, and thus failed to tie in with the general policy development. This is very disappointing.

Another point I am going to discuss is that this year's Policy Address has neglected one point, and that is, certain resources have not been utilized properly. Why do I say so? President, if government officials go out for a walk or travel on the MTR, they may find many people walking with their heads down. They themselves may also walk with their heads down, looking at their mobile phones. Phubbers are commonly found in Hong Kong in recent years. What problem will this bring about? Pains in the neck, back and arm. If the Government does not promote health education, many people will have to see the doctor. I guess Dr KO, who used to be an orthopedist, has come across many such patients. If my memory does not fail me, the professional qualifications and practice of chiropractors have been recognized since 1993. Chiropractors are experts who help people address those problems, but they are nonetheless not included into the public healthcare sector. I remember that the Government of the last term brought up the relevant proposal in either 2008 or 2009, but due to various reasons, probably political ones, the specialist services provided by chiropractors LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6655 were not included into the public healthcare sector. This has attributed to the long waiting time for services provided by chiropractors and physiotherapists, and the situation has not been improved. No action has been taken by the Government to relieve the situation. Nor has any attempt been made to promote chiropractic services. This shows that the Government is very short-sighted, and has not utilized the available resources to enhance the services of the existing healthcare system, thereby shortening the waiting time. We certainly hope that chiropractors can contribute to the public healthcare system and provide the relevant services on a universal basis. It is therefore disappointing to see that they are not even allowed to issue a medical certificate. Can the Government consider utilizing the available resources to shorten the waiting time for services in the public healthcare sector in the Policy Address? This is worth considering.

The Policy Address also mentions the setting up of a Chinese medicine hospital. I believe my friends from the Chinese medicine sector have been waited too long for this to happen since 1997. And yet, the Government has not stated specifically in what way this Chinese medicine hospital will be operated. It may either be operated with an integration of Chinese and Western medical services, or with a new mode but not under the HA. We are pretty worried that the proposed new hospital may bring hope to the sector, and just as I have said, this Policy Address is only creating hope for healthcare services. As my friend from the Chinese medical sector has said, the setting up of a Chinese medical hospital has brought hope to the Chinese medicine sector. Even if the Chinese medicine school can train up more Chinese medicine doctors, there is only one Chinese medicine hospital in Hong Kong and its future development is uncertain. Will the bubbles concerning Chinese medicine burst a couple of years later and disappoint the Chinese medicine sector again? As a matter of fact, Secretary, can you elaborate the relevant proposals in this year's Policy Address so that people from the Chinese medicine sector will not be disappointed? Furthermore, no one should study Chinese medicine because of such an undertaking, thinking that they will have a bright future after they graduate but end up practicing in Chinese medicine stores? This is absolutely not what we wish to see.

The new initiative found in this Policy Address is the launching of colorectal cancer screening for higher risk groups. We absolutely welcome such an arrangement, but cannot help thinking that this policy exists in name only. Why? As members of the trade have said, screening at the secondary level is for the higher risk groups, which include male aged over 45, like us. We have 6656 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 higher risk. While it is good for the authorities to provide screening for them, proper supporting facilities must be put in place. Some people have suggested a very simple method by using fecal test strips costing $10 each to test for occult blood. But what follows? There is no mention in the Policy Address. The Government may say that we may turn to the private healthcare sector if the public healthcare sector cannot deal with it. Does this give an impression that the Secretary is making use of this screening programme to transfer benefits to the private healthcare sector? This will attract criticisms? The most important of all is that the target age group of the present screening programme, that is, people aged over 60, is not of the highest risk, and some may have already contracted the disease. And yet, the Government has not explained if this group of people was selected due to resources constraint. In my opinion, the proposal is good, but the Secretary must give a more thorough consideration of the concrete operation to prevent this secondary screening from existing only in name, thereby disappointing us again.

Although healthcare services at the secondary and third level have been mentioned, the most important is nonetheless primary healthcare services. While stressing the promotion of health, the Government is silent on health education. Perhaps the Budget to be delivered two weeks later will mention the provision of funding for the Department of Health (DH), which plays a pivotal role in the Budget by meeting the health needs of at least five to six million people, but the Policy Address is completely silent on this. Does the Government think that the DH has enough resources, or it has simply been neglected? This is really very disappointing. I think the Secretary must take a look at this when he implements the Policy Agenda in the future.

On healthcare, I would also like to discuss the needs of patients with rare diseases, which have all along been neglected by the Government. What is meant by rare diseases? According to the basic definition of the United States, Australia, the European Union, Taiwan, Singapore and Japan, rare diseases refer to diseases having a very low prevalence and are uncommon. The World Health Organization has also mentioned the definition of rare diseases. The Secretary or Government may say that the definition varies in different countries, which I agree, but the absence of a definition in Hong Kong has rendered the Government unable to ascertain the number of patients suffering from rare diseases, such as mucopolysaccharidosis, myelofibrosis and Pompe disease. Why? Because no relevant definition has been provided. What are their needs? The Government does not care at all. If the Government is sincere, it should designate an official LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6657 to attend the first roundtable meeting to be held around next week, if I do not remember wrongly. During the meeting, the needs of these patients will be discussed and it aims to draw the Government's attention to their needs.

The Secretary may say that the public healthcare system has already done something in this regard. But what has been done? Cases of Mucopolysaccharidosis, for example, would be discussed one by one for the sake of granting subsidies on drugs. Upon receipt of a complaint, the Complaints Division of the Legislative Council will open a file for follow up by the HA. President, the Government needs to formulate a comprehensive policy to take care of patients suffering from rare diseases, not only because the relevant drugs are expensive, but also because the pharmaceutical companies are reluctant to develop new drugs. Worse still, the relevant diseases require special treatment and care. If the Government does consider helping these people, I do not believe Hong Kong people will oppose the use of public money to bring benefits to them. But regrettably, the Policy Address is again silent in this regard. I hope that after our discussion on the issue and have it put on record, the Government will look squarely at it and formulate a set of policy to help those patients. It should at least collect the relevant data to help understand the definition before compiling any statistics on the number of such needy patients, and gradually addressing their problems in respect of health and treatment. On the other hand, the needs of their carers are also worth our concern.

For the rest of the time, I would like to talk about services for the elderly. Services for the elderly is related to health because the elderly are inevitably getting less able-bodied. Yesterday, a friend told me, "Joe, my knees hurt when I climb the stairs." I said that was normal because mine hurt too. He is not the only one with the problem as this is a normal process. Elderly services should include not only the provision of care but also adequate resources and accommodation, as health of the elderly people is also very important. We therefore welcome the present increase of the amount of the Elderly Health Care Voucher (EHCV) to $2,000. But regrettably, statistics show that some 110 000 elderly persons have spent every single cent of their EHCVs, which worth approximately $567 million, not on medical consultation, but on dental services.

I recall that when the Government of the last-term established the EHCV Scheme a few years ago, the purpose was to provide not only medical treatments but also healthcare services for the elderly. Obviously, the Government aims to increase the amount of the EHCV and step up promotion so that elderly persons 6658 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 in the community can receive primary healthcare services by using their EHCVs. They may, for example, use the EHCVs to consult dieticians on food diets, dentists on dental care, chiropractors and physiotherapists on balance exercise to slow down ageing and degeneration, so that they can continue to live healthily in the community. I therefore hope that the Government will not only increase the amount of the EHCV but also step up its publicity. Furthermore, it is hoped that the DH will step up its efforts on primary healthcare. In fact, the Chinese rendition of the EHCV ("醫療券", meaning "vouchers for medical treatment") is not very accurate. It should better be called "保健券", meaning "vouchers for healthcare", because the $2,000 worth of EHCV will enable the elderly to receive not only medical treatments but also healthcare services.

The dental services which I have just mentioned have really disappointed the elderly persons. As mentioned in the Policy Address, the elderly dental programme has been expanded to cover residential care homes and day care centres, and will become a regular programme. We certainly welcome this. But how many elderly persons are living in the residential care homes? How many elderly persons will go to the day care centres? As a matter of fact, the majority of elderly persons aged between 60 and 70 are living in the community ― this has been discussed and I am not going to repeat ― and are not well taken care of by the Government. The Secretary may say that they have received the EHCVs, and regardless of what it is called, the amount has been increased to $2,000 for them to consult dentists. However, this amount is insufficient to pay for extractions and dentures.

Throughout the years, the Government has not explained why the existing public dental system cannot be further enhanced or strengthened to take good care of the elderly. It does not matter if the system does not cover young people as they can turn to private dentists, but it should take care of elderly persons aged between 60 and 65 by providing dental care services, so that they can have dentures after extractions at more a reasonable price.

Why did I highlight elderly persons? If a person aged between 60 and 65 suffers dental problems, it is not only troublesome for them to seek dental treatment, but such problems may cause difficulty in eating and in turn affect a person's diet, absorption and digestion. All these will have an implication on health. In this connection, the Government should not be so short-sighted as to turn down such requests on the excuse of insufficient dentists and space. If LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6659 improvements can be made in respect of the provision of primary healthcare and supply of dentists, elderly persons aged 60 or 65 will certainly benefit. After they are included into the healthcare system in future, it is less likely that they will use healthcare services. I therefore hope that the Government will revisit the issue.

I wonder if the Financial Secretary or the Chief Secretary for Administration has heard the request for the provision of funding in this year's Budget for the expansion of public dental services for the needy elderly, so that they can have dental checks, extractions and dentures at reasonable prices, with a view to achieving "ageing in place", as advocated by Secretary Matthew CHEUNG. This is important and the reason is very simple. As I have said, the $2,000 EHCV provided by the Government is only granted to elderly people aged 70 while people under 70 are not eligible. Then, what about those under 70? The Government is silent on this and has not looked squarely at the problem, so I hope it will do better in this regard.

President, this Policy Address sees a breakthrough in that elderly persons may choose to live in either of the two elderly homes in the Mainland, which is very good. In fact, I have visited these two elderly homes 10 years ago, and the one in Shenzhen again two years ago. The environment and facilities there are very good. After talking to the Hong Kong elderly persons who live there, I find that they are facing one problem only, which is that they have difficulty returning to Hong Kong to seek medical consultation in Hong Kong after moving into the elderly homes. Many elderly persons need to attend follow-up consultations. I hope that Secretary Matthew CHEUNG will see what can be done, and in fact, something could be done. As I have suggested during yesterday's meeting at the university, technological advancements may enable us to establish some facilities for them to see the doctors by electronic means as if they were in Hong Kong. This saves them the trouble of having to return to Hong Kong for follow-up consultations. I think this is worth consideration and the initiative is good. Elderly persons should not be deterred by unsatisfactory initiatives, thereby wasting the elderly homes. The Secretary may notice that the elderly home in Zhaoqing, which has operated for years, originally served only Hong Kong people. But in order to sustain operation, it now serves Mainlanders as well. Therefore, we must do something so as not to waste those residential care places. We absolutely support this.

6660 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014

The Policy Address also mentioned the manpower shortfall in the elderly care services industry. Should we increase the supply of nurses whenever there is manpower shortfall? Not necessarily. Professional care may not necessarily be provided at all levels. The programme mentioned in the Policy Address may attract young people to join the industry so that they can have a taste of the work in the elderly care services industry while pursuing education. We certainly welcome such a programme. Here, I have to declare interest because the university in which I am working is involved in the relevant scheme. Anyway, the most important of all is that the programme can enable young people to think in advance if the elderly care services industry is suitable for them. In the end, however, the Secretary may need to think about providing pathways or potential avenues for them to reach higher ranks and get better remuneration.

I certainly welcome the Community Care Service Voucher (CCSV) for elders because I have heard from many organizations that the CCSV can genuinely help the elders to achieve "ageing in place". This leads to the problems arising from "ageing in place". Is the care provided for elderly people limited to personal care? Do such services merely mean providing meals for elders who are mobility impaired, or helping them to bathe, brush teeth and clean the floor? No. We hope that for elderly people living in the community who suffer from non-infectious diseases such as diabetes or heart diseases but have good mobility, the care they receive may go beyond health care or personal care. These elderly people may need someone to remind them to take medicine or monitor their reaction to drugs during simple health assessments. In this connection, I hope that the CCSV can be more down to earth. The Government should consider how health care services should be provided at different levels so that non-governmental organizations know exactly what services to provide and that the CCSV can best suit the needs of the elderly persons, who can then rest assured to age in community. This would be more desirable.

Next, I want to discuss another topic, hospice, which is the taboo of Chinese people. Everyone will come to the end of life one day and there is no exception. It is, however, the wish of many elderly persons to die at home, not in hospital. I think Secretary Dr KO does not wish to see them counting down their life in hospitals either. In these cold winter days, if everyone goes to hospital, all the hospitals will be "overcrowded" with patients. This situation always happens in winter and we called it the "winter surge". It would be undesirable if the hospitals are "overcrowded" with elderly persons.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6661

The Government has launched the Home End-of-Life Care Program since 2009. The emphasis of this program in nursing home or at home is to provide various hospital supports for elderly persons or patients with terminal cancers. Healthcare personnel will visit these elderly persons on a regular basis to carry out regular check-up and assessment, so that they can pass away at home or in a familiar place. This program is very good and I have seen relevant advertisements on newspapers. A celebrity in Hong Kong has also joined this program.

The advantage of this program is to enable an elderly person to die peacefully and happily in a familiar place with their family members by their side. It saves the trouble of their family members to call an ambulance and send them to hospital when their condition becomes unstable but later they are sent home after much hustle and bustle. This may happen time and again whenever they feel unwell. The program can save a lot of trouble. Nonetheless, people who have joined this program, be it End-of-Life Care in nursing home or at home, find the existing facilities and support inadequate. Elderly homes of the Queen Mary Hospital, the Tung Wah Group of Hospitals Fung Yiu King Hospital and the Tung Wah Group of Hospitals Jockey Club have also launched the program and highly commended it. But since certain technologies have not been put in place yet, it is inevitable that patients will be sent to hospital in some cases. What is so bad about sending them to hospital? If a patient is admitted to hospital and dies in less than 24 hours, an autopsy would be required and this is pretty troublesome.

Although the Policy Address has not mentioned these services, I hope that the Secretary will look into them. An expansion of the program will not only enable the elderly persons to age in place and pass the last days of their life in the environment with which they are most familiar, but also relieve the heavy pressure on public hospitals managed by Secretary Dr KO, because patients do not need to go to hospital or the Accident & Emergency Department and return home time and again. This is a desirable scheme which can genuinely help the elderly persons and their families.

Lastly, I also wish to discuss the issue about the health of elderly people among the ethnic minority, and I will only give a litany of the issues which have already been said. President, the issue has been discussed during our previous motion debate but it is not mentioned in the Policy Address. I just want to say that this is not just an issue of health among the ethnic minority, but among the 6662 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 elderly of them in particular. I am not going to repeat the content of the Policy Address, but I want to stress that the number of ethnic minority elders is not small at all, and they do have their needs. The Government has swiftly provided a seven-page reply to illustrate with examples that the services are now different, but after reading it, I only feel that they are nothing but a recount of what we already have. Regarding their needs in respect of health, translation and culture which Members have highlighted, it is disappointing that the Policy Address is completely silent. I hope that when the proposals in the Policy Address are put in place, the Government will give more consideration to the provision of care for this group of ethnic minority elders who have also made a lot of contributions to Hong Kong throughout the past years.

As I still have two minutes, I would like to take this opportunity to talk about issues about the elderly persons, the silver hair force. In the past, people merely focused on the silver hair force and market, as well as their consumption power. I nonetheless have opposite views. When people retire at the age of 65, they need not be consumers; a lot of labour force can be unleashed from them. I hope that the Secretary, who is also present, may examine what can be done to help this group of elderly persons when he formulates the population policy by, for example, tapping on their experience. Elderly persons who are physically fit may help take care of babies, or even accompany other much older elders to see the doctor. We can make this happen in the community. It is hoped that the Government will improve the relevant policies and unleash the silver hair force for this would help the elderly people, not only by preventing them from becoming a stumbling block to the young people, but also by unleashing their labour force in the community. As such, they help not only themselves but also the society at large.

Thank you, President. I so submit.

MR LEE CHEUK-YAN (in Cantonese): President, I can see that the Chief Secretary and the Secretary concerned have attended this debate session. The Chief Secretary is concerned about the population policy and poverty alleviation, while the Secretary is concerned about the areas of labour and welfare. However, the three fronts of labour, population and poverty alleviation are closely interlinked. If the problem is to be fully resolved, a comprehensive policy must be formulated. It must not be dealt with in a piecemeal manner. Unfortunately, the attitude adopted by the Government all along is to introduce a LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6663 single policy that targets at one specific problem only. For instance, the low-income subsidy is introduced with the aim to alleviate poverty. But the Government is afraid of touching on some other issues. In the end, it fails to resolve the problem of the working poor.

Let me illustrate by citing some examples. Let us look at the population policy which the Chief Secretary is most concerned about. Why don't women give birth to children? Of course, this involves the issue of their lifestyle. But frankly speaking, do they have time to take care of their children? This is not a matter of one or two years, but a matter of a lifetime commitment. Moreover, do they have money to raise them? Can they provide accommodation for them? The three fronts of time, money and accommodation have already involved other policies. Firstly, money involves how wealth is currently distributed in Hong Kong. Insofar as the distribution of wealth between employers and employees is concerned, wages of employees in Hong Kong have all along lagged behind economic growth. As a result, wage earners cannot share the fruits of economic prosperity. Secondly, on the front of time, standard working hours are not in place yet. Thirdly, on the front of accommodation, housing poses a problem.

The Chief Secretary has also asked why women do not take up employment. This is simply because we lack child care services. Even if the problem of child care is resolved, the number of working hours cannot be determined by wage earners. For instance, the employer may require the employee to work 10 hours and refuse to employ her if she cannot fulfil this requirement. Thus, if the issue of working hours cannot be resolved, it is impossible for women to take up employment.

Why attributes to poverty? We all know the reason, and that is, the issue of the working poor, which is frequently mentioned. Since the Administration has refused to conduct an annual review of the minimum wage, this will, of course, lead to poverty. We have once again come back to the policy area of Secretary Matthew CHEUNG. We asked him about the review the other day. He said that the review would be conducted by the end of the year, which means 1 May next year. Once again it is going to be adjusted on a biennial basis. As the minimum wage has all along stayed at the same level without any increase, it fails to catch up with inflation. Thus, it is unavoidable that members of the public are poor, rendering it necessary for the Government to provide subsidies. I agree that subsidies should be provided. However, if the two are not implemented simultaneously, to a certain extent, the Government is subsidizing 6664 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 those unscrupulous employers who refuse to increase wages. The two are closely interlinked. Hence, they can only be effective if they are implemented simultaneously.

Why attributes to poverty of the elderly? This is because the Government has not set up universal retirement protection, and only the Old Age Living Allowance of $2,200 is provided. The elderly people have made lifelong contribution to society. Owing to low wages and their failure to save up when they were able to earn money, which is again related to wages. Moreover, the Mandatory Provident Fund (MPF) Scheme is not of much help, either. The reasons are that firstly, the contribution of low-income earners is limited, and secondly, MPF can be used to offset severance payments. In this connection, I will "settle scores" with Secretary Matthew CHEUNG later.

We can see clearly from the above analysis that all these fronts are closely interlinked. It is impossible for the Administration to fully resolve the problem by introducing a single policy only. Everyone knows that the strength of the Labour Party and the Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions is to help people lead a better life ― or just to make ends meet ― that is why we have all along demanded a comprehensive policy which covers retirement. We have all along striven for universal retirement protection. I am waiting for Prof Nelson CHOW to put forth his proposals so as to see whether they can genuinely provide universal retirement protection that thoroughly resolve the retirement issue. However, even if Prof Nelson CHOW has drawn up proposals, how many of them will be accepted by the Government? We have no idea at all. Further, we have no idea what proposals will be put forward by Prof Nelson CHOW, and whether those proposals will be able to genuinely resolve the issue.

The other subject I must talk about is retirement. With regard to the issue of using MPF to offset severance payments, LEUNG Chun-ying has "defaulted payment" in the Policy Address. Now I have to "recover the debt". This is the policy area of Secretary Matthew CHEUNG. It is said that this Policy Address has only taken into account the grassroots but has neglected the middle class. As a matter of fact, all wage earners are members of the middle class. At present, employers are using the employers' contributions to MPF to offset severance payments. The latest instance is the case of LI Wei-ling being sacked. I am waiting for the reply from Commercial Radio as to whether the long service payment paid to LI Wei-ling will be offset by the MPF contributions. These cases happen every day. Employees are sacked and laid off every day and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6665 employers use MPF to offset payments. The amount used to offset has reached $20 billion over the years. In other words, an amount of $2 billion is being taken from the accounts of wage earners each year to serve as employers' severance payments to employees.

When the Secretary speaks later, I do not know whether he will tell us that the MPF Scheme had been like that at the time it was passed by the former Legislative Council. Back then, the amendments I proposed were negatived. But how many years have we waited? The legislation was passed by the former Legislative Council in 1997. It has been almost 20 years now. The MPF Scheme was implemented in 2000. It has been implemented for 14 years. This has not been rectified over a span of 14 years. Worse still, this has been a pledge of LEUNG Chun-ying.

Thus, I demand LEUNG Chun-ying to pay off the debt first. During the election, he pledged to abolish the offsetting mechanism in a gradual manner. Initially, the Government was to introduce some initiatives in the Policy Address. However, after some hustle and bustle from the four major chambers of commerce, he immediately backed off. All the policies were shelved. He dared not mention anything, and defended himself by claiming that "not saying anything does not mean not doing anything". If this is the case, what will he do? Later in the meeting, the Secretary will say that the Government is conducting a study on the subject, or will take into account all the relevant considerations, and that the matter is very complicated. Actually how complicated is the matter? This controversy is controversial, but not complicated at all. The question is whether he has guts to confront the business sector. If "689" LEUNG Chun-ying dares not confront the business sector, he can tell us frankly and admit that he succumbs to the pressure from the business sector because many votes come from the business sector, so the entire Government has to tilt in favour of this sector. Why must he be so hypocritical? That is why I have to recover this debt from him, because he has not honoured his pledge.

The business sector will, of course, claim that this is a serious matter. How serious is it? It is an amount of $2 billion per annum only. Furthermore, this is a payment when an employee is made redundant. It is not an additional amount which an employer is required to distribute to every employee out of the blue. Employees are only taking back what they are entitled to. Moreover, I am a reasonable person. I am not asking for retrospective effect. It is said that previous years of service cannot be offset as it is impossible to trace back. 6666 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014

Nevertheless, starting from today, employees should be allowed to take back severance payments based on years of service from now on. However, up till now, the Government has only claimed that studies are being carried out. It has not even mentioned a timetable or roadmap. It is particularly regrettable to me that the term "regret" in my amendment has been deleted by the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions (FTU). The FTU claims that it is firm on its stance of fighting for wage earners. It turns out that despite its bark and firm stance, its Members are not that firm and unremitting when it comes to pressing the button to cast their votes. It has actually deleted the term "regret" in my amendment.

President, this is not the first time. It was the same last year. Today, I have to recover not only one debt but two debts from LEUNG Chun-ying. Later on, I also have to recover two other debts from Secretary Matthew CHEUNG.

The other debt I have to recover from LEUNG Chun-ying is related to standard working hours. Up till now, I have not yet settled the score with him. When mentioning the standard working hours later on, the Secretary will say that the Committee of the Government is working vigorously, and that the report will be released by the end of the year when the future direction will be assessed. Insofar as the entire matter is concerned, the Government is playing a trick on the public. After a period of three years, it will be the end of 2015. The current term of this Legislative Council will expire in 2016. There will be another election. In theory, LEUNG Chun-ying has to step down in 2017. The subject of the standard working hours has been under examination since the Donald TSANG era. It is still under examination in the current LEUNG Chun-ying era. What is the point of wasting another three years? In the end, I believe the Government will still delay our demands, idling and doing nothing. Why is the Government doing nothing at all? It is because the business sector is not in favour of it. Once the business sector is not in favour of it, he has to surrender. The entire matter will come to an end.

We can see that with regard to the retirement issue, we do not have the MPF. Now we have to recover the debt. As for the population policy, if the Government does not resolve the issue of standard working hours I mentioned just now, it will be difficult for women to return to the labour market as working hours cannot be chosen by women but are determined by employers. We demand that child care services and after school care facilities must be provided. We have all along asked the Secretary how he would address these two issues properly. We asked him not to treat it lightly. But then when the Secretary LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6667 came to the Legislative Council the other day, he indicated that what the Administration would do was to increase the places of home-based child carers. I have all along failed to understand one thing, that is, why the Government abuses women, in particular, the home-based child carers. Why is the Government unwilling to give them wages? If the relationship between the two parties is not that of employers and employees, it will be impossible to take out employees' compensation insurance policies. What is going to happen in the event that they sustain injuries at work? It is not that the Government does not have a surplus, then why must the Government insist on such trifles? What is the reason for not incorporating their services into its regular assistance programmes while publicly claiming that child care services will be increased? It is regrettable that this is not so in reality.

The Government claims that it will formulate a population policy that encourages 500 000 women to work. However, I hold that if we cannot strike a balance between work and family, this goal cannot be achieved. Without the implementation of standard working hours, it will be impossible to strike a balance between work and family. Even if child care services are provided, it will be of no help at all. The most cunning part of the Government is that it claims it has implemented all measures but they are all to no avail. Since this is the case, it demands the importation of foreign labour. Secretary, this move is tantamount to setting a trap. Do you want to set a trap for us to fall in? The Government demands women to work, but it knows very well that this will not work if the issue of standard working hours is not resolved. So it pretends to work on this, and then claims that it has done its part. What follows will be the importation of foreign labour. I am worried that this will happen. I have clearly indicated my objection to the importation of foreign labour because such a move will result in suppressed wages. As foreign workers do not have the problem of working hours, they will certainly strive to work with all their might.

Moreover, with regard to the population policy I mentioned just now, the Government has indicated that it will encourage those aged between 50 to 64 ― people who are relatively elderly but still have the ability to work ― to return to the work force. The number of these people is about 240 000. We certainly encourage retirees to choose to continue working part-time in their own way. However, legislation against age discrimination is not in place in Hong Kong. Take the Dragon Air as an example. Flight attendants have to retire at the age of 45. What does that mean? Employers often complain that they are unable to recruit employees in Hong Kong but at the same time, they force employees to 6668 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 retire. The Cathay Pacific Airways require their flight attendants to retire at the age of 55 while the retirement age for other employees is 60 or 65. It is obvious that the company does not treat all staff members equally. Why doesn't the Government legislate to resolve the problem of age discrimination instead of making some window-dressing gestures of encouraging the extension of the retirement age?

Lastly, I would like to talk about the problem of the working poor. I mentioned just now the importance of the minimum wage. Unfortunately, the Government still insists that the frequency of review should be "once every two years". The Secretary has indicated that he would not rule out the possibility that the review will be conducted "once every year". The Secretary can save his breath. However, I will certainly continue to fight for a review "once every year" for wage earners.

Another important initiative to resolve the problem of the working poor is the provision of low-income subsidy. We very much support this initiative. I started to discuss this subject with the Financial Secretary 10 years ago. Chief Secretary Carrie LAM has finally said it would be implemented this time around. Nevertheless, I do not understand why can't all good policies be implemented smoothly. The first hurdle I cannot stand is the requirement of working 208 hours before they are eligible for a monthly child allowance. You may say that the difference between this amount and the basic allowance is only $400. Of course I know that. But what does this requirement of 208 hours represent? It represents working 48 hours every week in order to be eligible for the monthly child allowance. Presuming it is a full-time job, how can this concept be acceptable? Moreover, it will be very complicated when a means test is conducted in future. This is because the applicant sometimes works 48 hours but there are times when he works 44 hours or 50 hours. He may have different number of working hours every week and every month. It will bring a lot of trouble to the applicant once the line is drawn in such a strict manner. In the end, he is sometimes eligible for the allowance, but sometimes he is not. In doing so, the Administration is really inviting trouble. It will be much simpler if the requirement is relaxed to the extent that those who work over 100 hours will be eligible for the allowance. This will not bring so much trouble to the applicant. President, it involves the issue of efficiency as well.

After trying to recover debts from LEUNG Chun-ying, finally, I have to recover a debt from Matthew CHEUNG. Two debts have to be recovered from LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6669

Matthew CHEUNG. One has been in arrears for more than 10 years, and that is, the grant of a reinstatement order which targets at employers involved in cases of discrimination against trade unions. This issue was put forth in 2000 and has been under discussion since then. We have been waiting for more than 10 years. I am aware that the blame does not lie with the Secretary; instead, it lies with the Government. We have no idea why the Government has alleged that the Judiciary has strong views on this. As a result, nobody knows when this can be resolved. The Judiciary has been having strong views on this for four to five years. We thought the problem had been resolved. Why is the subject mentioned again out of the blue now? Why is it further delayed, as a result of which a solution is nowhere in sight? It had previously been placed on the legislative agenda. But then it was withdrawn. We have no idea when this debt can be recovered.

Another debt is also related to the subject of women employment, which was mentioned just now. Many women say that they are only taking up employment of casual work. But under the existing "4-1-18" rule ― working 18 hours a week ― casual workers are under no protection at all. As we can see, many women are restricted by the rule which specifies that they cannot work more than 18 hours. The Jockey Club is an example. Women are never under any protection at all. Employers can always exploit this legal loophole. We hold that this is completely unacceptable. The Government does not have any reasons to turn a blind eye to it all these years. The Secretary said that a study had been conducted, the report of which was submitted to the Labour Advisory Board. However, we do not see any determination on the part of the Government to amend the legislation and abolish the "4-1-18" rule in order to fully protect casual workers. If women working as casual workers are eligible for protection on a pro rata basis, they can at least have some protection. Thus, I have to recover this debt from Secretary Matthew CHEUNG as well.

All in all, the conclusion is really very simple. If the Government does not formulate a comprehensive policy on the three fronts of population, labour and poverty alleviation, but only deals with the issue in a piecemeal manner, if the Government still dares not upset the employers slightly, I hold that ultimately all policies will not be effective. In the end, people's livelihood will still remain unimproved. Thank you, President.

6670 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014

MR CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, the Chief Executive has stated at the outset that "Support the Needy" is one of the themes of this year's Policy Address, and the Government will mobilize considerable resources to implement a series of initiatives to assist the grassroots, and in particular, make substantial investments in poverty alleviation. It is clear that he is sincere in serving the public and determined to resolve the social problem of wealth disparity. For instance, the Chief Executive will spend $3 billion in implementing the Low-income Working Family Allowance scheme so that 200 000 needy families with their family income below 60% of the median monthly domestic household income will benefit. Eligible families will be entitled to a maximum allowance of $2,600. More importantly, the Government does not stop at offering money. Through granting the allowance, it encourages members of low-income families to be self-reliant. Those who endeavour to work hard will be eligible for the allowance and their livelihood can be improved. Since details of application are yet to be announced, the effectiveness of the initiative in this regard remains to be seen.

Meanwhile, the Chief Executive will also regularize seven programmes under the Community Care Fund, among which three are learning support programmes that will benefit as many as 270 000 students. These three programmes include providing free lunch for primary students receiving a full grant under the student financial assistance schemes, increasing the flat-rate grant by about 100% for each primary and secondary student eligible under the School Textbook Assistance Scheme, and establishing a tuition fee reimbursement mechanism for students in need to pursue eligible programmes below sub-degree level so as to reduce their burden of pursuing further studies. The measure is well-intended, with the effect of looking after students in need.

President, I have also noticed that the Chief Executive is vigorously deploying resources to develop education. Vocational education and training will provide more opportunities of upward mobility for young people. As I said yesterday, we must also endeavour to develop our economy at the same time, with a view to seeking a new way out for the economy of Hong Kong, so as to facilitate the grassroots and young people to practise what they have learnt and see their future.

With the implementation of the Chief Executive's series of poverty alleviation measures, which has been claimed to require an amount of $10 billion to $20 billion, there is public concern about whether these initiatives would exert LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6671 long-term financial pressure on the Government. In the end, the Government clarified yesterday that the series of measures for poverty alleviation and supporting the disadvantaged would only result in an annual increase of $7 billion in the Government's expenditure. According to the Government, it is in a relatively strong fiscal position to meet the financial needs. The Chief Executive and the Financial Secretary have also indicated earlier that it is not necessary for the Government to increase tax. However, the public is still concerned whether the Government's welfare expenditure will grow bigger and bigger like a snowball. In addition, the Government is conducting a study on the universal retirement protection scheme. What recommendations will be proposed by the report, whether they will result in a significant increase in the Government's financial commitment, and whether this will lead to the Government's failure to meet the expenditure, resulting in tax increases to be borne by the next generation ― all these are worth our concern.

President, I have also noticed that since the Policy Address has not mentioned how the Government will help the middle class, many members of the middle class hold the view that the Government "only focuses on the grassroots and loses sight of the middle class". They are disappointed by this. Although the Chief Executive has mentioned that he appreciates the contribution made to Hong Kong by the middle class, I think the Government's care for the middle class should be properly expressed so that they will not feel being neglected. Playing the role of the supporting pillar of society, the middle class has all along been working hard silently. The Government must not turn a blind eye to their plight of "paying more tax, enjoying less welfare, and bearing heavy burden". I hope that in the Budget to be announced later, the Financial Secretary will continue to offer to the middle class practical relief measures, such as tax rebate and rates waiver.

I so submit. Thank you, President.

MR RONNY TONG (in Cantonese): President, from the moment LEUNG Chun-ying ran in the Chief Executive election, he has given us the impression that he will do a lot for people in poverty. The "trump-card" of the Policy Address this time around ― the introduction of a Low-income Working Family Allowance scheme ― has been revealed to the media long before. The scheme is a good initiative. I do not wish to derogate Mr LEUNG Chun-ying's efforts of policy improvement in this regard. However, on examination of this policy, it is 6672 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 not difficult to find that there are many loopholes, though not to the extent of being riddled with gaping wounds. What have these loopholes shown? I am afraid they have shown that these policies are not generated from care. Instead, they are formulated with the purpose of muddling through perfunctorily.

Why do I say so? President, the so-called Low-income Working Family Allowance will certainly not benefit individuals. And I think this is an unforgivable mistake. Indeed, among the working poor in Hong Kong, many are single. But what is the actual number of them? What is the amount involved in helping them? Why can't the Government help them as well? Those who live in caged homes, bedspaces and sub-divided units may not have to raise a family, but they can only have one meal a day. Why can't the Government help them? This is totally beyond my comprehension. President, as I have said just now, if the Government genuinely cared for them, it would not be so stingy with this small sum of money.

As a matter of fact, families without children do not get much from the scheme. According to the Government's current proposal, in the case of a two-member family, if the family income is equivalent to 50% of the median monthly domestic household income, the family is eligible for an allowance of about $600 to $1,000 per month only. Even the transport subsidy is more than this amount. It is even worse for families with a higher income. A family with an income of 50% to 60% of the median monthly domestic household income will be eligible for an allowance of about $300 to $500 only. This is really like giving away alms. Thus, President, although LEUNG Chun-ying is doing something good, I am not convinced that he truly has a caring heart for families in poverty because he has only done half of what he should do, but remains indifferent to the group of people who are the most needy.

President, another more important point is that poverty alleviation is not alms giving. It does not mean that giving them several hundred dollars a month will kill their pains or resolve their problems. Everyone knows that the most important part of a poverty alleviation policy, and the part which we are capable of realizing, is to promote social mobility. I have more than once pointed out in this Council that in the 1950s and 1960s ― the era when you, President, and I grew up ― social mobility in Hong Kong, although limited, was really available. However, over the recent decade, we have found that not only is upward social mobility absent in our society, there is a trend of downward mobility, to the extent that the middle class has become the grassroots. What is the reason LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6673 behind this phenomenon? As a matter of fact, the best means of getting rid of poverty is to facilitate upward mobility of the next generation so that they can help support their families. President, you may have watched some television interviews on this policy. The response of families interviewed is that they hope their next generation will not lead a life that resembles theirs. Why can't the Government achieve this?

Thus, during the consultation period of the Policy Address, we vigorously asked the SAR Government to invest more resources to implement tertiary education, and in particular, help the poverty-stricken people to enter tertiary institutions. I have put forth my view to the Chief Secretary more than once and she was also supportive of this, and that is, whether we can follow the example of the University of Hong Kong in implementing the First-in-the-Family Education Fund Scheme for the grassroots-families; in other words, helping the first generation in these families to attend university. At present, the Government fails to do this. Moreover, its proposal is merely scratching the surface.

Let us take a look at paragraph 96 on "Increasing the Funding for Higher Education". It mentions that the intake of undergraduate places will increase by a total of 1 000 places within three years, which means only 300 places a year. However, a more important point is, in fact, whether local universities actually have sufficient capacities to enrol more young people. At present, it can be said that they do not. This is because many universities, and in particular, the University of Hong Kong, have to admit a large number of foreign students in order to balance their books. As for the local students, regrettably, wealthy families might as well send their children abroad to study. President, my family can be considered well off. I can send my son to study abroad. The Chief Secretary is also capable of doing so. But ordinary families cannot do that. Why can't the Government make more efforts in this regard?

In the following item (ii) of the same paragraph, the Chief Executive mentions that the Government "will study the feasibility of a new scheme" to subsidize students. It is stated that the Government will study and explore only. It is pointed out in item (iii) that "A Mainland University Study Subsidy Scheme will be introduced". This means that students have to return to the Mainland to pursue their study. Why can't they stay in Hong Kong to further their study? Why aren't they being looked after in Hong Kong?

6674 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014

According to item (iv), "A new scholarship scheme will be implemented to support up to 100 outstanding local students each cohort to pursue studies in renowned universities outside Hong Kong". The same question arises. Why can't they be educated and trained in Hong Kong so that they can immediately contribute to the society in Hong Kong? As stated in item (v), "about 20 local students a year who excel in sport, arts and community service" will be subsidized by the Government to further their study. This is a good initiative. I am also supportive of this. But the overall problem still remains.

I hope that the SAR Government will be determined to take more actions for the benefit of society. This is because, on one hand, while LEUNG Chun-ying was introducing some poverty alleviation initiatives, on the other hand, the Financial Secretary publicly expressed on the following day his worry that the reserves would be used up. Although he has not stated clearly that we are spending too much on poverty alleviation initiatives, he has implied that. I may as well borrow the expression used by the Chief Secretary, "this is self-evident". It means that since these people in poverty have spent so much of the Government's money, it is feared that the reserves of the treasury will be used up very soon. Why does he create these social conflicts? Why does he shift the responsibility to the grass-roots families? Is it necessary for the Financial Secretary to come forth and say these words? Have they really spent a lot of our money?

If the Financial Secretary does not wish to greatly increase the Government's recurrent expenditure and is in favour of making a one-off expenditure, why doesn't he put forward the proposal of building two universities? With regard to the Loop development project, according to the statement Donald TSANG made back then, three universities would be built. Where are these three universities now? Can we allocate a sum of money to build one or two more universities so as to help Hong Kong people and the next generation of Hong Kong people? Thus, President, I am still very disappointed after reading the entire Policy Address because in spite of the Administration's efforts in doing something good for society, they are still not enough.

Thank you, President.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6675

MR WONG KWOK-KIN (in Cantonese): President, this Policy Address of Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying has certainly placed a great deal of emphasis on poverty alleviation and care for the elderly, benefiting people in poverty of all age groups, including the elderly, the middle-aged, and the young people. Among the initiatives, the Low-income Working Family Allowance has won recognition from various sectors of the society. While the annual expenditure involved is $3 billion, it is estimated that the allowance will benefit more than 700 000 people. Moreover, with respect to care for the elderly and support for the disadvantaged, the Chief Executive has also mentioned that a review on the novel service delivery modes will be conducted ― a sign that the Government has started facing squarely the issue of medium-term and long-term planning of the welfare system. Compared to that of last year, this Policy Address undoubtedly projects a longer vision and demonstrates his sincerity in endeavouring to resolve the problem. This is praiseworthy.

Apart from introducing the Low-income Working Family Allowance under the agenda of poverty alleviation, on the fronts of policies caring for the elderly and supporting the disadvantaged, the Government has, for the first time, put forth its plan to purchase residential care places from elderly homes run by Hong Kong people in the Mainland. We hold that this represents a further step forward after the breakthrough made by the Guangdong Scheme in the policy of non-portability of welfare benefits. We welcome this new idea in policy making. This is because many elderly people residing in the Mainland has all along hoped that this policy of portability of welfare benefits can be implemented expeditiously. This will give the elderly another option and more protection.

Indeed, the problem of an ageing population in Hong Kong must not be ignored. According to experts, by 2041, one in almost every three people in Hong Kong is an elderly aged 65 or above. In the face of the increasing population of the elderly, it is necessary to step up planning of the elderly services. Earlier, the Elderly Commission has also mentioned that in the face of a rapidly ageing population, it is necessary for the Government to consider services in the Mainland in formulating its elderly policy for the future. If we only rely on the land and manpower supply in Hong Kong, it will be difficult for the elderly to have a vision of living comfortably. The Chief Executive has probably taken into account the ageing problem in the future and therefore develop the plan of purchasing residential care places in the Mainland. However, will our sole reliance on purchasing residential care places resolve the problem of ageing population? In fact, the elderly aspire for a suitable 6676 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 environment where they can conveniently meet with their families and live out their old age. They live in residential care homes only when they have no other option.

Many elderly people have all along had their families and relatives in the Mainland. It is only natural for them to live out their later years in the Mainland. However, over the past few years, with the continuous rise in consumer prices in the Mainland and the changes in exchange rate, many Hong Kong elderly people who have chosen to go north to live out their old age have found their money shrinking all the time. Some are able to hold out but they have to lead a very hard life. Some really cannot cope any longer. A serious illness may render them penniless. They have no other option but to return to Hong Kong.

According to the statistics of the five Mainland Consultation Services Centres of the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions (FTU), among the Hong Kong elderly people residing in the Mainland, the number of them moving back to Hong Kong has been on the rise since 2006. From 2006 till now, the number of Hong Kong elderly people moving back to Hong Kong is 649. Among these elderly people, over 80% move back to Hong Kong because of financial difficulties. The latest data has also revealed that the number of cases involving Hong Kong people in the Mainland seeking assistance from the Mainland Consultation Services Centres of the FTU was close to 7 000 in 2013. Among these cases, 60% were elderly people seeking financial help. Compared to that of last year, the figure has increased by 50% this year.

President, these elderly people have contributed to Hong Kong for many years. When they are old, they wish to spend their twilight years in the Mainland. However, on the one hand, they are not eligible for the welfare benefits in the Mainland; on the other hand, they are severed from the welfare benefits provided by the Hong Kong Government. Under these circumstances, they have to live without any assistance. Over the years, Members of the FTU as well as the Mainland Consultation Services Centres have all along fought vigorously for the right of Hong Kong elderly people residing in the Mainland to be eligible for the welfare benefits that they are entitled to when they live out their old age in Hong Kong, thus realizing portability of welfare benefits.

This year, the Government has finally implemented the Guangdong Scheme which allows Hong Kong elderly people residing in the Mainland to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6677 continue receiving the "fruit grant". The Chief Executive has also mentioned in the Policy Address that the Government will explore the feasibility of extending the Old Age Living Allowance (OALA) to Guangdong. I welcome the move as I believe this measure will absolutely help the elderly solve their pressing problems. The Guangdong Scheme has only been implemented for three months. It seems that the response is very good. Obviously, the number of the elderly moving back to Hong Kong will drop this year. If the OALA is included in the Guangdong Scheme, it will further reduce the financial pressure of the elderly. Meanwhile, I also hope that the Government will consider extending the implementation of the policy concerned to other provinces such as Fujian.

President, to enable the elderly live out their later years in the Mainland with peace of mind, our considerations should focus not only on the provision of residential care places and financial assistance. It can be said that the need of the elderly for healthcare services is more important. As the first step, the Government should expeditiously extend the Elderly Health Care Voucher so as to allow elderly people residing in the Mainland to use it. With regard to the plight faced by elderly people residing in the Mainland, if we have to cite examples, I believe every elderly person who has no other option but to move back to Hong Kong has a story of hardship to tell. I hope that in the near future, elderly people who have returned to the Mainland will be able to receive medical and healthcare services as if they were residing in Hong Kong. The greatest concern of Hong Kong people spending their twilight years in the Mainland is still whether the ancillary healthcare measures are sufficient and whether the quality is reliable. Apart from the services of out-patient doctors, it is necessary for the elderly who are chronic patients and those who need to undergo surgery to receive medical follow-up. It is only through making an overall consideration of various needs of the elderly as they live out their old age that the Government will be able to truly face up to the problem of ageing population, and progressively implement a multiple policy of portability of welfare benefits for the elderly. As a matter of fact, this policy will not only render instant protection to elderly people currently residing in the Mainland, but will also provide one more option for the elderly to live out their old age in the future.

President, lastly, I would like to respond to the attack on the FTU made by Mr LEE Cheuk-yan just now. I find it strange that each time when Mr LEE Cheuk-yan speaks on labour policies, he makes an attack on the FTU. I am wondering whether snapping at other people with a loud voice represents he is right and whether snapping with a loud voice represents having made an effort. 6678 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014

We lay out all the facts and present rational arguments. Regarding the minimum wage currently being implemented, who actually compelled the Government to implement the system? At the time when Donald TSANG was running in the election, it was Miss CHAN Yuen-han of the FTU who used the subject of nomination to force him to agree to introduce a wage protection scheme which later led to the development of the minimum wage. Who had actually forced LEUNG Chun-ying to include standard working hours in his platform during the election? We all know that it was the FTU. Who had taken the lead to press "CY" to fulfil his election pledges in abolishing the offsetting mechanism of the Mandatory Provident Fund (MPF) Scheme? It was also the FTU.

We have done a lot, but we do not boast of what we have done. We work hard silently, and we work with the labour sector. But in the face of some external and unreasonable attacks, we must make clarifications. Some people snap with a loud voice but do nothing. Then they come forth and accuse others. This gives a wrong impression that others have really done nothing while he has done something. I hold that this kind of behaviour is not desirable. The labour sector should unite together to protect and secure our interests from the business sector, instead of contending with one another to take credit and accusing each other. I hope that various unions and federations will make concerted efforts to force the Government to abolish the offsetting mechanism of the MPF Scheme, instead of accusing each other.

As to the reason why we have deleted the term "regret" in Mr LEE Cheuk-yan's amendment, we hold that we do see merit in this Policy Address of LEUNG Chun-ying. He has made some breakthroughs in his policies, such as formulating long-term welfare initiatives to replace one-off measures of handing out sweeteners. Insofar as the policy of portability of welfare benefits is concerned, he has also taken a giant step forward, thereby bringing significant benefits to the grassroots, the disadvantaged and the elderly. We opine that it is unreasonable if we simply base on one issue to negate the entire Policy Address.

Thus, we will continue to recover the debt from LEUNG Chun-ying and demand the abolition of the offsetting mechanism of the MPF, but we will not negate his entire Policy Address. Since this is the case, I have proposed to delete the term "regret" in the amendment. We will also support the original motion.

President, I so submit.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6679

MR POON SIU-PING (in Cantonese): President, I have mixed feelings after the Chief Executive announced this year's Policy Address. On the one hand, the Policy Address has not addressed the aspirations of the labour sectors for years, and has even stumbled and missed a good chance of scoring by removing the abolition of the offsetting arrangement of the MPF Scheme. I am greatly disappointed by this. However, on the other hand, the Policy Address has proposed to introduce a Low-income Working Family Allowance (LIFA) scheme. This is the first Policy Address in the 17 years since the reunification that proposes a concrete initiative to make a long-term commitment to low-income families with a view to improving their livelihood. Despite the fact that there are relatively substantial differences between the Government's proposal at this stage and my view, I still have much expectation for the LIFA.

When expressing my views on the Policy Address to the Chief Executive last October, I also submitted a proposal on providing assistance to low-income families. This is a poverty alleviation proposal in which the care for both families and individuals is included. In terms of families, if the income of a working family is half or less than half of the median income of that category of families, the non-working immediate family members living together can receive a subsidy equivalent to 5% of the median income of that category of families. In terms of individuals, if the monthly income of a full-time employee is half or less than half of the median income, he can receive full transport subsidy. If his monthly income is between 50% and 70% of the median income, he can receive half of the transport subsidy. No matter whether it is the poverty alleviation measure for families or individuals, no asset test will be imposed.

With regard to the Government's proposal, there are several points we have to discuss with the Government. During the entire discussion of providing assistance to low-income families, the Government has insisted that an asset test should be in place. According to the Government, the purpose of an asset test is to ensure the effective use of resources. But this is inconsistent with the fact. There is no asset test for the Government's Pre-primary Education Voucher Scheme, the undergraduate programmes of funded tertiary institutions, Hong Kong's public healthcare services, as well as the Elderly Health Care Voucher (EHCV) ― the annual voucher amount of which will be doubled according to the proposal in this year's Policy Address. These are existing examples. Why must there be an asset test for low-income families before effective use of resources can be ensured?

6680 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014

I hold that it is necessary to put in place an asset test for the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA) Scheme because the objective of the CSSA Scheme is to provide a safety net for those who are unable to support themselves financially. However, the nature of the LIFA scheme is completely different from that of the CSSA Scheme, which targets at those who are unable to support themselves. On the one hand, the Government is encouraging members of the public to save up money to prepare for their retirement, but on the other hand, it slam the door in the face of needy households who save for the rainy days. Its policies are self-contradictory.

At present, the Government proposes to adopt the asset limits for public rental housing applications as the application criterion of LIFA. This is a relatively lenient arrangement. I believe the majority of low-income working families will be benefited. However, if that is the case, will it be possible for the Government to further relax the requirement as to abolish the asset test, and adopt the income of the working families as the application criterion for LIFA instead? This will not only encourage more grass-roots families to work, but will also save the administration costs of the LIFA scheme.

In introducing the LIFA scheme, the Policy Address has not delineated its relationship with the Work Incentive Transport Subsidy (WITS) Scheme. It is only mentioned in the policy agenda that a comprehensive review will be conducted this year. Ms LI Fung-ying, the former Member of the Legislative Council for the Federation of Hong Kong and Kowloon Labour Unions (FLU) previously criticized the Government a few times for its designating the WITS Scheme as a poverty alleviation initiative. We hold that since the Policy Address has proposed concrete poverty alleviation initiatives, the WITS Scheme should be reverted to its objective of assisting individuals. Meanwhile, the amount of the subsidy should also be adjusted.

Apart from the issue about whether an asset test should be put in place, there are other major concerns, such as how the term "working" will be defined and how the subsidy will be calculated. According to the media, the Government proposes that if the applicant works 208 hours or more a month, he will receive a basic allowance of $1,000. If he works between 144 to 208 hours, he will receive an allowance of $600.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6681

According to the statistics in the Report of the Policy Study on Standard Working Hours (the Report) released by the Labour Department, in 2011, the weekly contractual hours averaged at 45.2 hours, meaning 108.8 hours a month, which is below the criterion of 208 hours. In other words, even if the working low-income earners are willing to work 208 hours a month, there may not be sufficient supply of relevant jobs in the labour market. Moreover, while the Government is encouraging a five-day work week, it is requiring applicants of the LIFA to work six days a week and eight hours a day to be eligible for a basic allowance. This is not acceptable in terms of justification and fairness.

The labour legislation provides that an employee who works for four weeks in a month with at least 18 hours worked in each week complies with the definition of "continuous employment contract" in the legislation and will be protected by the relevant labour law. This is also the basis upon which the existing WITS Scheme is drawn up. Even though the Report of the Labour Department has defined "full-time" as a person who does not work part-time, and the definition of a part-timer is a person who works less than five days per week, or less than six hours per day, or less than 30 hours per week, the definition of a full-time employee in the Government's proposal is obviously different from that of an employee under a continuous employment contract in the labour legislation, or that of a full-time employee in the Report.

With the legislation for standard working hours being mooted in society now, how to define the criterion of working hours for LIFA has become very sensitive. The Government must deal with the criteria of full-time and part-time employees very carefully. The FLU and many labour organizations have proposed that standard working hours should be set at 44 hours per week. This can serve as a basis for discussion so as to set the working hours for LIFA at a reasonable level.

The LIFA scheme has adopted the working hours of an applicant as a criterion for vetting and approval. However, the combination of working hours can be flexible and versatile. If the number of working hours of family members is adopted as the basis of calculation, and so long as the total number of working hours of family members under employment meets the requirement of the LIFA scheme, the family will be eligible for a basic allowance. Such an arrangement will not only encourage more people to seek employment, but will also benefit more needy families.

6682 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014

The Government has proposed a two-tier arrangement for the basic allowance of LIFA, which is $1,000 and $600 respectively. Each child of the family is entitled to an additional allowance of $800. Compared to the proposal submitted by me ― an allowance equivalent to 5% of the median household income of the same family category ― this is even more generous. Calculating on the basis of the median household income, the median income for a four-member family is $28,500 in 2012; 5% of this amount is $1,425, which is less than the amount of $2,600 proposed by the Government. If this is the case, I should have welcomed the Government's proposal. However, my proposal is pegged with the median household income, which is easy to understand and adjust. If the Government is confident that there is spare capacity in the public funds to further help needy families, I would suggest that the Government raise the amount of allowance to more than 5% of the median household income, instead of rigidly presuming the amount of allowance.

The Chief Executive has indicated that the Government will seek to implement the LIFA scheme next year. We do not know whether it means early next year or by the end of next year. If it is early next year, we still have a period of one year ahead. If it is implemented by the end of next year, basically we have to wait for two years. This is a target time sought for implementation only. Before implementation of the LIFA scheme, the principal assistance provided to families of "N have-nots" as indicated in the Policy Address is a one-off subsidy under the Community Care Fund. A two-member family is eligible for $7,000, while a family with three members or more is eligible for $10,000. Such assistance is insignificant but just better than nothing.

To effectively help families of "N have-nots", the right remedy is to provide rent subsidies to the families on the Waiting List, and implement rent control for private residential buildings of a certain age. It is only through implementing these measures that the pressure on the livelihood of families of "N have-nots" can be genuinely alleviated.

Apart from the issue of poverty, another major social problem is our ageing population. The Policy Address has introduced a number of elderly care measures, including the Special Scheme on Privately Owned Sites for Welfare Uses and initiatives to increase the supply of subsidized residential care places. However, when this still rings in our ears, private residential care homes for the elderly in Shek Tsai Leng will be resumed by the Government for the development of the North East New Territories.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6683

I visited the private residential care homes for the elderly in Shek Tsai Leng with some colleagues of the Legislative Council last year. This is a rare community in Hong Kong which allows the elderly to live comfortably during their twilight years. This is also a typical example showing that the Government, on the one hand, is going on a construction spree and identifying sites for housing construction, and on the other hand, is contradictory to its elderly and conservation policies. I very much hope that the Government will retain this precious and rare community of Shek Tsai Leng. If the Government ultimately needs to resume Shek Tsai Leng for the development of the North East New Territories, I would suggest that Government go a step further than the Special Scheme on Privately Owned Sites for Welfare Uses proposed in the Policy Address, and that is, not restricting land to privately owned sites. Instead, land should be allocated directly by the Government for the construction of residential care homes for the continuous operation of relevant organizations, with a view to maintaining cohesion of the entire community.

As a matter of fact, insofar as residential care homes are concerned, the crux of the problem is not purely insufficient places. An issue of a deeper level is the high rents to be paid in operating residential cares homes. The scope of rent adjustment is also unpredictable, which renders it difficult for operators to make long-term investments. Saving costs on all fronts on the part of operators have generated a series of problems, including crude facilities and poor hygiene, as well as inadequate nursing manpower due to low wages.

In the Policy Address, $800 million has been earmarked for running a residential care service voucher pilot scheme in the next three years. The scheme will adopt a "money-following-the-user" approach that enables the elderly to choose residential care homes of their choice. However, while private residential care homes have maintained fees at a reasonable level, they have not substantially enhanced their service standards. In the end, this will only deter the elderly from using their service.

The Policy Address has proposed to increase the amount of the EHCV from $1,000 to $2,000. This initiative will certainly be welcomed by the elderly people aged 70 or above. But the elderly people under the age of 70 do not have any subsidy from the EHCV. Thus, I hold that this is not an appropriate arrangement.

6684 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014

People say that it is better to receive medical treatment at the early stage of illness. We should encourage the relatively young elderly to attach due importance to their health. According to the existing policy, the elderly aged over 65 are given the Senior Citizen Card. Since members of the public aged from 65 to 69 are seniors already, they should be given the EHCV as encouragement for them to undergo medical check-up expeditiously so that illnesses can be treated timely to prevent conditions from worsening. I urge the Government to expeditiously conduct a review on the EHCV scheme, and lower the threshold of eligibility to the age of 65. The amount of the EHCV for the elderly aged 65 or above can be half of the amount of the existing EHCV.

President, the Policy Address has stated that the Government plans to build an acute general hospital in the Kai Tak Development and set up a Chinese medicine hospital in Tseung Kwan O with a view to alleviating the pressure on public healthcare services. The provision of sufficient healthcare personnel is imperative for the operation of new hospitals. I visited the new North Lantau Hospital not long ago. Due to a shortage of healthcare personnel, the North Lantau Hospital will not be able to provide a number of services. The prerequisite for any plans of the Government to build new hospitals is the assurance of sufficient healthcare personnel in Hong Kong. However, the Policy Address has not mentioned any plans to foster sufficient healthcare personnel so as to ensure the long-term and sustainable developments of the healthcare system.

President, I so submit.

MR TANG KA-PIU (in Cantonese): Regarding the Policy Address this year, the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions (FTU) has the following comments to make: "While measures have been proposed in response to livelihood issues, nothing has been mentioned about labour rights."

Although matters in relation to population policy and manpower should be discussed in the next session, as both the Chief Secretary and Secretary Matthew CHEUNG are now in the Chamber, many Honourable colleagues have raised various labour issues. I am going to speak mainly on welfare services and services for the elderly. Regarding services for the elderly, I would like to speak from two angles, namely, care services or caring for the elderly, as well as retirement protection which involves the Mandatory Provident Fund (MPF). LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6685

Therefore, I will talk about MPF in particular. Moreover, under the Commission on Poverty led by the Chief Secretary, there is a Social Security and Retirement Protection Task Force which is also led by the Chief Secretary and the Secretary. Hence, apart from commenting on the SAR Government's work in this regard, I will also highlight the proposals submitted by the FTU to the SAR Government. We very much hope that the Administration will respond to our proposals in the context of the forthcoming Budget.

Before going into my main speech, I would like to talk about the Low-income Working Family Allowance (LIFA) first, which has been mentioned by many Honourable colleagues just now. On this matter, I have also received some words of caution from various organizations. In fact, during our initial exchanges, the FTU had an agreement with the Government that any support for the working poor households should premise on the principles of "pro-employment" and "pro-children". It is clear from the details or the available information that the Government's current plan is generally in line with the above principles.

Nonetheless, I honestly think that the actual working hour requirement of 208 hours or more a month is on the high side. The FTU has all along hoped that the Government will formulate standard working hours and take the lead to implement 44 hours of work per week. If calculated on the basis of the above requirement, a person must work 48 hours per week. Hence, we consider that this requirement is too stringent unless the Administration's true intention is to initiate discussion in society through this requirement of 208 hours that standard working hours in Hong Kong should be 48 hours but not 44 hours.

If the Administration admits to this view or idea, we must have another debate. Nonetheless, I hope the Administration can fine-tune the working hour threshold before it formally introduces the LIFA and submits the relevant funding application to the Legislative Council. This requirement will impact seriously on some white-collar workers who find it difficult to make ends meet with a salary of $9,000 to $11,000. In particular, if they are on a five-day week, they may not be able to meet the working hour requirement of 48 hours per week. I hope the Administration can fine-tune this requirement slightly.

Separately, the Administration has not taken into consideration those families with special needs. Nothing has been mentioned about providing them with exemption. For example, for a single-parent family or for family with one 6686 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 member receiving the Disability Allowance, can a lower working hour threshold be applied? In this regard, nothing has been said by the Administration. We very much hope that the Administration can respond to this point before the measure is formally introduced.

In the last motion debate on the LIFA, I have expressed my concern that when formulating the proposal, the Administration should learn from the experience of the existing Work Incentive Transport Subsidy (WITS) Scheme. For example, if two members in the family are eligible for the WITS, they can receive $1,200 in subsidy per month, which is a fair amount. But as the applicants are required to submit various information on the financial position and assets of the family as a whole, it would create difficulties or problems for the family. In the end, they may choose not to proceed with the applications.

By the same token, as the LIFA is originally intended to be a good measure, should the Administration rationalize or simplify some of the administrative requirements? As I said earlier, if the limits under the proposal are set with reference to the asset levels of public rental housing (PRH) tenants, does it mean that applicants who are sitting PRH tenants can be exempted from the means test? Because if they are now living in PRH, vetting should have been conducted by the Housing Department. Regarding LIFA applicants who are on the Waiting List, why are they eligible for public housing? Because they are low-income earners with financial difficulties, and their assets would not exceed the limit. As such, administrative arrangements should be made by the Administration, so that these applicants can be exempted from a formal means test, so long as they can produce proof of their status as a Waiting List applicant. Is this arrangement feasible? Lastly, the remaining applicants would be those who are neither PRH tenants nor Waiting List applicants. They may be flat owners having to pay mortgage or tenants of private housing who have financial difficulties. The Administration can apply a means test on this group of LIFA applicants. With this arrangement, administrative costs can be reduced substantially, while low-income families would be encouraged to apply for assistance.

Lastly, I must point out with no uncertainty that efforts made by the FTU all along in striving for a statutory minimum wage have come to fruition. Since its implementation in May 2011, the caseload of CSSA from the three major categories of low-income, unemployed and single-parent applicants has gone LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6687 down by almost 25%. It is clear that when a relatively reasonable hourly wage is being offered in the market, members of the public are naturally more inclined to get into employment.

However, it is sad to see that since the implementation of the statutory minimum wage, the poverty rate has shown no remarkable improvement. In other words, even though the working poor have left the CSSA net, they still live in poverty. Although the Chief Secretary does not or dares not admit it, the LIFA can genuinely achieve the goal of poverty alleviation. And we really hope that this proposal can reduce the current poverty rate substantially. Otherwise, all efforts made would be in vain, and the Administration will just keep on being criticized by various organizations or Honourable colleagues for not truly committed to poverty alleviation.

Regarding care services for the elderly, the shortage of residential care places and the lack of overall planning have long been criticized by many Honourable colleagues, including of course myself as the Deputy Chairman of the Joint Subcommittee on Long-term Care Policy. The Secretary will certainly talk about the provision of thousands of residential care places in future, that is, over 3 000 places in the next four years. Taking together the available places with the smooth implementation of construction projects for residential care homes for the elderly (RCHEs), some 4 000 places can be provided. But as we know, these so-called care places are calculated on the basis of the Scheme on Community Care Service Voucher for the Elderly, which has yet to be implemented formally. The estimate includes places in self-financing or private residential care homes bought by the elderly from the market with the residential care service vouchers.

Recently, I have a chat with some experienced social workers providing services for the elderly, especially residential care services, and they are all concerned about this matter. Undoubtedly, the Government is now making a start in various aspects of community care services, and has even achieved some improvement. But they are concerned that the Government's sudden decision to issue 3 000 residential care service vouchers might disrupt the development trend as a whole. The focus of our discussion with those experienced social workers is whether all the residential care service vouchers should be issued to elders who are assessed to be of severe impairment under the Standardized Care Need Assessment Mechanism for Elderly Services (SCNAMES).

6688 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014

Let us take a look at the current situation. Even if RCHEs are constructed on a 9:1 ratio ― I think the Secretary fully understands what I mean, that is, 90% of resources would be allocated for nursing homes and the remaining 10% for subsidized care and attention homes for the elderly ― many elders would still have to wait five or even six years before they can be offered a place in their preferred nursing home. In fact, these elders are already in a very serious condition and have an urgent need for care services. Yet they must still wait such a long time.

In that case, can we foster a general consensus that, without affecting the development trend of community care services, resources should focus on helping those elders who are of severe impairment and with the greatest need for care services, so that they can have priority in the use of residential care service vouchers? There are two reasons for this arrangement. First, there is a need to help elders with the greatest need by reducing their waiting time. Second, this arrangement can encourage the existing 500-odd private RCHEs, including of course residential care services operated by subvented organizations on a self-financing basis, to develop in the direction of better service quality. Because under this system, RCHEs will specialize in providing services to elders of severe impairment, that is, those holding the resources under the "money follows the user" principle. As RCHEs can only access such resources by providing high-end care services, this can be an incentive for RCHEs to develop in this direction and avoid any further criticisms about the varied and inferior service of private RCHEs in Hong Kong.

I sincerely hope that RCHEs in Hong Kong can do better; of course, subsidized RCHEs have to do better, but RCHEs without subsidy must also develop in the direction of better service quality. This does not mean that we should keep on criticizing all RCHEs for poor service standard until they have disappeared. There is no way such RCHEs will disappear. No matter how hard the Government works to construct RCHEs, the demand in this regard cannot be met. Hence, at this stage, I have some specific suggestions for the Government regarding the residential care service vouchers likely to be introduced. I hope the Government can consult the industry again, especially the views of experienced social workers in elderly care, and examine ways to balance the two streams of community care services and residential care services, so that both streams can work well.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6689

On the subject of private RCHEs, I would like to tell Members an incident. When a relevant question was last asked in the Legislative Council, as I did not press the button in time to ask questions, I did not have the chance to raise the incident. In fact, I want to complain on behalf of a worker. Last September, a news report revealed that a staff member in a private RCHE in Sheung Shui had ill-treated an elder. That staff member made the news and was subsequently arrested and convicted. However, the staff who disclosed the incident was dismissed by the RCHE. In other words, our society cannot protect these elders. Even though the Social Welfare Department (SWD) often claims that surprise inspections will be conducted, we still have no confidence at all. When a worker reported an unlawful act out of a sense of righteousness, the Administration had neither imposed any sanction on the RCHE concerned nor handled the matter in a high profile manner, even though the incident did incur certain consequences. This is indeed worrying because it will only give these private RCHEs a feeling that the Government can no longer regulate them, and they are free to do whatever they want behind closed doors.

Recently, the Administration unilaterally announced that RCHEs participating in the bought place scheme could apply for importation of labour. Of course, the Administration will say that foreign workers are only allowed to work for the portion of services under the bought place scheme, that is, the RCHEs cannot employ foreign workers for the subsidized portion, and foreign workers can only be employed for the non-subsidized portion. But behind the closed door of RCHEs, can the Administration exercise control? No, it cannot. If foreign labour or foreign workers under the Supplementary Labour Scheme (SLS) encounter problems and want to lodge complaints, what will happen to them? Of course, they will be sent home immediately. Moreover, can the Administration exercise control over their working hours? When RCHEs advertise for the recruitment of workers in accordance with the requirement of SLS, many would specify that the daily working hours is nine hours, but in fact there are four hours of rest time in between. If the rest time is also included, the total working hours would be 13 or 14 hours a day. Can the Administration ensure that foreign workers can truly rest within the so-called rest time, and that they can spend the time freely? Nobody can be sure.

Hence, as mentioned by all Honourable colleagues of the FTU, we will keep monitoring whether the Government has expanded the scope of labour importation. Regarding the earlier announcement made by the SWD unilaterally 6690 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 that RCHEs participating in the bought place scheme could apply for the importation of labour under the SLS, we express our deepest regret. We also have other worries because on the one hand, the Government often encourages young people to join the elderly care industry for it has a bright future, but on the other hand, it suppresses the salary. The method used by the Administration is very simple: so long as there is an abundant supply of foreign labour, salary will be kept low. That is how the market works. When an employer cannot employ enough workers, he will increase the salary. But when an employer in Hong Kong cannot employ enough workers, the Administration just gives the green light to the importation of foreign labour. Then why should employers increase the salary? Moreover, it is no longer necessary for employers to enhance staff training and improve working conditions in order to attract new recruits. If employers continue to recruit staff at the present salary level, they would have difficulties in recruitment, and employers would be allowed to import foreign workers.

Why is it difficult for the elderly care industry to employ workers? When the Administration kindly suggests that the 2 100 programme workers can switch from youth services to elderly care services, why is their response so lukewarm? That is because the Administration also has a role to play in suppressing the wages, for it has given a green light to the importation of foreign labour. As a result, there is no improvement in the actual working conditions and environment of employees in the elderly care industry. Hence, I very much hope that the Administration can reflect on it. In view of the ageing population, it is absolutely essential for Hong Kong to give due recognition to the status of employees in the elderly care industry and improve their remuneration. I hope the Administration can give overall consideration in this regard.

Separately, Secretary Dr KO Wing-man has also highlighted the problems of an ageing population. Here, I would like to thank him for a meeting held last year with me and a group of stakeholders of dementia, including family members of dementia patients, service providers and specialist doctors who are gravely concerned about the matter. Subsequently, the Administration agreed to set up a dedicated task force under the Review Committee on Mental Health for the study of dementia. We hope that this is not just some empty talk from the current-term Government, and that the task force can really produce some concrete results, including ways to genuinely achieve collaboration between the welfare and healthcare sectors.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6691

I note that the two Secretaries concerned are in the Chamber now. I know that there is a good rapport between them, but it is not the same in the frontline. Let me illustrate with an example. After a long hard wait of more than one year, an elder finally received specialist treatment from the Department of Old Age Psychiatry of the Hospital Authority, and he was diagnosed as suffering from middle-stage or possibly late-stage dementia. Having made such a diagnosis, the doctor prescribed some medication for the patient, and asked him to seek relevant services in the community. Regrettably, when he applied for community services and was assessed by a social worker under the SCNAMES, he failed to pass the assessment. The social worker said that the elder still had full body functions and was not having impairment at moderate level; he merely had no idea who he was, where he was or what the time of the day was, as well as having other behavioural problems. What is meant by collaboration between the welfare and healthcare sectors? I think in the most simple and direct terms, it means that in case of a confirmed case where the patient is suffering from a disease that is generally acknowledged in society as requiring priority treatment, genuine and appropriate assistance, both in terms of healthcare and non-healthcare services, should be provided to the patient. Nonetheless, as we see in this example, even after a long hard wait for years, the patient cannot get any services even with a confirmed diagnosis.

Hence, I urge the Administration to work harder towards a collaboration between the welfare and healthcare sectors on dementia. Dementia is a term currently used by professional bodies and non-governmental organizations and has the same meaning as Alzheimer's disease. The Administration should not only focus on the allocation of resources by saying that $200 million was allocated to the social welfare sector last year for support services, and that $300 million will be allocated this year. Instead, it should make adjustments to the system. As clearly pointed out by a report published by the World Health Organization in 2012, dementia is a global challenge, and it is estimated that the costs of addressing the disease, including the direct cost of healthcare expenditure as well as the non-direct cost of care services, will be 1% of global GDP. Hence, the problem should not be taken lightly.

On the premise of an ageing population, by 2041, 30% of Hong Kong's population will be aged 65 or above. According to the Department of Health or even the Secretary, one in 10 elders aged 70 or above will suffer from dementia. Given such a proportion, we must face the problem squarely.

6692 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014

Lastly, we are also gravely concerned about making provisions for the daily living of the elderly. Hence, we find it difficult to understand why the Administration still allows the offsetting arrangement of MPF contributions. For most wage-earners, at the end of the day, they will only get peanuts because part of their own contributions, that is, 5% of the salary, will be eaten up by fund managers, while contributions made by employers will not go into their pockets. Even if they eventually receive some of the employers' contribution, they would lose an amount which is equivalent to their severance payment.

(THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, MR ANDREW LEUNG, took the Chair)

Is the MPF system built up by the Administration really a pillar of retirement protection? Currently, this pillar is nothing more than induced savings of wage earners. Hence, we strongly disapprove of the offsetting arrangement. Although the Administration has strived to lower the administrative fees, in this year or 2013, MPF fund managers have already eaten up $8.7 billion hard-earned savings of wage earners. If the problem concerning the offsetting arrangement is left unresolved, people of Hong Kong will keep on feeling gravely disappointed with the system. Given the Financial Secretary's proposal to set up a Future Fund, we also suggest that the Administration should set aside the current balance of $200 billion of the Land Fund for universal retirement protection, that is, this sum of $200 billion should be used dedicatedly for retirement protection of our future society. Can the Administration do so?

I so submit.

DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I would first speak on women matters and child care services, and then move on to discuss various issues relating to food safety, hygiene, and so on.

Chief Secretary, very little has been said about women matters in the Policy Address. Throughout the whole document, women matters are only mentioned in paragraphs 88 and 89, but half of the population are women. Seemingly, the Government is not genuinely concerned about their needs and hence, no specific measure has been made in this regard. Of course, the issue of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6693 child care services has been dealt with in the abovementioned two paragraphs, and we understand that the Government is working on it in the context of the population policy.

The acute shortage in the provision of child care services in Hong Kong is evident. The Democratic Party is gravely disappointed that the proposals in the Policy Address relating to child care services are just piecemeal remedies, without due regard for women's demand in child care services.

Currently, there are 340 000 children in Hong Kong aged below six. Yet the total number of quotas for various child care services provided by the Government is less than 30 000. If we encourage women to give birth, what assistance is provided in taking care of newborn babies? Do we just leave parents to solve their problems?

At present, services provided by the Administration can only cater for 10% of Hong Kong's children population. As we have mentioned time and again, and the Secretary should know very well, services provided by subsidized standalone whole-day child care centres (CCCs) are most welcomed by parents. But why does the Government just maintain the number of quotas at 690 for years, without any increase at all? Is the Government really sincere in heeding the demands of women?

For service quotas in subsidized standalone whole-day CCCs in all 18 districts across the territory, the average usage rate and demand have become saturated a long time ago. In many districts, the quotas are fully utilized, and applicants sometimes have to wait one or two years in futile. In this regard, the Secretary once said that if the quota in one district was full, parents could choose to apply for allocation in other districts. Since society has the greatest need for subsidized standalone whole-day CCCs at present, why is the Government so reluctant to increase the number of quotas? I really cannot understand why the Government always refuses to adopt a people-based approach when it comes to service items having a genuine demand in society?

Of course, some improvements have been proposed in the Policy Address, such as extending the Neighbourhood Support Child Care Project by lifting the age limit of service beneficiaries from below six to below nine. Naturally, we would ask what about children above the age of nine? In addition, the Policy Address proposes to allocate additional resources for after-school care services 6694 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 provided for children aged six to 12 in order to extend the service hours. This proposal has indeed responded to the demand of some women because if they have to work late, they may not be in time to pick up their children. Hence, this is a good measure. But we have yet to see any suggestion from the Administration in respect of increasing the service quotas. Therefore, we very much hope that the Government can give due regard to the demand for various types of child care services in different districts, and consider the possibility of increasing the quotas and improving the quality of service.

Regarding home-based child carers, as mentioned by some Honourable Members just now, does the Government want to take advantage of them? The Secretary has often said that as home-based child carers have to take care of their own children, they should not be regarded as taking up a job if they also take care of some more children. In other words, the Government regards home-based child carers as quasi-voluntary workers and hence, they are only remunerated at an hourly rate of $20. However, Secretary, I think it is inhumane and unfair because taking care of other children is indeed a job, and home-based child carers are not voluntary workers who do so purely out of love as they must actually spend time to take care of some other children apart from taking care of their own children. Hence, their workload, pressure and responsibility will naturally increase substantially. Their work is so much more than taking care of their own children. Hence, I very much hope that the Secretary can seriously review the situation and increase their pay to the statutory minimum wage of $30 per hour or more. Otherwise, I think the Secretary is doing a disservice to women in Hong Kong.

I would like to reiterate that on issues relating to women and child care, if the Government is indeed committed to caring for the welfare of women, it should provide more diverse and quality child care services that are affordable to parents. Why? In my view, the provision of child care service does not, as stated by the Government, simply related to releasing the labour force of women in response to the tight manpower situation in the market. Of course, if the problem about taking care of young children or other members in the family can be resolved, women can decide on their own whether they want to take up employment again.

But the Government should never regard women as supplementary manpower, such that it will only consider how to release their labour force when there is a tight supply of manpower in the market. In that case, will the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6695

Government revise its policy and send women back home once the labour market becomes saturated? Therefore, I think the Government should think twice in this matter. Of course, I really hope that the Government is acting out of true respect for women, and on the premise of allowing them to choose, provides child care services and implement a family-friendly policy.

Hence, the objective of providing child care service is not merely for releasing women into the labour market. Most importantly, an advanced and civilized society should be a society with equal rights for both genders, that is, women should have the right to decide on their own how much time they spend on family or whether they want to take up employment, and this should be a voluntary and bona fide choice. Of course, women cannot make such a choice without child care services. While middle-class women can employ foreign domestic helpers to take care of the family on their behalf, this option is unavailable to the grassroots. Hence, I want to state clearly that our objective for striving for better child care services is to give women a genuine choice, and naturally, such a measure will allow more women to enter the labour market.

Regarding women issues, it is of course our earnest hope that the Government can expeditiously promote a family-friendly policy, including speeding up the review on maternity leave arrangements. Currently, maternity leave pay is only four-fifths of normal wages. Can the Government be slightly more generous and make it full pay? Can the 10 weeks' paid maternity leave be extended slightly, so that women can have more time for rest and recuperation after giving birth?

As for the issue of paternity leave, the Democratic Party earnestly hopes that the Administration can speed up the enactment of legislation. In our view, the Government's proposal of giving three-day paternity leave is despicable. How much help can the father offer in his three-day leave? Is there any scope for extending the paternal leave period to, say, one or two weeks, so that the father or the husband can bear some responsibilities after their wives have given birth?

Deputy President, as Secretary Dr KO Wing-man is in the Chamber now, I would like to move on to other issues including food safety, the provision of columbaria and animal rights.

6696 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014

Secretary, as we are all aware, as a result of the detection of H7N9 virus in live chicken imported from the Mainland before the Lunar New Year, the Administration ordered a ban on the storage of live chicken in the Cheung Sha Wan Temporary Wholesale Poultry Market, culled some 20 000 live chicken in the market, as well as suspended trading activities for 21 days. The suspension order will expire next Tuesday. In fact, long before this incident, different people, including the Democratic Party and I, had reminded the Secretary time and again that in view of the recent spate of H7N9 avian influenza (AI) cases in the Mainland, the spread of the disease from the North to many cities in the South, as well as the occurrence of fatal cases one after another, the Administration should halt the import of live chicken from the Mainland as soon as possible, in order to reduce the risk of an AI outbreak in Hong Kong. But the Government has all along been reluctant to do so, and the Secretary only halted the import of live chicken from Shenzhen after the occurrence of a number of fatal cases as well as AI cases in Shenzhen. Subsequently, the Administration introduced serological tests on live chicken, and the virus was eventually detected in live chicken imported to Hong Kong.

Nonetheless, the greatest problem is that the Government has all along failed to notice the situation ― I do not know whether the Secretary had failed to notice the situation, or he was aware of it but still decided to take a risk ― that there is only one live chicken wholesale market in Hong Kong where local and imported live chicken are stored under the same roof. The chicken are kept together before the test results came out. In other words, once the virus is detected in live chicken from either side, all chickens kept in the wholesale market must be culled. Those chickens have died innocently, and chicken farmers as well as operators of the concerned trades are also very innocent. Obviously, the Government has made policy blunders in this matter as the problem has been known for a long time.

In fact, we have raised this matter time and again in the Panel on Food Safety and Environmental Hygiene, but the Secretary has emphasized that the arrangement is in order because farms for supplying live chicken to Hong Kong are separated from other Mainland chicken farms. The supply chain is thus very safe and independent. But the fact is that live chicken from local farms as well as those from the Mainland are held together in the Wholesale Market. As evidently policy blunders are involved, the Government should provide compensation, but at the end of the day, no matter what compensation arrangement is made, taxpayers have to foot the bill.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6697

Having said that, I would like to ask the Secretary, as the suspension of live chicken trading will expire next Tuesday, can the Secretary identify a new site before next Tuesday for the separate handling of imported and local live chickens? According to the Secretary, several sites have been identified, with inspection and studies under way, but various problems such as the supply of water and electricity, sewerage, the presence of chicken farms and residential premises in the vicinity, and so on, have also been mentioned. I do not know whether the Secretary can give an undertaking that a site will be identified before next Tuesday for the handling of live chicken imported from the Mainland.

Deputy President, in fact, I very much hope that instead of having the Secretary dashing around to find sites for keeping live chicken imported from the Mainland, the Government should seriously consider introducing an immediate ban on the import of live chicken from the Mainland permanently. As we have noted, there are successive outbreaks of H7N9 cases in the Mainland, with the two provinces of Zhejiang and Guangdong having the most serious situation. However, Zhejiang has already announced the closure of live poultry markets in its major cities. Even a local government in the Mainland has taken the decisive action to close its live poultry markets. At present, the Guangdong Province has yet to close its live poultry markets. In other words, Guangdong will have the highest risk of the occurrence of new AI cases, and as Hong Kong is in very close proximity to Guangdong, and farms supplying live chicken to Hong Kong are also located there. Secretary, instead of asking all Hong Kong people to take this risk again, and given that you may not be able to identify a site to handle live chicken imported from the Mainland before next Tuesday, should you decisively ban the import of live chicken permanently?

Insofar as local chicken farmers are concerned, given that two-thirds of live chicken are now reared in Hong Kong, they consider that they have the capacity to increase the supply further by one-third, that is, about 7 000 chickens. While this arrangement may not necessarily reduce the risk to zero, the situation should see some improvement. Of course, in the long run, people of Hong Kong should consider clearly whether a total ban of live chicken. Nonetheless, as I see it, given that the Secretary cannot find a new site to hold live chicken imported from the Mainland before next Tuesday, and if the chickens are still stored in the Cheung Sha Wan Temporary Wholesale Poultry Market, he would be asking Hong Kong people to take another risk again because he cannot absolutely guarantee that the culling incident will not happen again.

6698 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014

Deputy President, I would like to talk about the provision of columbaria now. Basically, nothing has been said about the provision of columbaria in the Policy Address. Hence, I studiously read through the Policy Agenda and noted that the word columbaria has been mentioned twice, but still nothing concrete has been proposed.

Regarding the provision of columbaria, the Government is seemingly having its hands tied, as in the case of public housing supply in Hong Kong. But at least the Transport and Housing Bureau has compiled a Long-term Housing Strategy for the next decade and clearly specified the proposals to identify sites for the construction of public housing, the production target, and so on. However, as we can see, the provision of columbaria has not been given due regard in the Policy Address. Isn't this also one of the demands of the public?

We note that for a long time, there is an imbalance between the supply and demand of public columbaria. As a result, there is a huge unmet demand and yet, the supply of public niches has invariably failed to catch up with the demand. As public supply of niches cannot become the mainstream in the market, members of the public are compelled to turn to private columbaria. Of course, some private columbaria are legal, but many are operating illegally. Under the circumstances, we fail to see that the Government has the determination and policies to rise to the challenges ahead. Although the Government reported to the relevant Panel in November last year that 24 sites had been identified, some sites were actually chosen by the last-term Government. Moreover, not all of these 24 sites are feasible because the Secretary told us that lobbying with the individual Districts Councils (DCs) concerned were required. As there are so many DC members in the pro-establishment camp, I do not know how they would discuss with Secretary Dr KO Wing-man, and whether they are willing to ensure co-ordination on the part of DCs?

As a matter of fact, it is natural for this matter to meet with opposition in the DCs. The crux is what actions will be taken by the Government to deal with such opposition? Is the Secretary going to tell us that "My hands are really tied; I do not know what to do. If the districts are unwilling to co-operate, and I do not have adequate sites, should the land available be used for the construction of public housing or columbaria?" Regarding this question, it seems that we are really at our wits' end because we cannot see how sufficient niches can be provided in Hong Kong within the next 10 to 20 years. Of course, we can LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6699 promote green burial, such as scattering ashes at sea or in gardens of remembrance, but we cannot assume that it can resolve all the problems.

Secretary, I hope you can seriously consider whether more work can be done in areas with relatively less obstruction, including the use of rock caverns. In fact, the development of rock caverns was proposed by the Development Bureau in 2010. According to the report of the subsequent consultancy study commissioned by the Government, consideration can be given to the development of columbaria inside rock caverns. But afterwards, we do not see any follow-up action on the Government's part, so as to convince the public that it is indeed a measure to increase the supply of public niches.

Deputy President, insofar as the increase of public columbaria is concerned, the situation is not optimistic because the Government has actually not provided any way forward, not to mention that the proposed target cannot realistically meet the market's demand. Besides, I am more concerned about the problem of private columbaria. Although the Government has indicated time and again its intention to legislate for the regulation of private columbaria, the matter is still stalling and the relevant legislative proposal has yet to be presented to the Legislative Council. In this connection, we hope the Government can hasten its pace because given the Government's inability to increase the supply of public columbaria, members of the public have no alternative but turn to the private market. But there are many irregularities and contraventions with the provision of private columbaria.

Members of the Legislative Council have received many complaints relating to non-compliant columbaria. Some residents have complained about the operation of private columbaria built illegally on Government land next to their residential buildings, such as Gig Lok Monastery in Tuen Mun, Ting Yuen (The Shrine) in Yuen Long, and many others. After the complainants lodged their complaints, their cases were being referred back and forth among various Policy Bureaux and government departments for years with no avail. I believe that even if the Secretary handles these cases personally, the problems could still be unresolved because it takes more than just the efforts of the Food and Health Bureau or the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD). Hence, we hope that an inter-departmental working group under the leadership of the Secretary can be set up to tackle the problem of non-compliant columbaria. Otherwise, after complaints lodged by members of the public, their cases would still be referred back and forth among the FEHD, the Development Bureau, the 6700 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014

Lands Department, or even the Town Planning Board and the court with no avail. As a result, it will only create even more grievances in society.

Deputy President, after the columbaria, I will move on to talk about animal rights. At the Legislative Council, many Honourable Members have expressed their earnest hope for the Government to seriously consider setting up animal police teams and reviewing whether the current legislation on animal protection is outdated. Nonetheless, no concrete measures have been proposed by the Government so far. Members and non-members of the Panel on Food Safety and Environmental Hygiene previously conducted a site visit to the New Territories North Animal Management Centre (or commonly called Sheung Shui Dog Centre). We did not understand why in the course of our visit, the officials of the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department cited many reasons to refuse coverage by reporters, such as Members could not bring reporters into the premises, the conference room was too small, the animals had to go to court later, and so on and so forth.

Separately, the Panel conducted another visit to Man Kam To to inspect the operation of food surveillance and random tests of foodstuffs imported from the Mainland, as well as the serological tests for AI on live poultry. When the Panel Clerk told the Government that the media would be invited to attend and cover the site visit, the relevant officials called us respectively, saying that no media would be allowed because of site constraint, and so on. Finally, we had to call the Secretary to express our dissatisfaction: "Is that not ridiculous? Members of the Legislative Council is duty-bound to monitor the Government, and the media also have the same role. Why do the departments under your purview want to keep everything in the dark? Do they want to hide something? Or are they afraid that something will come into light?"

I hope that these cases happened not because individual government departments want to hide their work and administration, hoping that Members would not discover some irregularities, or even if Members did pay a visit, no reporters would be allowed. As I see it, such practices are absolutely unacceptable. I hope the Chief Secretary and the Secretary can review whether some problems have occurred in individual departments within the civil service system. Has any guidelines or directives been formulated to prohibit the attendance of reporters as far as possible at site visits conducted by Members of the Legislative Council or the Panels?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6701

Deputy President, we are of course gravely concerned about the legislation on the regulation of pet trading. However, we still have no idea when the relevant bill will be presented to the Council. Recently, when the matter on the Trap-Neuter-Release (TNR) programme for stray dogs was discussed by the Panel, we had received views from many deputations. All the representatives considered that the Government's progress was too slow, and very little support had been provided. Currently, the TNR programme is still at a trial stage, but the Administration cannot identify suitable areas to conduct the trial. Nonetheless, many non-governmental voluntary organizations have been helping the Government to do the relevant work in private. We hope that the Secretary can deploy officers to understand the work of these organizations and explore whether there is scope for co-operation.

Deputy President, food safety is of course a matter we are most concerned about. We very much hope that the Secretary can ensure proper gate-keeping because most of the foodstuffs in Hong Kong are imported from other places. The Panel will continue to visit and monitor various responsible units and departments to increase our understanding. We also hope that under the Secretary's leadership, the Administration can duly perform its important role of ensuring food safety in Hong Kong.

MR ALBERT HO (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the worst part of the Policy Address is related to governance, giving people the impression of a bleak future in terms of governance and undermining their confidence in the governing team. On the other hand, I must admit that in respect of poverty alleviation and welfare, this Policy Address takes more aggressive actions than the previous ones, especially the introduction of the Low-income Working Family Allowance (LIFA) which I must support. Among the various poverty alleviation measures over the years, this is one of the most important and aggressive initiative. Therefore, we will definitely give our support and hope for its successful implementation.

There are gaps between the details of the LIFA as disclosed in the Policy Address and the requests made by some community organizations. For example, some organizations hope that no means test will be imposed, as the Government may have to put in a lot of resources to carry out the means test, and the efficacy may be in question. Some organizations suggest using other methods to calculate the asset amount.

6702 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014

The most controversial point about the LIFA is the required number of working hours. As mentioned by many colleagues just now, the requirement of 208 hours a month is too high, higher than the number of standard working hours recommended by all labour groups and also higher than the maximum or standard working hours set by most advanced countries in general. Why should such a high threshold be set just for the grant of a mere $1,000? Why should the requirement be so harsh? This is the first point.

The second point is whether the Government has considered that many members of low-income families wish to work but are faced with many practical difficulties. They may not always be able to find work whenever they wish to. Many grass-roots workers are casual labourers and some of them are paid on a daily basis. In some months, they may work many hours while in some other months, it may be difficult for them to find any work at all. More importantly, many families are faced with special situations, for example, some are single-parent families who have to take care of small children, or some families have to take care of chronic patients or children with learning difficulties. The Government needs to take into account these circumstances but at present, it seems that the Government has adopted an across-the-board approach, disregarding all these factors. Hence, if the recipients cannot meet the required number of working hours, they may get a few hundred dollars less for their allowance and that is not fair. Although someone may consider a few hundred dollars not a significant amount, but for the sake of alleviating poverty, this sum means a lot to the recipients. Moreover, we should not give the recipients the feeling that because they have not worked enough, they are not granted the allowance that they should be entitled to.

Concerning the residential care homes for the elderly (RCHEs), although the Government has made great efforts and promised to provide 5 000 additional RCHE places and 3 000 service vouchers in the next few years, given the large number of applicants on the waiting list, to what extent can the present waiting time of 37 months be reduced? In 2011, over 5 000 people passed away while waiting for RCHE places. The Government has to understand that the number of people will not remain unchanged. As the population continues to age, if the Government tells us how it plans to improve the situation without taking into account the trend of the ageing population, the plan is obviously inadequate. Hostels for persons with disabilities are also faced with the same problem. The service places promised by the Government cannot even meet one third of the total number of persons with disabilities waiting for various kinds of services. A LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6703 more serious problem lies in the waiting time for hostel places for moderately and severely mentally handicapped persons, which is over 80 months on average. How can this be acceptable? It seems that all the aforementioned problems still remain unsolved.

As regards the Pilot Scheme on Community Care Service Voucher for the Elderly, some colleagues pointed out just now that there are still inadequacies. However, this depends on how the Government will work with various organizations to dovetail with their services. I understand that the Government needs to run certain pilot schemes but it may take several years before implementing these few thousand vouchers. How will the Government on the whole work with these organizations to provide the regular services in future? Of course, we are all deeply concerned about this issue and it is worth conducting an in-depth study. All in all, I think that the progress is too slow while the demand is very ardent.

On the whole, we learn that the Financial Secretary is very worried about overspending and that Hong Kong's financial reserve will soon be depleted. In fact, taking into account all the expenses, the amount needed is merely $7 billion. We, the democrats, have all along considered that $7 billion additional recurrent expenditure is not much when compared with the financial surplus and reserve accumulated over the years. I have repeatedly requested to increase the amount to $20 billion. Of course, we are not demanding to spend all money on social welfare services, other areas such as education and healthcare are also in need of improvement.

Social welfare planning is very important. We hope that the Government will issue a white paper because efforts on various fronts are required to address the various problems, which includes talent training, land planning, as well as a study on the mode of service and its improvement. More importantly, an assessment of the demand for long-term services. All these are related to the ageing population. Therefore, we hope that the Government will issue a white paper to set down the service objectives; otherwise we will only tackle the immediate demand in the next two or three years, which is inadequate. We maintain that the Government owes the people of Hong Kong a white paper to draw their attention on the demand for overall services over a longer period of time in future, the mode of service development and the need for various talents to provide such services.

6704 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014

Let me talk about healthcare issues briefly. I just want to mention two points. First, the reform of the Hospital Authority (HA) is of paramount importance. We constantly criticize the HA for the many problems arising among various hospital clusters, including "fiefdom" and uneven distribution of resources. The HA has recently announced some performance indicators of hospitals. The performances of some hospitals are highly unsatisfactory. The information is rather frightening and people are greatly worried if they have to undergo surgeries in those hospitals. I wish to tell the Secretary that some doctors are greatly unhappy, thinking that they are unfairly treated as those hospitals suffer from shortage of front-line staff, and more importantly, senior doctors. Doctors of those hospitals are willing to take up front-line work and they work very hard without complaints. They should be commended. Under such harsh conditions, it is understandable that their performance is somewhat under par as their hospitals are so poorly-equipped in every aspect. The HA tells us now that certain hospitals' performance are less than satisfactory but it does not propose any plans to improve their services, and that is the biggest problem.

At present, the biggest problem faced by hospitals remotely located is the shortfall of doctors, especially senior doctors and consultants. Hence, people would query whether the qualification and experience of doctors can enable them to handle some complicated cases. These problems involve whether hospitals can support and work with one another. For example, can doctors be deployed to work on shifts? For hospitals having sufficient doctors and senior consultants, can some staff be deployed to hospitals in remote districts to support the local healthcare services? All these questions should be examined, but in my view, if no changes are made to the cluster system, many problems cannot be solved. Therefore, I would like to tell the Secretary that in the days to come, we expect the authorities to put forward proposals to reform the HA for discussion.

Lastly, I would like to point out the importance of primary healthcare services, especially in the face of the ageing population. There are many cases that we do not wish to be handled by hospitals and the Secretary also agrees. However, how is the performance of primary healthcare services in various districts? I think the Secretary is well aware of that. Publicity and education alone are not sufficient. Healthcare centres should be set up to take care of chronic patients, conduct physical check-ups and provide healthcare services to the elders, as well as help them solve many minor problems. In particular, people suffering from dementia rely on the support of primary healthcare LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6705 services. Let me tell you, there is an acute shortfall in all such services. The situation in Members' offices is a case in point. Members' Offices only provide very simple services such as arranging people to receive blood/urine tests but these services always attract long queues of people. Let me tell you, we need much more support. Actually, many non-governmental organizations can also help to provide such healthcare services, including education, disease prevention and physical check-ups.

I hope that the Secretary will understand the urgency of medical services for the grassroots in future and I believe that society also supports the authorities to conduct a proper planning for primary healthcare services.

MR TAM YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the new-term SAR Government implemented a number of new welfare measures last year, which include re-establishing the Commission on Poverty, drawing up the poverty line, implementing the Old Age Living Allowance and the Pilot Scheme on Community Care Service Voucher for the Elderly, allowing individual-based applications under the Work Incentive Transport Subsidy Scheme, and so on. Apart from these major breakthroughs in social welfare policies, the Policy Address has once again introduced new policies, such as establishing the Low-income Working Family Allowance (LIFA), implementing the Special Scheme on Privately Owned Sites for Welfare Uses, increasing the Elderly Health Care Voucher amount and regularizing seven Community Care Fund programmes. The Government's work direction and plan outlined in the Policy Address regarding poverty alleviation, care for the elderly, assistance to the frail and welfare services planning are specifically targeted, and are in fact the right cure. Judging from the Government's commitments in social welfare alone, I think we should support this Policy Address.

Poverty alleviation is currently the priority task of the SAR Government. At the level of individual lifestyle, the major cause of poverty is low income, family changes and illness or ageing. Therefore, effective poverty alleviation measures must include a package of employment and financial measures and proactive fiscal initiatives. The last-term Government often refused to introduce welfare policies which need to be implemented in the longer term on the ground that they would have a continuous charging effect on public expenditure. Instead, short-term programmes or measures of "handing out candies" have been implemented. However, they did not help to address the practical difficulties. 6706 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014

The Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB) has all along proposed to introduce a second safety net on top of the existing Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA) system, so that non-CSSA working households whose incomes are on the low side can receive a monthly grant upon the passage of the income and asset tests. The Policy Address has put in place the LIFA, which incurs an annual expenditure of about $3 billion for the benefit of 710 000 members from more than 200 000 low-income families. The DAB is therefore supportive of this new policy.

The LIFA will undoubtedly increase the Government's recurrent expenditure. However, given that changes in the number of low-income families is different from the inevitable trend of ageing population, the amount of commitment on low-income families should be relatively stable. Thus, the Government should be able to meet the relevant expenditure. Nevertheless, in order to ensure that public money is well spent, the DAB agrees that a means test should be imposed under the new system to avoid giving taxpayers an impression that they are subsidizing high net-worth individuals for no reason, thereby creating new class conflicts.

According to the present design of the LIFA, in addition to the Basic Allowance, a Child Allowance will also be granted according to the applicants' family conditions. Such design will not only alleviate poverty, but will also achieve the effect of preventing inter-generational poverty. Based on the Government's preliminary estimation, poverty rate of children will be reduced by 4.4%. However, in order to provide more effective assistance to poor families, we consider that the authorities should at least lower the requirements of two respects. Firstly, relaxing the application criteria for families with persons with disabilities and chronic illness. Secondly, just as a number of Members have mentioned in their speeches, revising the working hour requirement. There is an interrelated connection between families with persons with disabilities or chronic illness and low household income. Although the Government has put in place a subsidy for carers of persons with disabilities and will introduce the Pilot Scheme on Elderly Carer Living Allowance for Low Income Families, the three allowance systems are different in terms of their forms and target recipients. For example, recipients of the Elderly Carer Living Allowance may not necessarily be a member in the family concerned. Therefore, the DAB considers that additional allowances should be provided for persons with disabilities and chronic illness under the LIFA to allow these families to choose an allowance system that best suits them.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6707

Secondly, regarding the working hour requirement, the present design requires that an applicant should work no less than 208 hours a month, which is obviously too harsh. Under this requirement, an applicant will have to work 52 hours per week or 8.7 hours per day on average for six days a week. On a recent public occasion, Secretary Matthew CHEUNG has cited some 2012 statistics released by the Census and Statistics Department, which showed that only 30% of labour worked 208 hours a month in Hong Kong. This is tantamount to making a forecast that the majority of low-income families in need of help are not entitled to full allowance as a result of the failure to meet the requirement of 208 working hours. Employment of casual workers has now become quite common in the labour market, and many people from grass-roots families work as casual workers or engage in daily-rated jobs, such as working in restaurants, construction sites, and so on. Imposing harsh requirements will discourage members of these families to enter the labour market. To improve the LIFA, the Government may consider lowering the working hour requirement or aggregating the working hours of all family members, so as to provide practical assistance to the actual difficulties encountered by low-income families.

Another breakthrough in social welfare as proposed in this Policy Address is the implementation of the Special Scheme on Privately Owned Sites for Welfare Uses. While this Scheme will have relatively far-reaching effects, it has unfortunately been ignored during the public discussions.

In the past few years, the DAB has been requesting the Government to establish five-year plans for social welfare, especially for elderly and rehabilitation services, with a view to establishing appropriate service targets and setting aside sufficient financial resources. However, the Government has all along turned down our requests. One of the reasons is that, according to the established practice of preparing the Budget, the annual expenditure will be capped and various departments will have to compete for the limited resources. There is no way for any department to earmark expenditures for its five-year plan in advance. Preparing the budgets in this way has resulted in the failure of various departments to make long-term plans.

In his maiden Policy Address delivered last year, the Chief Executive adopted the usual government stance by saying that (I quote) "the Government will adopt a multi-pronged approach to identify suitable sites and facilitate provision of necessary manpower resources in a pragmatic and flexible manner" (end of quote). At that time, I had already pointed out that "if the Government 6708 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 still tries to tackle social problems with this mentality of adopting a flexible approach, only unsatisfactory results will be achieved". The DAB therefore requested the Government to formulate a long-term welfare planning, to be implemented in stages. In respect of residential care services, the Government must formulate a long-term objective and then work out the details. Regular five-year plans in respect of residential and community care services should be drawn up, so that target waiting times can be set for residential care homes for the elderly, residential care homes for persons with disabilities and community care services. As such, plans for resource allocation, staffing support, construction of additional residential care homes, as well as provision of additional elderly services and nursing manpower can be drawn up. To provide the necessary financial resources for the long-term planning for elderly and rehabilitation services, the DAB has further proposed the setting up of a service fund to earmark resources for various medium- to long-term for various residential and community care services.

The Special Scheme on Privately Owned Sites for Welfare Uses has proactively responded to people's aspirations in respect of hardware development. According to this Scheme, the Government will inject $10 billion into the Lotteries Fund, making it $20 billion in total with the $10 billion reserves maintained by the Lotteries Fund, to encourage non-governmental organizations to expand or redevelop welfare facilities on privately owned sites. So far, the Labour and Welfare Bureau has received more than 60 applications. If all the projects are implemented in the scale as proposed by the applicants, it will provide an additional 9 000 places for elderly services and 8 000 places for rehabilitation services.

This special scheme proposed by the Government is tantamount to a dedicated fund, which ensures that sufficient financial resources will be made available for the provision of elderly homes. What is more, new service places can be expeditiously provided without the need to compete with other government departments year after year for the limited financial envelope. However, I consider that there are two problems with this special scheme that should be dealt with immediately. The first problem is about the co-ordination of the redevelopment and expansion of elderly homes among various government departments. Since the alteration works of elderly homes usually involve amendments to the planning permission granted by the Town Planning Board and modifications of the lease conditions of the Lands Department, it may take one to two years at the shortest or three to four years at the longest to complete such LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6709 planning and lands administration procedures. Together with the construction period, new service places will only be provided in four to five years at the earliest. In case of any delay in the planning procedures, we may have to wait for as long as eight to 10 years. We have often seen the Government failing to achieve the targets in its previous attempts to provide new service places. It is the tedious and complicated formalities that have rendered the Government unable to deliver the schemes on schedule. For example, in the 2012-2013 financial year, 165 additional places purchased by the Social Welfare Department (SWD) from nursing homes were unable to commence service. Of the 225 additional places to be provided by day care centres, only half (110 places) can commence service, which is not even half the target. Therefore, the Government must step up its co-ordination and work out a clear timetable to tie in with the Elderly Services Programme Plan prepared by the Elderly Commission, so as to ensure the provision of service places.

The second problem is the need for the Government to identify appropriate sites for the elderly homes or increase service places in various districts. Judging from the current application status, relatively fewer or even no additional service places will be made available in districts facing more serious ageing problem, such as Central and Western District, Wan Chai and Sham Shui Po. Worse still, the special scheme has failed to provide any residential care places for persons with disabilities in certain districts. Thus, the Government should review its plan to construct government institutions to make up for the shortfall in new service places provided by non-governmental organizations, so that the elderly and recovering patients can have more choices and receive the relevant services in their familiar communities.

The Government has already laid down a framework for the general strategies regarding poverty alleviation, care for the elderly and rehabilitation, and they are generally accepted by the community. Proper implementation is therefore pretty important in the future. Here, I would like to reiterate one point, and that is, the Government should extend the service scope of the subsidy for the elderly dental programme under the Community Care Fund and relax its eligibility requirements. At present, the special scheme has very limited beneficiaries and only elderly persons receiving home care services subsidized by the SWD can apply. That means there are only 23 400 beneficiaries, which falls far short of the 100 000-odd demand. Although the Policy Address increases the healthcare voucher amount by $1,000 and expands the scope to include dental services, this cannot fully address the problem. We hope that the Government 6710 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 will consider … I have expressed time and again in different meetings my wish for the Financial Secretary to consider providing the allowance to the needy elderly persons direct so that they can procure the relevant services directly from the market, and will no longer suffer from persistent dental problems as a result of the low participation of dentists in the relevant programme.

We hope that the SAR Government can proactively improve various social welfare policies and establish a comprehensive social protection system so that members of the public will be free from worries.

Thank you, Deputy President.

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, since assuming office, LEUNG Chun-ying has not put on many good shows. He made a good performance at times, but very often, such comedies have turned into farces or even tragedies. When he rolled out the Old Age Living Allowance (OALA) shortly after taking office, we demanded for an exemption of means test, while other pro-establishment political parties requested for the relaxation of income and asset limits. Yet, LEUNG Chun-ying made no compromise.

Now comes the Low-income Working Family Allowance (LIFA). Originally, it should also be a good measure. Yet, it has come under fire from different sectors of the community. I for one advise against putting in place an asset test. In fact, most of the eligible recipients of LIFA do not want to rely on Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA). They want to stand on their own feet and find a job. If they were "lazy bones" who prefer to stay at home and do not go to work, they would have been living on CSSA. However, they have chosen to work instead of going down that path. Different families of course have different reasons to apply for LIFA. The relationship among family members makes it difficult for them to declare assets. As such, they cannot apply for CSSA despite their financial hardship.

Another area under criticism is certainly the two-tier system. A working family member can receive a basic allowance of $600 if his monthly working hours reach 144. To receive a full allowance of $1,000, applicants have to work 208 hours a month. In other words, they have to work over 48 hours a week. This requirement is very harsh. Secretary Matthew CHEUNG would however say, "The requirement is very lax as it only requires a person to work 144 hours a LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6711 month, about 34 hours a week, to receive an allowance of $600. The full amount of $1,000 is only $400 more. That additional amount can actually be regarded as good attendance allowance. We can interpret it as they work so hard that they are awarded $400 more." However, I remember he once indicated at a Panel meeting that he would cancel that good attendance allowance if Members disagreed to it and would standardize the amount of allowance at $600. Then, Members did not have to argue about it anymore. When I heard such remarks at that time, I did not know whether I should burst into anger or laughter. Of course, there were Members who proposed standardizing the amount of allowance at $1,000 for all applicants with a minimum of 144 working hours a month. How should we determine the amount?

At present, the relevant expenditure amounts to $3 billion. In fact, we have found a source of income to cover it, that is, charging an entry tax of HK$100 on visitors arriving by land. That revenue can amount to over $3 billion a year. The Secretary does not have to be so stingy then. The main point is that the Government has always given us an impression that it is very wary of being cheated, no matter it is about poverty alleviation or the Work Incentive Transport Subsidy. It fears of dishing out more than necessary and is thus penny-pinching. We all think that setting the monthly working-hour threshold at 208 hours, or 48 hours a week, is not reasonable. It is because members of these working poor family very often have to take care of children, elders or patients at home, and thus cannot work long hours to earn enough income. As such, the Secretary now proposes giving them a certain amount of allowance. There are also people who actually want to work more but cannot find the job opportunities. Do they have to work several hours at convenience stores during weekends to reach the threshold of working 48 hours?

In fact, we have now reached a consensus. The standard or maximum working hours of 40 to 44 we have been discussing are already a very fair level. In contrast, this threshold set by the Government would give people a wrong perception. Secretary Matthew CHEUNG may however say, "I do not mean that way. The full allowance is actually a hardship allowance we particularly offer to applicants. We do not encourage people to work more than 48 hours a week. As it is so inhumane, we offer them more money." However, it has given an impression to the community that the Government set a threshold of 48 hours which is a reasonable level for people to be entitled to full allowance. If the Government is going to devise a policy to encourage childbirth, this 48-hour threshold will go against such policy. Why are people now not willing to give 6712 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 birth? It is because they have no time. They have no mood when they return home after work. My friends only have mood to think about childbirth on holidays. Besides, people nowadays have long working hours. Even if they have given birth, they have no time to raise the child. This has to do with the population policy or the labour policy.

The two-tier system of LIFA has many loopholes. In order to get the full allowance, some people with income or working hours touching the borderline of the threshold would deliberately choose some low-income jobs, or demand their employers to lower their salaries, or make false report of additional working hours. Seemingly, this is not the intention of the policy.

Also, I would like to discuss the pilot scheme on a carer allowance for the elderly mentioned in paragraph 65 of the Policy Address. This is also a good scheme. However, we consider the pilot period is a bit too long and the scale too small. The scheme only allocates $120 million as allowance for 2 000 eligible carers. Besides, it will only be reviewed after two years. In other words, no new relevant measures will be rolled out within two years. The Government only intends to use $120 million to subsidize 2 000 persons. As such, we hope that the pilot period will be slightly shortened to one year. Of course, it will be ideal if the scheme can be launched immediately without any trial period. That is my suggestion on this measure.

Lastly, I would like to take this opportunity to point out that many welfare and poverty alleviation policies in Hong Kong are household-based. The LIFA is a case in point. It has not taken care of single individuals. Some people may say that this policy encourages Hong Kong people to form families. However, if a person does not form a family, he cannot receive such allowance. Excuse me, there is a group of people in Hong Kong who have no right to form their own families. I am talking about people with different sexual orientations. Take the case of the transgender person "W" as an example. The Government in fact did not want to give her the right to form a family, but was forced to do so as she won her appeal at the Court of Final Appeal last year. Gay and lesbian people still do not know when they can have the right to form their own families. Many gays and lesbians are grassroots rather than middle-class citizens. When it comes to application for public housing, they can only apply for single-person units. Even if they earn a very low income, they cannot apply for the LIFA. Therefore, I hope that the authorities, when rolling out household-based welfare LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6713 measures and allowances, would pay attention to the needs of single individuals, especially those who have no right, not that they do not wish, to form their own families.

As the Secretary is present here, I would also like to take this opportunity to make another suggestion. I hope that he will allocate some resources to provide some welfare services to the gay and lesbian community. I know that some welfare organizations currently rely on private funds to provide such services. They have to find every way to raise funds in order to hire a social worker to provide counselling services for homosexual youngsters, or for those parents who are at a loss after finding that their children are homosexual. We made a proposal to the Social Welfare Department before, hoping that it would allocate funding to these organizations to provide some regular services targeting the gay and lesbian community. However, the Social Welfare Department replied that the existing integrated family service centres can in fact provide such services, and parents suffering from a mental breakdown after finding that their children are homosexual can approach a social worker for counselling service at an integrated family service centre. However, we have to understand that it will be much better if resources are specifically allocated for the gay and lesbian community with services conducted by experienced and specially trained social workers.

I would like to point out that this year's Policy Address has proposed many measures to help ethnic minorities. Ethnic minorities make up 5% of the total population. We have no statistical figures concerning the homosexual population. However, according to the world's standard, it makes up 5% to 10% of the total population. These people are taxpayers and part of the community too. They also need poverty alleviation and welfare services. Therefore, I hope that the Government will, even if it does not want to introduce legislation, provide assistance and allocate some resources for them. Chief Secretary for Administration and the Secretary are both in the Chamber now. I wish that they could hear our voices. What do homosexual organizations depend on to support their operations at present? Secretary Dr KO should know the answer. They are currently depending on some AIDS-related funds for subsidies to support their other services. Lesbians may complain about it. As their sexual behaviours are very safe, the organizations serving them cannot get many subsidies from AIDS-related funds and have to depend on other financial support. In fact, it is not appropriate. As medical is medical and AIDS is AIDS, they should belong to healthcare services. On the other hand, social welfare funding 6714 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 should be allocated for social welfare services, and counselling is one such service. I hope that the Government, when rolling out poverty alleviation and welfare measures, will thoroughly consider the needs of all strata of society, especially the minority communities.

I so submit.

MR CHEUNG KWOK-CHE (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I just heard that the Secretary is sick. He probably worked too hard. I wish him well.

Deputy President, the Chief Executive spent eight of the nine paragraphs in the introduction of the Policy Address to take stock of his political achievements. There are only 54 words illustrating his vision. I can read them out in one breath (I quote): "The current-term Government is committed to promoting economic development, improving people's livelihood, and taking forward constitutional development for more effective governance. We seek change while maintaining stability, adopt an appropriately proactive approach, attach importance to long-term planning and have abandoned the mindset of focusing on short-term needs." (End of quote) What is the focus? He has not explained the relationship between economic development and improvement of people's livelihood. Has the Government reviewed its long-held wrong belief that "if the overall economy fares well, the grassroots will live a better life", that is, the trickle-down theory? Besides, in what ways should it strengthen its governance? Will it continue to practise nepotism? Or will it overhaul the consultation framework so as to genuinely achieve extensive public engagement? As for the claim of "seeking change while maintaining stability, and adopting an appropriately proactive approach", it is just all flash and no substance. As a matter of fact, even a secondary school student would know that a policy address must be led by vision, so that the public can have focused discussions and share the collective wisdom to reach a consensus in the community. As the saying goes, "Without a compass and a set square, it is hard to draw a perfect circle and a square". Without any clear direction and principles, all policy measures would just be piecemeal and fragmentary, failing to see the wood for the trees. This time round, seven Community Care Fund programmes have been incorporated as regular government services for poverty alleviation. While they are good initiatives, they are nonetheless stopgap in nature.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6715

Although this Policy Address claims to center on democracy, it is full of traps. For example, the Policy Address indicates that the Government will review the existing agricultural policy to enhance productivity and promote sustainable development by such ways as introducing modern and environment-friendly agricultural technologies that help conserve our natural resources and the agricultural ecology, so as to supply quality produce to our people and promote the diversified development of the rural areas. The relevant paragraph mentions the "promotion of sustainable development" and the "diversified development of the rural areas". However, how will it preserve farmland and achieve sustainable development? When it comes to agricultural diversification, it actually entails social values. How can the public start discussion? The Policy Address has no mention of it. As such, it is a whole paragraph of mere empty words. The remaining claim of "enhancing productivity" will very likely shift the development focus from "production" to "supply". It means that Hong Kong's agricultural industry will no long focus on production, but will go down the path of providing import and distribution services. Without any need for farming, farmland can no longer exist. The agricultural policy in Hong Kong will eventually serve the sole purpose of profit-making and productivity enhancement. As such, there is no sustainable development in Hong Kong's agricultural industry. The diversified development of the rural areas will be gradually "dried up". As a result, it will not only be the case as described by Mr Franklin LAM that "not every inch of country park land cannot be compromised", but property developers will also be able to utterly seize any land they like.

Unfortunately, this Policy Address is literally fraught with hidden dangers. Profit-making still takes centre stage of the policy direction. The so-called relief measures are merely formulated in a hotchpotch style. It appears to be full of bright points, but they are only short-term cures at best. It will not have any effect on tackling long-term problems. The effort in tackling many pressing issues, such as universal retirement protection, serious inadequacy of nursing homes and community care services for the elderly and the disabled, has made some headway. Yet, it is still very disappointing.

Deputy President, Hong Kong people has been fighting for universal retirement protection for decades. The Chief Executive mentioned retirement protection in his election manifesto, (I quote) "studying the impact of an ageing population on public finance and plan ahead" (End of quote) However, his second policy address still mentions that the Government will strengthen and 6716 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 refine the three pillars of retirement under the current system, namely personal savings, family resources, social security system and the Mandatory Provident Fund (MPF) Scheme. The Government thinks that it has completed its work and everything has been fine after launching the Old Age Living Allowance (OALA) in April to provide an extra layer of protection between the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA) and "fruit grant". As regards the call for universal retirement protection in the community, the Chief Executive rehashes old ideas with a heavy dose of populism, saying that it will add to the burden on public finances in the long term. Riding on people's fear over tax increase, it neglects the grassroots' fear of having to "beg for money once retired" in Hong Kong. Besides, we actually do not have to shake our heads and say "No" whenever tax increase is proposed. As I once explained, a fair taxation system can effectively bring about secondary distribution in society. At present, the profits tax in Hong Kong is levied at a rate of 16.5%. It is an extremely low rate when compared with countries worldwide. Why it cannot be increased by one or two percentage points? Also, can Hong Kong adopt a progressive tax regime? Can those "king wage-earners" earning tens of millions of dollars annually pay more tax? Can there be value-added tax on stock and property speculation? Can we raise the tax on large dividends? Rather than looking into these possibilities, the Chief Executive foreshadows in his Policy Address that the Government will study on introducing a sales tax. He is still targeting the wallets of the grassroots. That is absolutely unfair. In response to the community's strong demand for the establishment of a universal retirement protection system, the Chief Executive plays his trump card again, that is, the setting up of a research committee, to pass the buck to Prof Nelson CHOW.

Deputy Chairman, the population in Hong Kong is increasingly ageing. We actually do not have much time left. The Chief Executive mentions the public disappointment over the MPF Scheme since its implementation 12 years ago. He, in particular, mentions the problems regarding the fees charged by operators. However, experts have already pointed out before that MPF should not be managed by private operators. It should be managed by the Hong Kong Monetary Authority or the Government. The technical issues like fees levels are not the core of the MPF problem. Rather, it lies in the fact that it is absolutely impossible for the grassroots to rely on their rolled-over MPF assets for basic retirement protection. Besides, the MPF Scheme still maintains the mechanism of offsetting severance payments and long service payments with the accrued benefits. No matter what multi-pronged approaches are adopted and how successful the fee reduction effort is, it still cannot resolve the systemic problem. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6717

Obviously, the push for lowering the MPF management fees is just a smoke screen. To put it bluntly, it is an effort to pull the wool over the public's eyes. Deputy President, I am strongly disappointed by the Chief Executive's neglect on the importance of universal retirement protection.

In Hong Kong, the core of the core development in the coming years is certainly the constitutional development. Apart from loyally reiterating that it will conduct universal suffrage in strict accordance with the Basic Law and the relevant interpretations and decisions made by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (NPCSC), the Chief Executive mentioned nothing new in his Policy Address. The Chief Executive devoted only 127 Chinese words and 91 English words on such an important social issue of Hong Kong. I believe it is another world feat. Critics have been very attentive to details, pointing out that the Chief Executive mentioned in greater length on uniformed groups and the Chinese Cuisine Training Institute. One of my colleagues told me his gut feeling that the SAR Government is determined not to have universal suffrage in 2017. "Let us focus our mind on the Occupy Central movement," he said. I hope that his gut feeling is inaccurate. However, when I heard the Chief Executive read out that paragraph, I felt gravely disappointed and was very worried about Hong Kong's future and its constitutional development.

Another issue closely related to the grassroots' livelihood is the labour policy. The Policy Address has no mention of the legislative timetable for introducing standard working hours. Nor is there any mention of the progress of introducing paternity leave and the abolition of the arrangement to offset severance payments and long service payments against MPF benefits. I would like to criticize Mr CHENG Yiu-tong here. As a trade union leader and a member of the pro-establishment camp, he should at least express some disappointments when being asked about the Policy Address's non-handling of the offsetting problem at a media interview. He, however, scarified workers' interests to help the Chief Executive smooth things over by saying that LEUNG Chun-ying only had to set a direction and timetable during his tenure, and the abolition of the offsetting arrangement could be done by the next-term Government. What is wrong with him? Such attitude totally defies workers' demands. I am very disappointed and feel sorry for him. Cancelling the arrangement of offsetting long service payments against MPF benefits was one of proposals made in LEUNG Chun-ying's election manifesto. He pledged to gradually reduce the proportion of employers' MPF contributions to be offset against severance payments and long service payments. However, his two 6718 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 policy addresses have no mention of ways to achieve the pledge. What was most infuriating was that he still played with words, indicating that saying nothing does not mean doing nothing and inaction this year does not mean inaction in the future. As long as this offsetting mechanism exists, workers would find their MPF benefits cut significantly once they leave their positions or retire. That is really a very "deep" cut. We demand the Chief Executive to immediately handle this offsetting problem.

(THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair)

The Government has implemented many measures this year to benefit people's livelihood. Although I have criticized them as piecemeal and fragmentary, they nevertheless can help ease the hardship of the grassroots. For example, the Low-income Working Family Allowance (LIFA) can help the working poor families. The general public I came across responded positively to this measure. I think that the extra allowances under this scheme should not just cover children and youngsters, while ignoring the additional needs of chronic patients. I request the Government to make changes to this arrangement.

President, the amendment I proposed focuses on requesting the Government to pay serious attention to the social welfare development of Hong Kong. I hereby make a solemn clarification in response to the misunderstanding of some people, especially those who blindly believe in the market mechanism while feeling indifferent to the needs of every living human being. I reiterate once again that the social welfare system of a society is a social investment. It is a humane social system which ensures that members of the community who encounter difficulties can weather the storm. It has nothing to do with mercy, alms, or any consideration of a person's contribution. It is because everyone is born equal but with different encounters in life. We feel happy for those who have a smooth sailing in life. As for those who experience "bad luck" in life, we will care about them and are pleased to give them a lift. We will not turn them away and see them die without doing anything. It is driven by a human being's kind-hearted nature and is the starting point of building a caring society. It is also the root cause for human existence in a society.

Unfortunately, the social welfare system in Hong Kong has been "demonized" since the reunification in 1997. It has been described as a burden LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6719 to the community. As social workers all know, the SAR Government has stopped releasing the five-year social welfare plan every year since 1998. Since then, Hong Kong has no social welfare development plan. Two years later in 2000, the then Director of Social Welfare ― the incumbent Chief Secretary Mrs Carrie LAM ― single-handedly rolled out the lump sum grant system, shattering the good foundation of Hong Kong's welfare system which has been built painstakingly for decades. This is my point of view. For a decade or so, the social welfare sector has been requesting the Government to abolish the lump sum grant system, so as to regain its operation and development momentum. Yet, under the completely misplaced curse of "getting killed in a car crash", the social welfare sector in Hong Kong has long been stuck in the doldrums. As a result, the grassroots could not receive timely and proper care in the recent decade amid widening wealth gap, serious unemployment and sprawling social problems.

The social welfare sector has all along opposed to the lump sum grant system. It is because the system seriously affects members of the public in receiving proper and quality services. The so-called upside of the system, that is, letting organizations to have flexibility in their management, has eventually proved to be a weapon for organizations to freely exploit their employees. At present, all welfare services are facing manpower shortage and declining service quality. Those working in this sector have huge working pressure. They have a high turnover rate and it is difficult to retain experienced employees. As a result, it has hindered the passing on of knowledge and skills, dealing a heavy blow to service providers. As the social welfare system is a safety net for the grassroots, it has to be developed healthily. The painful experience in the recent decade tells us that the lump sum grant system is misplaced. The Government has the responsibility to ensure the quality of social welfare services and the adequacy of resources for organizations to provide sustainable services. It should resume the reimbursement mode of operation, achieve "equal pay for equal work" for employees, provide pension benefits, resume a standard staffing establishment for all services, and cancel the time-limited contractual employment.

Also, long-term social welfare planning is important. The social welfare sector has all along made a great effort to fight for it. The last white paper on social welfare in Hong Kong was published 23 years ago in 1991. Over the past 23 years, no planning has been made in this regard. That is far from acceptable. In response to service inadequacies and problems, the Government has just done some minor tinkering by "patching up a bit here and adding up a bit there". As a result, the existing services have become a scattered mess. That has been a 6720 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 thankless effort. Although this Policy Address begins the introduction right away with "attaching importance to long-term planning and having abandoned the mindset of focusing on short-term needs" and indicates that the Government will enhance the Lump Sum Grant Subvention System, experience tells me that the "enhancement" may eventually turn into another blow to the sector. Three years ago, the Government hastily came up with a consultation report on social welfare planning. The sector severely criticized the report and refused to accept it. Since then, the Government has made no further move. I once again urge the Chief Executive to take social welfare planning seriously. The Government must come up with a reasonable solution to address the problems of the sector this year. I request the Government to make long-term and comprehensive planning on social welfare, and to re-publish white papers on social welfare, so as to gear up for the enormous changes in Hong Kong's future demographic structure.

President, the social welfare sector has relayed to the Government for years the serious inadequacy of nursing homes and community care services for the elderly and the disabled, and the increasing waiting time for various services. It has all along requested the Government to allocate more resources on nursing homes and community care services. However, the Government has yet to make a comprehensive planning. Rather, it has blindly believed in the so-called "money follows the user" approach with the use of service vouchers. We know that the pre-primary education vouchers had caused widespread discontent in the education sector. Last year, the Government, once again, bulldozed ahead with the Scheme on Community Care Service Voucher for the Elderly. While this scheme is still on trial and has yet to be reviewed on its effectiveness, the Policy Address rolls out the residential care service vouchers. In fact, I have pointed out time and again that there is currently a lack of comprehensive monitoring on the service quality of private residential care homes. If the Government relies on the private market, it is tantamount to pushing the elderly out to the street and ignoring them. It is absolutely not a solution to meet the elderly's needs for nursing home care. I strongly oppose the Government's direction to fully privatize social services. I request the Government to cancel all sorts of voucher schemes and take charge of the planning, financing and implementation of social services.

President, planning takes time. However, many people waiting for services are leading a hard life. For example, there has long been shortage in all kinds of services for the disabled. The social welfare sector has all along demanded for increasing the number of residential care places for the disabled LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6721 and the quota for day care services, sheltered workshops, day activity centres, among others. Although it has been addressed in this Policy Address, the extent of increase in resource allocation is not clear. As a result, we do not know how far it can relieve the shortage. I will ask for further information from the Secretary in this regard. Besides, we have always said that the existing subsidized child care services are in serious shortage. There are only 676 quota for such subsidized services across the territory to meet the needs of over 100 000 children of appropriate age. The Policy Address mentions extending the service hours of after-school care centres, providing additional fee-waiving and fee reduction quotas, providing additional places for the home-based child care service, and extending the Neighbourhood Support Child Care Project by lifting the age limit of service beneficiaries. It actually shies away from the core problem of inadequacy in child care service quotas and child care centres. It has not addressed head-on the problem of increasing waiting time, nor has it made adjustment to the overly low amount of allowance for home-based child carers. It is a de facto exploitation on the women offering home-based child care services.

The Government finally agrees to introduce a curriculum of "Chinese as a Second Language" in this school year for ethnic minority students to properly learn Chinese. It aroused deep feelings in me when I heard the Chief Executive's measures which can finally achieve what we have fought for years. The past policy which put Hong Kong's ethnic minority students in designated schools clearly has an apartheid effect. It is a direct form of discrimination. As television specials and newspaper features reported before, ethnic minority students have encountered many learning difficulties. The Hong Kong Unison's staff had repeatedly pointed out this problem. Unfortunately, the Executive Director of the Hong Kong Unison could only hear this good news upon leaving office. How many ethnic minority students missed the opportunity for proper growth and development during that period? Although measures have now been put in place, ethnic minority students need more than relief measures. They need a fair treatment in the community, an equal starting line on their growing path, as well as the importance attached to human rights, impartiality and justice by the Government.

President, the Policy Address goes into great lengths to mention many livelihood improvement measures. The Address has been well received by some social workers. However, it does not touch upon issues like the provision of 15-year free education, the expansion of the quota for subsidized places at local 6722 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 universities, the concern over young people's housing needs, the enhancement of dental services for the elderly, the regularization of stationing social work service at primary schools, among others. The Chief Executive mentioned in his election manifesto (I quote) "assessing the impact of lump-sum grant on social welfare service development" (End of quote). Yet, his two policy addresses have no mention of conducting a review in this regard. I have to express my regrets here. As regards the re-launching of social welfare planning as advocated by the sector for years, the Chief Executive mentioned in his election manifesto (I quote) "initiating medium and long-term planning for the development of social welfare services, including laying down specific objectives and targets for the provision of manpower, training and service facilities." (End of quote) However, two years on, the sector still cannot see any progress made by the Government in this regard. Therefore, the sector is very disappointed.

President, lastly, I would like to talk about the scheme launched last Monday concerning privately owned sites for welfare uses. I have to praise the Secretary and the Hong Kong Council of Social Service for their collaboration in putting forward this scheme. Of course, my credit not only goes to the Secretary, but also his other colleagues responsible for planning and land administration. This is a "major surgery" the sector has ever experienced, bringing about as many as 17 000 service places. Although it takes five to 10 years to conduct such a "major surgery", I would like to advise the Government that it should fully grasp this opportunity to really meet our service needs via this scheme.

Therefore, we should have a comprehensive grasp of the inadequate quotas for elderly and disabled services in various districts, and negotiate with voluntary organizations to see if the 60 land sites' development can address the different needs of districts. That is very important. Instead of organizations taking the initiative to voice out their needs, the Government should take part in the process and seek to meet service needs. Also, as some colleagues mentioned just now, this scheme does not cover all the 18 districts. Some regions are not covered by it. Therefore, the Government, when introducing subsidized services, should identify sites in these regions to make up for the voids. Otherwise, there may have many voids left to be filled when development projects are completed, wasting our effort to conduct this "major surgery".

I have very high expectation on the Government in this regard. President, I so submit.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6723

DR LEUNG KA-LAU (in Cantonese): President, there are 10 chapters in the Policy Address this year and if the chapters on "Introduction" and "Conclusion" are excluded, there are only eight. The fact that Chapter VII is devoted to healthcare indicates that it is an important area. However, there are only seven paragraphs in that chapter. The contents are nothing more than the initiatives which have been introduced, such as the proposed hospital in the Kai Tak Development; minor works projects for which the funding proposal of $13 billion has been approved by the Finance Committee; the Health Protection Scheme which has been studied for years; mental health services, as well as proposals for which no specific details have been given. It seems that the only bright spot is the increase in the value of elderly health care vouchers to $2,000 which is mentioned in the Chapter on "Poverty Alleviation, Care for the Elderly and Support for the Disadvantaged".

As we can see, healthcare is not important enough to get more attention from the Chief Executive. The fundamental reason is that healthcare is usually not the main focus in any policy address. Chief Secretary for Administration, she has left the Chamber now. It does not matter. I wish she could hear what I am going to say because I will be speaking on population policy.

Population policy is a hot topic which involves many controversial issues such as the daily quota of the One-Way Permit Scheme, population ageing, manpower shortage and importation of labour. In discussing the topic of population policy, we have to talk about the issue of healthcare manpower in public hospitals. Many people will take this opportunity to advocate the importation of overseas graduates. I had communicated with some public officers earlier, at first, I was not very worried, but later I found that the Chief Secretary ― she has left the Chamber but that is alright ― had made some comments on the importation of overseas doctors at the Forum on Population Policy held by the Hong Kong Coalition of Professional Services on 6 January. She said that only 112 overseas doctors met the eligibility requirements to practise in Hong Kong over the past few years. As many job vacancies were available in the Hospital Authority (HA), she queried why the medical profession would not adopt a more open and lenient approach in allowing medical graduates in Europe or the United States to come to Hong Kong to practice? Strangely, the Chief Secretary also pointed out in her speech that under CEPA, opportunities were provided for people of Hong Kong to practise in the Mainland. So, is our manpower adequate or inadequate? How come overseas doctors would come to 6724 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 practise in Hong Kong while Hong Kong doctors would go to practise in the Mainland?

I thought I had clearly explained the problems of public healthcare services in Hong Kong in the past, but now I do not mind taking the trouble to discuss them again on this occasion. First of all, regarding the importation of overseas medical graduates, I think we should adopt similar arrangements as that adopted by other industries and trades. If there is really a manpower shortage problem and sufficient manpower cannot be recruited by offering a reasonable salary in the market, then importation of labour is required. However, consideration should be based on data and logic, and not on what people say. I have heard the remark of "many people said" made by the Chief Secretary. That is actually a terrible thing to say. Does the Chief Secretary mean that a lie repeated a thousand times will become the truth?

Speaking of data, I can put forward my set of data while others can put forward theirs, and I have noticed they have. While we have to take data into account, we have to consider how the data should be analysed and chosen as well.

Let me give an example. Former Member of the Executive Council Mr Franklin LAM said that according to his calculations, 40% of our doctors would retire in the next 20 years. As there would be a huge demand for doctors, we should substantially increase the supply of doctors. May I ask Members what they think of the statement that 40% of our doctors will retire in the next 20 years?

For those who have a clear mind such as the President who studied Mathematics, they would be able to understand better. Let us assume that a doctor works from the age of 25 to 65 and has a working life of 40 years. If the age distribution of doctors is even, 2.5% of all doctors will retire each year. According to such a normal distribution, 50% of all doctors will retire in 20 years and the said 40% will be an underestimation. Therefore, the anticipated percentage of retirees is not a problem. It is only a natural phenomenon in all occupations. If 40% of doctors are really retiring, the percentage of younger doctors will constitute 60%. Therefore, after 20 years, even without implementing any initiative, the number of doctors will increase by 50% due to natural growth. Therefore, what Mr LAM said is just nonsense.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6725

In addition, some people use the doctor to population ratio to assess whether the number of doctors in Hong Kong is adequate. For example, the ratio in the United States is 1:400 while that in Hong Kong is about 1:700. However, I would point out that the circumstances in every country vary. The population is generally more scattered in overseas countries and they would need more doctors because some people live in rather remote areas. Even in the not so remote towns which have a small population, they also need a certain number of doctors because the population distribution is scattered. Therefore, there will be a greater number of doctors.

Furthermore, the ratio of resources allocated for public healthcare to GDP in many European countries and the United States is twice that of Hong Kong. If the Hong Kong Government can promise to increase the percentage of funding in public healthcare from the current 3% to 5% or 6%, there would be no problem in increasing the number of doctors by 50% because the Government has promised to employ them.

Let me give an example which relates to dentists. As we are very dissatisfied with the public dental services provided in Hong Kong, my suggestion is that the Hong Kong Government should set a target in increasing the ratio of funding allocated for public dental services to that of public healthcare services. I think the current funding allocated for public dental services is less than $1 billion. Suppose the funding for the general public healthcare services is $50 billion, the funding allocated for public dental services represents only about 2%. That is a very small percentage when compared to the figures in Europe and the United States. The ratio of funding allocated for public dental services to that of public healthcare services can be increased to 4%. In response to this suggestion, the Government will probably say that it is useless to increase funding because the problem lies with manpower shortage. However, as an adage goes, "Before the marching of the armed forces, food and fodder should go first". What does it mean? If funding is increased, the situation will not worsen even though dentists have not been recruited, will it? It is preferable to increase the funding first so that we can start training the talents and utilize them in due course. However, if the approach is reversed and "The armed forces start marching before food and fodder arrive", it will be a disaster because people will be starved to death. Therefore, "Before the marching of the armed forces, food and fodder should go first". The Government should first commit to increasing the funding. The number of dentists can be increased gradually as the need arises and manpower shortage will be resolved eventually.

6726 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014

The argument applies to the situation of doctors. If the Government promises to increase the ratio of public healthcare funding to 5% or 6% of the GDP, it is alright to increase the number of doctors. My biggest worry is that soon after the number of doctors has been increased ― the Financial Secretary has warned us that the fiscal reserve will be depleted one day and tax has to be increased then. When a large number of medical students will graduate in eight or nine years, we may no longer have any money to employ them. As I have said repeatedly, the shortage of doctors may be attributed to the management problem of the HA. Why do people think that there is a shortage of doctors? The reason is that patients have to wait a long time to receive medical services provided by the HA. However, if we take a closer look, the long waiting time of patients does not exist in each hospital cluster. Take orthopaedics as an example; the Secretary is an orthopaedic surgeon. The waiting time for obtaining orthopaedic services in the Kowloon East Cluster is 107 weeks, but it is only 15 weeks in the Hong Kong West Cluster. The length of the former is six or seven times the latter. Why is there such a big difference? The reason is that Hong Kong West has more funding than Kowloon East, it has $8 million-plus per 1 000 people while Kowloon East only has $4 million per 1 000 people. The staffing establishment of Hong Kong West is also doubled that of Kowloon East.

Although the Government has provided additional funding to the HA over the years, Kowloon East only takes up 10% in terms of distribution while for Hong Kong West … I forget the percentage, but it is far higher and almost twice as much as Kowloon East. No matter how much the Financial Secretary has increased the funding provision, the HA still has not changed the ratio of distribution, and the problem of manpower shortage has still existed. In fact, there was a substantial increase in the number of staff, but the additional staff members have not been deployed to departments with manpower shortage problem. Therefore, the problem of manpower shortage will persist forever and the waiting time will remain long. To resolve the problems of long waiting time and manpower shortage, reference can be drawn from the wisdom of 3 000 years ago in that "Inequality is worse than deficiency". Therefore, the first step that should be taken is to allocate resources equitably.

Apart from allocation of resources, another crucial factor is to establish a mechanism of "more work, more pay". Over the last month or so, many people suffered from influenza and they went to the accident and emergency (A&E) departments to seek treatment. As a result, the waiting time at A&E LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6727 departments has been lengthened and non-urgent patients have to wait six to seven hours to receive medical consultation. How should the problem be resolved? The Government's proposals of importing labour and increasing the number of medial graduates can only solve the problem after a long time. Instead, I now put forward a proposal. At present, medical personnel working in the A&E departments work 44 hours a week. If overtime pay is offered to them for working four more hours, manpower will be increased by 10% and non-urgent patients can be attended to without having to wait six to seven hours. Why do the authorities not take any action? Actually, actions have been taken, but are the measure taken by the HA appropriate? The HA has employed part-time doctors at a salary rate of only 70% of full-time doctors, but they have to work 44 hours a week (including on-call hours) just like full-time doctors of A&E departments. Since these part-time doctors receive a salary at 70% of the normal rate, it goes against the laws of the market. How then can the HA recruit the staff required?

After all, why has the HA taken such measure? My conspiracy theory is: The HA does not have any incentive to reduce the waiting time. Since the current waiting time is long, Members will strive to convince the Financial Secretary to give additional resources, funding and manpower to the HA. If the waiting time is long, it will be justified to demand for additional resources. If the problem of waiting time is resolved, no additional resources will be given. Why will the HA have any incentive to reduce the waiting time? Furthermore, the HA often claims that it has manpower shortage problem. If this reason is accepted by everyone, it indicates that the HA has made no mistakes and neither has the Secretary. Even if there are any mistakes, they were committed by the Government of the last term because the problem of manpower shortage cannot be resolved immediately. In that case, the Secretary and the HA do not have to do anything.

Therefore, if Members truly hope that the HA can improve the healthcare services, I would ask them not to talk about manpower shortage for the time being. Instead, they can help by asking the HA to employ more part-time doctors at a reasonable hourly rate comparable to that of full-time doctors.

The two points mentioned by Mr Albert HO just now are the shortage of senior doctors on night shifts and the development of primary healthcare. These two points are actually related to establishing a mechanism in which a reasonable hourly rate is offered and the principle of "more work, more pay" is followed. 6728 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014

What are the reasons for that? If senior doctors are asked to return to the hospital at night to handle certain emergency cases or serious cases ― perhaps I should not use serious cases as examples as senior doctors will not be so mean and they surely return to the hospital. However, for cases which are not very complicated, perhaps senior doctors may not return to the hospital as they will not get any additional pay. If a mechanism in which the principle of "more work, more pay" is established, I believe these doctors will be more willing to return to the hospital during unsocial hours to teach the less experienced doctors how to handle emergency cases.

I have also discussed with friends in the business sector about the manpower arrangements to be made to meet the fluctuating demand for services with uncertain resources available. For example, during the current influenza pandemic when the utilization rate of the HA hospitals reaches 110%, what arrangement should be made to make the best use of resources? At present, the strategy employed by the HA is to employ more people. Let us consider, if more staff members are employed to meet the demand arising from a utilization rate of 110%, what arrangements should be made for these people when the utilization rate drops to 75% after the pandemic? Should they continue to get paid? If a business is faced with seasonal fluctuations in demand, it will adopt the flexible and direct approach of giving overtime pay to its staff members, or recruiting part-time or out-sourced workers. That will be a more flexible approach.

If the mechanism of "more work, more pay" has the many advantages which I have mentioned, why is the Government unwilling to introduce it? Two months ago, I expressed my views at the Congress of the Hong Kong Academy of Medicine. Dr Margaret CHAN FUNG Fu-chun was also present and she was one of the speakers. She said she objected to the approach of "more work, more pay" for doctors because if such an approach was adopted, doctors would work very hard, leading to an increase in the demand for services. In other words, unnecessary demand would be generated. Since she was the speaker on stage and I was a member of the audience, I could not speak then. But at that point, I considered that she was making conflicting statements. On the one hand, she said that the demand for services was great and there was a shortage in manpower. On the other hand, in response to my proposal of establishing a "more work, more pay" mechanism to enable doctors to do more work, she said that more demand would be created. Is the big demand for services the reason or the result?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6729

Furthermore, some people have pointed out that the Government does not want to establish a "more work, more pay" mechanism because some staff members are working overtime without payment at present. If such a mechanism is established, the Government will have to pay for the additional expenditures. Last year, I asked the Secretary whether the Government was prepared to pay. He said that if additional expenditures were incurred, the salaries of the incumbent staff members had to be reduced first. A "more work, more pay" mechanism can only be introduced after a reduction in the salaries of the incumbent staff members. That was what he said. After hearing that, I suggested the Secretary to calculate how much additional expenditure would be involved because we could not be sure whether the Chief Executive would be willing to pay. It seems to me that the Chief Executive had once asked how much money would be involved, so I suggested the Secretary to do the calculations first. At that time, I actually asked the Chief Executive of the HA to do the calculations. When he remained silent, the Secretary said this could not be done because in doing so, it would mean that the Government was willing to make a commitment. I considered it unreasonable for the Government to make such comment. I was only asking the Secretary to do the calculations and I did not request for a commitment. All I wanted to know was how much money would be involved and whether the Government could afford, but he was not even willing to do the calculations.

I have stated my points of argument and all the figures quoted are open to the public. Very often, after I have spoken to the reporters, they would remain silent. Reporters are good in critical thinking and they cannot find anything unreasonable in my argument. It was not that they could not understand what I said, because I was speaking slowly within the time frame of nearly 30 minutes.

For some unknown reasons, some people would begin to smear the medical sector when they cannot get what they want in a discussion based on figures and logical reasoning. I argue that calculations have to be done and if there are good reasons to import labour, we should follow the arrangements in the other sectors. When people cannot win over me in an argument, they resort to smearing. As I am a doctor too, they would label me as a protectionist indiscriminately. For example, they would say that as 85% of the members of the Medical Council of Hong Kong (MCHK) are doctors, they will put up strong resistance to any kind of reform. I have to stress that half of the members of the MCHK are actually appointed by the Government. The Government has considerable influence over the MCHK and members who are elected to the MCHK … Talking about 6730 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 elections, you know that with direct elections, even a very imposing person may not necessarily win out. Therefore, frankly speaking, it is hard for elected members of the MCHK to perform their functions and persuade the MCHK not to pay heed to the Government. The Government has a strong influence over the MCHK.

Some people say that although the HA is facing manpower shortage, it fails to recruit overseas doctors because of objections from doctors. This explanation is a bit misleading. It is true that the Hong Kong Medical Association objects to recruiting overseas doctors with limited registration to fill the vacancies arising from the so-called manpower shortage, such objections are ineffective. Once the HA receives an application and considers the applicant suitable, it will submit the application to the MCHK for approval. As far as I know, all applications submitted to the MCHK have been approved with only one exception. That has been the established practice for the last two years. According to the figures I have in hand, only 16 doctors have been employed by this approach. Given that there are 5 000-plus doctors in the HA, the approach only has a limited effect. As such, the approach is not feasible.

In addition, the Chief Secretary said earlier that there are 310 vacancies of doctors in the HA. However, after browsing through the webpage of the HA and the advertisements, I cannot find the advertisements of the 310 vacancies. The HA is now recruiting about 10 people and the vacancies are not found in the clusters of the New Territories East Cluster and the Kowloon East Cluster which, according to our understanding, have the biggest problem of manpower shortage. Given such poor management on the part of the HA, I think it has not fulfilled the conditions for importing labour.

Some people may ask what harm will there be to have a great number of doctors? Are there any problems with it? It does no harm to have an excessive supply of doctors. The truth is, given that training resources are limited, if there are too many doctors, the standard will deteriorate. If we insist on having 420 medical graduates each year, we will see very young doctors with limited experience in the public hospitals all the time. Even in the private sector, if there are too many doctors … I for one will be twiddling my thumbs. The time for real work will be greatly reduced, and so is the chance for handling serious cases. While I will become more unfamiliar with my work, patients have to share higher operating costs of the clinics. If there are many service providers in LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6731 the private sector who do not have enough business, patients will have to pay a larger share of the operating costs.

Furthermore, if there are too many doctors, a considerable amount of provider-led demand, that is, unnecessary service, will be created. According to overseas experience and backed by statistics, the greater the number of doctors in a place, the higher the overall medical expenditure. A few years ago, the Panel on Health Services of the Legislative Council went to Japan for a duty visit. One of the findings of the visit was that while Japan had a serious problem of population ageing, it had limited the number of medical graduates. In this Policy Address, there is an example of provider-led demand, namely colorectal cancer screening, that is, conducting fecal occult blood tests. Members may query why I say that may be a provider-led demand. It is true that overseas experience shows that colorectal cancer screening can reduce the morbidity rate and death rate of colorectal cancer. However, the figures do not show that colorectal cancer screening can reduce the overall death rate. In other words, if people do not die of colorectal cancer, they may die of many other illnesses.

Is colorectal cancer screening useful then? I have to declare interests first. I am a colorectal surgeon. With screening, the rate of death caused by colorectal cancer will be reduced by 15%, but people who have been screened may suffer from other problems. If we are to conduct such screening, there must be sufficient resources in our public health system. Since screening is population based and will be conducted for all, it will be conducted by public healthcare institutions. Hence, resources in the public health system must be sufficient. However, what is the current situation in Hong Kong? A patient suffering from hematochezia has to wait six months to get a colonoscopy examination. What are we going to do with patients who are found to be suffering from hematochezia after screening but have no symptoms otherwise? They may have fecal occult blood after eating steaks. The cost for conducting a colonoscopy examination in a public hospital is $10,000-plus which is not cheap. How are we going to make the arrangements in future?

In the remaining three minutes, I would like to talk about the issue of establishing a Chinese medicine hospital again. My friends in the Chinese medicine sector hope that such a hospital will be publicly run and will provide Chinese medical services only. Why? The reason is that they are afraid of doctors of Western medicine. Why would they like the hospital to be run publicly? The reason is that a Chinese medicine hospital will not be able to 6732 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 make any profit and it will probably incur losses. The Government will certainly not want to commit in anything which will incur losses. So, what idea does it have in mind? It can establish a hospital which provides both Chinese and Western medical services. Will it be "crying up wine but selling vinegar" then? Just like the Chinese medicine hospitals in the Mainland, more than 80% provide Western medical services and only about 10% provide Chinese medical services. The Government has also indicated that it would let a non-profit-making body operate the hospital. But, if the Chinese medicine hospital is to provide Western medical services, why does the Government have to let a non-profit-making body operate it? Running a hospital of Western medicine is a profitable business. The Government has let non-profit-making bodies run hospitals in the past and each and every one of them makes profits. I may as well name those hospitals. They include the Hong Kong Baptist Hospital and St Teresa's Hospital. Although the boards of directors of these hospitals do not get the profits, they can transfer the profits to related institutions such as churches. Why does the Government have to let non-profit-making bodies run the hospital?

Over the past thousands of years, Chinese medical services have not been provided by hospitals. They have been provided by clinics instead. In terms of the mode of operation, should Chinese medical services be provided centrally by a hospital in Tseung Kwan O or across the 18 districts with two or three additional Chinese medicine clinics in each district? In terms of the development of Chinese medicine, do we really think that the problem can be resolved by establishing a Chinese medicine hospital? Development of Chinese medicine has to be supported by scientific research as well. Will the scientific research project be a success and does it need any subsidies from the public coffers? Let me give an example. If a scientific research project results in the development of a Chinese medicine which can treat cancers, it may even get a Nobel Prize. If an international pharmaceutical firm develops a medicine which is really effective, that medicine alone can bring in profits amounting to several billion US dollars a year. Should the Government put more resources in formal scientific research?

Furthermore, to my regret, sometimes when I suggest my friends in the Chinese medicine sector that the efficacy of Chinese medicine should be proven with the help of modern medical sciences such as molecular physics or statistics, they would give me a very interesting response. They said that the practice of Chinese medicine is individualistic and it differs with every practitioner. If that LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6733 is the case, it will be awful. Even if there is a superb Chinese medical practitioner who can work miracles, he is all alone. As the skills and knowledge cannot be passed on, it will be hard to foster them.

I have used up 30 minutes in delivering this speech alone. President, I so submit.

MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): President, speaking of healthcare, I must point out that the New Territories West (NTW) has over the years been ignored and unfairly treated by the Government. Hence, the healthcare services enjoyed by residents in NTW have been inferior to those in other districts over the territory for years, and consequently threatening their health and life.

President, let us look at some basic figures. In terms of financial resources, the healthcare expenditure for NTW in the financial year of 2012-2013 amounted to $5.1 billion, yet it was $5.4 billion for Kowloon East and $8.9 billion for Kowloon West, whereas the population of NTW is at least 30% or 40% more than those of these two districts. In terms of per capita, the expenditure for NTW is nearly half of that for other districts, in particular those highly-subsidized districts. Therefore, this imbalance reflects the district hegemony and healthcare hegemony of hospital clusters under the Hospital Authority (HA), and NTW has been victimized.

As for actual services, based on the figures per 1 000 people, there are only two beds in NTW as compared to an average of 2.9 beds in hospitals under the HA; for the number of doctors, it is 0.6 in NTW as compared to the average of 0.7 in all districts; for the rate of professional healthcare staff, it is 0.7 in NTW as compared to an average of 0.9 in all districts; for the occupancy rate of general beds, ultimately NTW ranks first, accounting for 94%, whereas it is 84% in other districts. The high occupancy rate means high usage and low vacancy rate, implying an increasing workload for healthcare staff. This also proves that the overall facilities in NTW are inferior to those in other districts. Therefore, the Government should learn from bitter experiences and rectify the mistakes made in the past, so as to do justice to NTW.

Certainly, I absolutely understand that the relevant figures will improve with the construction of Tung Chung Hospital and later Tin Shui Wai Hospital, as well as the extension and improvement of Pok Oi Hospital. I hope that with the 6734 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 earlier allocation of $10 billion to the HA for maintenance and reconstruction projects in the coming 10 years, the Government can truly and fully improve and even redevelop Tuen Mun Hospital, so as to do justice to residents of NTW.

In addition, President, I would like to talk about the issue of animal rights. Apart from Hong Kong people being disrupted by visitors under the Individual Visit Scheme such that they can no longer enjoy good food and have a place to stay, animals in Hong Kong are also pitiful as they cannot lead a peaceful life. The Government had just culled 20 000 chickens this year, and are Members aware that the Hong Kong Government killed 5 000 to 6 000 dogs each year? Not only does the Government fail to grant Hong Kong people human rights, but it also shows no mercy to dogs by killing 5 000 to 6 000 dogs a year, right? The Chief Secretary should also pay attention to this. I believe that if we record the number of dogs killed by the Hong Kong Government over all these years, it certainly can be listed in the Guinness World Records and be ranked the top in the world. If the number of chickens culled is also included, the figure will be even more alarming.

In this connection, the Government should seriously consider an animal policy and a mode to handle animals. One of the areas that should be improved is our legislation. The legislation in Hong Kong is modelled on the 1911 Animal Act in the United Kingdom, and no significant amendments have been made over the years. However, in countries such as the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan, and so on, major amendments have been made over the last decade. It has also been stipulated how dog or cat owners should take care of their animals in accordance with the established criteria and methods. If these owners fail to comply with the relevant criteria, they will be liable to criminal prosecution. However, there is no such provision in Hong Kong, and unless a case of animal abuse similar to the case in the Shun Tin Estate has been established, there is no way to initiate prosecution against dog or cat owners for abusing animals. Even if animal police are established, the Government still lags far behind other advanced societies in safeguarding the rights and interests of dogs and cats due to our outdated legislation. If Hong Kong claims to be a cosmopolitan city, I would like to tell the Directors of Bureaux and the Secretaries of Departments that Hong Kong definitely remains at the stage of an uncivilized society in this regard, therefore improvement is necessary.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6735

With regard to the issue of residential care homes for the elderly, the Secretary should understand the problem and I also hope that the Chief Secretary can grasp the relevant figures. In Hong Kong, the numbers of elders who died each year while waiting for residential care homes or nursing homes have constantly been on the increase over the years. In 2008, 2 500 elders died while waiting for residential care homes; in 2012, the number reached 3 184. As for the number of elders who died while waiting for nursery homes, it was 1 800 in 2008 and 1 973 in 2012.

While the Government has all along said that it will enhance the service of residential care homes for the elderly, the numbers of elders who died while waiting for residential care homes or nursing homes are on the increase. This proves that the service provided by the Government is seriously inadequate, resulting in many elders who passed away before they could receive the service. This indicates that the Government is cold-blooded, heartless, and derelict in its duty. The Secretary should bow three times in apology, and he should feel ashamed when facing the deceased elders.

Over the years we have been asking the Government to convert vacant school premises into residential care homes for the elderly. I have asked Secretary Prof Matthew CHEUNG for years, and he said that he would try hard to find appropriate vacant school premises. Over the years, though there are many vacant school premises in various districts, nothing has been done to convert them into residential care homes or nursing homes for the elderly. This reflects how cold-blooded and unscrupulous our Government is. The bureaucracy of the Government prevails over human nature and humanity, thereby it should be condemned. In fact, the relevant work can be carried out rapidly. The Government can offer land concessions and give priority in granting approval for constructing residential care homes or nursing homes for the elderly people on agricultural land. In terms of land policy and various policies, assistance can in fact be provided to the elderly, but the Government remains indifferent to many proposals.

In addition, with regard to the issue of cigarettes, let me reiterate to the Government not to practise class discrimination with regard to the policies of alcohol and tobacco. According to studies conducted by various countries and regions, the impact produced by drinking, including health, safety and reduced productivity, is far more significant than smoking. Therefore, do not talk to me about health problems. So long as health problems are concerned, duties on 6736 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 alcohol and tobacco should be treated the same, and both should be subject to an increase in duties. Currently red wine is duty-free because Henry TANG loved drinking red wine, but as this Chief Secretary had stepped down, the Government should do justice to the public now. If the Government intends to increase duty on cigarettes, please re-introduce the duty on red wine as well, for alcohol and tobacco should be treated the same. If we simply increase duty on cigarettes while red wine remains duty-free, this is class discrimination, a continuation of the inhuman policy practiced over the years, that is, "the rich can drink cheap wine while the poor have to smoke expensive cigarettes". I must express strong opposition to such class discrimination.

Just now I suggest smokers to Occupy Central. There are hundreds of thousands of smokers in Hong Kong, and if the Government dares to increase duty on cigarettes, I will call on smokers to go to the Central District to launch the Occupy Central movement on 1 July. They should have a "cigarette-shaped biscuit" in their mouth instead of smoking real cigarettes. Let us see if the Government dares to increase the duty. If smokers do not display their political power, the Government will simply ignore them. Therefore, I hope that Secretary Dr KO Wing-man, who has just returned to the Chamber, would listen to me, and do not implement the policy of class discrimination in respect of the duties of alcohol and tobacco. The harm of alcohol is absolutely more severe than cigarettes; therefore do not impose different treatment simply because senior government officers, tycoons, the rich and the powerful enjoy drinking. Now senior officials of the Communist Party can no longer drink Maotai, but of course they can also drink other kinds of alcohol. The issues of alcohol and tobacco should be treated the same.

President, earlier I did not have time to discuss the housing issue, and I will say a few words here. Planning is essential for housing supply, and the mode of new town development adopted in the past 20 or 30 years is a success. "689" and "Sub-divided units Paul"1 intend to change this mode after taking office, but have ultimately led to public uproar. After learning from bitter experiences, they readopt the mode of new town development, which is a rational approach. However, the Government still refuses to recover the military sites now occupied by the People's Liberation Army (PLA), and refuses to resume the sites belonging to the rich and the powerful. I must reprimand the Government for that. The

1 The nickname of Secretary Paul CHAN for operating "sub-divided units" in the past. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6737

PLA is currently occupying 2 700 hectares of our land. In the past, the British troops were thousands of miles away from the United Kingdom, it was therefore reasonable for them to conduct military drills in Hong Kong. Now the great and sacred Motherland is just across the border, why does the PLA need to conduct military drills in Hong Kong? They even occupy 2 700 hectares of land! This is an evil colonial legacy. The occupation of 2 700 hectares of land by the military force is a tragic and disgraceful history induced by hegemony. The PLA has no reason to perpetuate with this history, right? They should abandon the gun practice zone and return the land to Hong Kong people for housing development. If the Government continues to refuse to do so, it must be condemned.

Furthermore, with regard to the development of Lantau Island, recently some ignorant people have talked nonsense and proposed to set up a community for 400 000 people. Lantau Island is the district with the worst air quality over the territory. For many years in the past, warnings for poor air quality have taken up more than 10 days each year, meaning that people with respiratory problems, elderly people, pregnant women or children are not suitable for strenuous outdoor activities. This is a warning issued by the Environmental Protection Department, and the number of days with such warning is on the increase over the years, indicating that the air pollution problem is worsening. This is a problem involving geographical environment, as the air, mixing together with the exhaust gas emitted from aircraft, is trapped in Tung Chung, with Sunset Peak on one side and Lantau Peak on the other side. I have repeatedly pointed out the serious effect of aircraft emissions. The exhaust gas generated by a 747 jet during take-off is equivalent to the exhaust gas produced by 5 000 running lorries. Thus, the source of air pollution in Tung Chung does not only originate from residents and vehicles, aircraft pollution is also extremely serious. These problems will only continue to worsen if we fail to rectify them.

President, one last point that I would like to point out is related to the housing for the deceased. I have officially submitted our views to the Government, hoping that Secretary Dr KO Wing-man will study them carefully. Why is there a serious lack of housing for the deceased in Hong Kong? The answer is lack of planning. The Government stipulates that libraries, schools and swimming pools must be constructed in proportion to the size of population, so that basic public facilities are available in every district. We suggest that the Government should establish a columbarium for every 100 000 people. In terms of planning, the Planning Department should make relevant planning 6738 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 arrangements in terms of land use in every district, such that disputes will not arise whenever proposal to build housing for the deceased is raised. While housing for the living is inadequate, the problem is even more serious in the case of housing for the deceased. One small niche of one foot by one foot costs $200 000, which is ridiculously high. Niches that are positioned more than 10 feet high and can hardly be seen cost $80 000, while those located in remote districts cost $50 000 to $70 000. Many people die without burial places and need to wait for the Government's columbaria. In that case, the waiting will be indefinite. To improve the problem of housing for the deceased, we must start with planning. This is precisely the significance of planning, and this is knowledge, which is different from the planning made by "689", a surveyor Chief Executive who knows nothing about surveying, or by "Sub-divided units Paul" who is ignorant about planning yet he is in charge of land planning in Hong Kong. This is a disaster for Hong Kong.

Therefore, due to the air pollution problem, if we continue to develop Lantau Island, it is tantamount to sending people to Lantau Island to die. As for the issue of housing for the deceased, I hope the Secretary can force the Government to formulate planning guidelines. In fact the Hong Kong Government has established planning guidelines. According to the urban planning guidelines, a swimming pool and a library must be set up for every 100 000 people. If planning provisions of housing for the deceased are added to these guidelines, I believe the issue of housing for the deceased will be improved in future.

MR STEVEN HO (in Cantonese): President, when I spoke at the second session earlier, I called on the Government to strike a balance among the development of various industries and trades, and also to co-ordinate various government departments to help revive the local agriculture and fisheries industries. Now I would like to speak on behalf of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB) on the policies concerning the agriculture and fisheries industries, food safety and environmental hygiene which are closely related to people's livelihood.

First of all, I would like to talk about the agriculture and fisheries industries. The policy addresses in the past two years proposed the establishment of a Sustainable Fisheries Development Fund and recommended that the fisheries industries should move towards high-tech, diversified and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6739 sustainable development. What compared with the past policy of regulation without support measures, some progress has been made. Many people would ask why we need to develop the agriculture and fisheries industries, as the Mainland supplies so many food products to us. As the saying goes, "Although the country is stable, it is precarious if people forget about the war." If the agriculture industry in the Mainland has gone bankrupt, we can only rely on other places outside China to supply food for us. Will the agriculture industry in the Mainland go bankrupt? There is such a possibility. In the Mainland, every year the first document issued is about the policies on agriculture, rural areas and farmers. There are hundreds of millions of farmers and migrant workers in China and migrant workers may not engage in agricultural work. In China, the traditional agriculture industry lags far behind countries such as the United States and United Kingdom where one person can carry out farming work in dozens or even hundreds acres of farmland with the help of machine, but that is not the case in China. With so many mouths to feed, there is always the possibility that a food crisis may arise.

Therefore, it is inevitable that we must reasonably develop our own agriculture and fisheries industries, safeguard the safety and prices of our food and satisfy the local people's demand for fresh and quality foods. The development of the agriculture and fisheries industries can tie in with other industries such as tourism, education and environmental protection. Hence, I hope that the Government will formulate an integrated strategy for developing the agriculture and fisheries industries, and fully co-operate and communicate with the Mainland authorities, so as to properly implement the proposals that I will put forward later on and attain a good development in the agricultural economy.

The crux of the problem with agriculture lies in land. Most of the farmlands are not in the hands of farmers but are owned privately, mainly by property developers. I do not understand why property developers have to own so many farmlands but that is a well-known fact. Secretary, if you were a farmer and you only had a one-year tenancy contract for your farmland, would your invest in high-tech development in your farm? I believe the answer is very obvious. To go high-tech, one may have to invest millions of dollars but can the investment be paid back in merely a year? It cannot. Therefore, many people are forced to give up on industries that require a long payback period and so our agriculture industry still remains in a traditional form without bright spots or high productivity. Besides, the Government is now determined to develop new areas in Northeast New Territories, South Yuen Long and Hung Shui Kiu. And, as 6740 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 mentioned above, many farmlands are in the hands of property developers, people can hardly find a small plot of land to farm, just like in the old days when lands were annexed by strong powers. In those days, a war could topple the old dynasty and farmlands would be redistributed to the people. But in the civilized modern world today, it is unlikely that a war would break out and I do not see that the Government has formulated any civilized measures or policies to solve this problem. I am not inciting anyone to start a war. We also understand that there is a great demand for housing sites but is it true that there is no land available for agricultural development? We do not wish to compete for housing sites, but there are some existing restored landfills such as Pillar Point that are basically idle with no development purpose. As long as the topsoil remains intact and environmental standards are met, the restored landfill can be developed into an integrated agricultural village that I have always proposed. An agricultural village can have a demonstrative effect, it can tie in with the development of environmental protection and education, and become an agricultural and fisheries research centre which the Chief Executive has repeatedly mentioned in his manifesto but has yet to set up.

Moreover, the Government can also set up priority zones for agriculture in other districts, such as the farmlands in South Kwu Tung. Of course, if an agricultural village can be established there, it is greatly welcomed.

I would like to talk about another topic. President, I recall that at the Question and Answer Session on his first Policy Address, the Chief Executive commended the fishermen and farmers for doing a good job in developing leisure agriculture and fishery trades. But regrettably, these might not be the true picture. The truth is fishermen and farmers have done a good job but the results have not come by easily. The current outdated legislation still constrains the development of these industries. Take leisure farms as an example. With their wisdom and perseverance, the fishermen and farmers are able to maintain the operation of these leisure farms. However, they have fought tooth and nail in the face of many obstacles. Why? That is because under the regulation of land use, their lands cannot be used for other purposes other than farming and theoretically, they are not allowed to charge any fees for visits to their farms. However, it is perfectly legal for operators of similar facilities in places in the neighbourhood of Hong Kong to charge fees. Taiwan formulated the Supplementary Management Practices on Leisure Agriculture in the 1990s. In accordance with the Practices, leisure farms are allowed to set aside a certain portion of their land for the operation of hostels, catering businesses, processing LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6741 facilities, exhibition centres of the culture of agricultural villages and education centres. Such facilities not only generate income for the farms but also achieve a diversification of services. Being regulated by express legislation, the result is definitely different.

Concerning the processing facilities, let me cite an example. In France, vineyards can make wine after harvesting their grapes and one bottle of such wine can fetch a few thousand or even several ten thousand dollars in Hong Kong. Is this a very good idea for promoting our economy? The Government should learn from others' experience. I do not mean copying the same ideas from others, but we should learn to give full play to our own edges and formulate a policy on leisure agriculture and fisheries industries, further improve the development of fish rafts for recreational purpose and use fishing boats to run sightseeing service. Besides boosting the economic development, this can also provide another good tourism attraction for local and foreign tourists and resolve some conflicts in society today. Why does the Government not take advantage of it?

The lack of technology and talents are two essential problems faced by the agriculture and fisheries industries in Hong Kong. The lack of technology makes it difficult for these industries to boost their production value and tackle the challenges posed by the diminishing supply of land and fish farms. We cannot say that Hong Kong lacks advanced technology. For example, the Vegetable Marketing Organization has introduced the hydroponics and aquaculture in factory buildings earlier. However, these technologies are not popular. Also, the operation in factory buildings is restricted by the tenancy contract. It is extremely difficult to introduce the secondary and tertiary industries into the primary industry. There are, of course, other new problems too.

Earlier, we talked to a friend who runs a farm using hydroponics in a factory building. He told me that insurance is a big problem as the insurance sector regards them as engaging in traditional agriculture when calculating the premium. The premium for workers compensation insurance alone is 10 times of that for office workers in the factory building. Therefore, apart from promoting the technology, the Government should also have better co-ordination with all industries involved, so as to help those who are committed to develop this industry to resolve these problems.

6742 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014

Concerning the training of talents, I hope that the Government can provide assistance. For example, it can improve the agriculture and fisheries training programmes and provide more programmes on advanced agriculture and fisheries technologies, so as to improve the operation mode of the industries and widen the horizon of industry players, as well as change the people's perception about these traditional industries.

In respect of the enhancement of the communication between the agriculture and fisheries industries of the Mainland and Hong Kong, we know that Hong Kong's capture fishery has a very close relation with the Mainland. After the implementation of the trawl ban, many trawler fishermen have changed their profession or retire. For those who do not prepare to go into another profession or retire, they have to permanently fish in South China Sea, facing the many risks of operation in the open sea. The problem is, after the implementation of the trawl ban and the introduction of a registration system for local fishing vessels to restrict the operation of the fishery industry, the Government of the last term had not communicated properly with the Mainland authorities, resulting in conflicting policies in two places. Local fishermen who comply with the local policies are unable to meet the requirements of the Mainland, and thus they are caught in the middle and the situation is a big mess. I fully appreciate the pains of the incumbent Government in dealing with the awful mess left behind by the Government of the last term but the messy situation still has to be cleared. We suggest that the Government reflect the situation to the Central People's Government and re-establish the Hong Kong and Macao Floating Fishermen's Business Co-ordination Group to address the conflicts arising from the trawl ban and other Mainland policies, especially the "double control policy".

Regarding the supply of powdered formula, before the Lunar New Year, people are usually busy with their New Year shopping but parents of infants have one more long-standing task, which is to scramble for the powdered formula. Even after the implementation of the "powdered formula restriction order" in March last year, the stress test conducted by a consultant commissioned by the committee to examine measures for improving supply chain management of powdered formula established in July found that powdered formula was still in acutely short supply in Hong Kong, and there was a constant shortage of individual popular brands or there is a shortage in certain districts. Earlier, the Consumer Council conducted a survey on the supply and prices of powdered formulas and found that apart from the long-standing short supply of certain LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6743 brands, the shortage problem has spread along the East Rail Line to the urban areas. Moreover, there is a serious problem of powdered formula prices being raised. Some drug stores charge 30% higher than the suggested retail prices. The situation is quite appalling. Of course, we could respond in a passive way by raising the suggested price by 30% but we do not wish to see that happen.

Other than breast milk, the powdered formula is the only food that infants feed on and the Government is duty bound to ensure a sufficient and stable supply in Hong Kong. The DAB has always supported the implementation of the "powdered formula restriction order". We think that the recent shortfall of powdered formulas is due to the accumulated effect of long-term failure of market adjustment. Since the Government's implementation of the "powdered formula restriction order" and repeated urges that drug stores not to raise the prices have proven ineffective, it seems that to effect a permanent cure, the only way is to perfect the powdered formula coupon scheme and thoroughly reform the supply chain of powdered formula. We consider that the Government needs to step up the publicity on the powdered formula coupon scheme, increase the number of retail outlets that participate in the scheme and also ensure that parents who have pre-ordered powdered formulas can get the products within a reasonable period of time. The Government should also require suppliers to increase the amount of delivery and stockpile of formulas, improve the stock replenishment and allocation system so as to ensure a sufficient and stable supply of powdered formulas in the market. As regards the problem of price raising, the Government should require suppliers to step up the investigation and penalize the retailers who have raised prices, so as to curb such malpractice and make the public feel at ease.

The first month of the lunar calendar is not yet over, but many food establishments and shops have started to charge higher prices. Comparatively speaking, as stalls in public markets run by the Government have benefited from the policies of rent freeze and concessionary rents over the years, stall hawkers can still sell goods at a more affordable price, featuring small profits but quick return. The grassroots and the general public like to patronize such stalls for fresh foods and daily necessities. While thousands of small business operators earn their living from these stalls, such stalls also stalls provide many job opportunities for the grassroots. However, the operation environment of these stall owners have become increasingly difficult in recent years owing to rising operating costs and increasing competition from major chain stores. Moreover, in many districts, the authorities require stall owners to retrofit their stalls or 6744 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 move to other places on account of fire safety, which brings further adverse impacts on their operation. We hope that the Government can ensure that public markets and stalls therein can have sufficient competitiveness. The authorities should engage in better communication with stall owners with regard to rent adjustment and relocation of fixed hawking stalls, so as to avoid further deterioration of their business environment owing to the change of policy.

In respect of the avian flu, normally people would wrap up their work a couple of days before the Lunar New Year Eve, but at this New Year Eve, I did not wrap up my work but had to start working. Normally, I have a hair-cut before the first day of the Lunar New Year every year but this year I have not yet done so because of a very frustrating incident. Live chickens imported from the Mainland were tested positive with the H7 avian flu. Because of that, the Government suspended the operation of the Cheung Sha Wan Temporary Wholesale Poultry Market (temporary poultry market) for 21 days, which dealt a heavy blow to local chicken farmers and all industries involving in the sale of live chicken. Even more unfortunate is that the Chief Executive has openly called upon all people to consider whether the tradition of eating fresh chickens should be maintained in the long run, which is undoubtedly another blow to all those industries involved in the sale of live chicken. Apart from the suspension of the sale of live chicken for 21 days, they also have to face the possibility of losing their means of livelihood in future. Being victimized in this incident, they have been trampled on again for no reason. I believe that people in general would find it hard to accept the handling of the Government in this incident.

We are all aware that eating fresh chickens is a tradition of the Chinese people and the taste of frozen or chilled chickens is no match to that of fresh chickens. Had the Government, especially the Government of the last term, taken on board the views of the industry and separated the supply chain of live chickens imported from the Mainland from that of local chickens, Hong Kong would not have to suspend the sale of live chicken for 21 days. Therefore, the Government has to seriously consider how to help the industries. First of all, the Government must provide reasonable compensation and ex-gratia financial assistance to these industries expeditiously. Next, it must set up a temporary storage area for the live chickens imported from the Mainland and before the results of the rapid test and serological test conducted at Man Kam To are clear, the chickens should not be transported to the temporary poultry market. Of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6745 course, if the Government has other ways to achieve the same goal, the industries are willing to listen.

Moreover, when Cheung Sha Wan Temporary Wholesale Poultry Market resumes business, we hope that the Government will give priority to the sale of local live chickens, or find other means to dispose half a million live chickens of the right age being stuck in farms. If the Government does not suspend the import of live chickens from the Mainland, it will take five or six months to clear the existing stock of half a million live chickens in local farms, which is a very serious problem. A few days later the market will resume business, I expect that the Government will continue to review and study the industries' aspirations mentioned by me just now. If the proper way to separate the live chickens from the two places cannot be found before the re-opening of the market, or if the way identified cannot be implemented yet, the authorities should suspend the import of live chickens from the Mainland. Otherwise, I have to warn the Government that if it continues with this approach and once again incurs losses to the industries and the people of Hong Kong, it must bear all the consequences.

All in all, the Chief Executive promised in his manifesto that he would encourage and support the local agriculture and fisheries industries to move towards high-tech, diversified and sustainable development; he also said that he would review the integrated social values of the agriculture and fisheries industries, promote and support the agricultural and fishing activities in Hong Kong. I whole heartedly wish that the SAR Government will keep its promise, care more about the industries and pay closer attention to the problems presently faced by them, liaise more with the industry players, conduct more inspections and look squarely at the proposals put forward and difficulties experienced by the agriculture and fisheries industries in Hong Kong, so that the industries can shine, have a bright future and contribute to society.

President, I so submit.

MS CLAUDIA MO: President, ethnic minority issues ― very few people care. But at least this year, finally, finally, the Policy Address, according to CY LEUNG, actually decided to teach Chinese properly to our minority young. Oh, thank God. Some people would take it as the end of the story, saying, "Ha ha, they are doing it." But please, please help make sure it is not going to become any little white elephant project, and would not be hampered by any bureaucracy 6746 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 at the Education Bureau. You know, we know, what is happening behind the scenes and please do teach our minority young to use Cantonese ― Cantonese, the real local language ― instead of Mandarin, please. Thank you. And, of course, if they want to learn some Mandarin, there is no harm. But the teaching language must be Cantonese.

And, animal rights ― another area even fewer people care. I am glad that Dr KO is here. Now, the amended legislation, which you are going to present to the Legislative Council on controlling, supposedly, private breeders of dogs as a start, is not going to work. May I once again warn against that. It is not going to work. The amendments are supposed to regulate, to supervise, to control puppy mills. But the way you are issuing different sorts, or categories of licences will actually encourage private retail breeders living on the 18th or 10th floor to do whatever they want to do basically. You will be legalizing what is not supposed to be legalized, and even criminal retail breeders. And, I am speaking on behalf of a number of local non-governmental animal rights organizations, including Animal Earth and non-profit veterinarians.

Thank you.

MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): President, first of all, I would like to discuss poverty alleviation.

The Chief Executive explicitly discussed poverty alleviation in paragraphs 46 and 47 of the Policy Address. In particular, he stated in paragraph 47 that "Last September, the Government set the first-ever official poverty line". This is the first-ever attempt. What is the purpose of the poverty line? It "provides a clear and objective basis to review the poverty situation, formulate policies and assess the effectiveness of measures".

For the general public, setting the poverty line is a policy for poor people and families living below the poverty line so that they will no longer be poor. However, the Chief Executive and the Chief Secretary for Administration have indicated on different occasions that the poverty line is different from the poverty alleviation line, and setting the poverty line merely provides information about who these poor people are. I am sorry. The saying that the Government set the poverty not for alleviating poverty is contradictory to the Government's argument in paragraph 46 of the Policy Address.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6747

For this reason, there are problems with the assistance provided to low-income workers. Even if the Government introduces a Low-income Working Family Allowance (LIFA), that is still not enough to lift low-income families out of poverty. Based on government figures, there are 141 000 non-Comprehensive Social Security Allowance (non-CSSA) working poor households. These families should be eligible for a monthly allowance of $1,000 under the LIFA scheme; and families with eligible children and young members will receive additional allowance.

The problem is that, even if these low-income working families are given a monthly allowance of $1,000, they will not be lifted out of poverty simply because of the additional amount of $1,000. The incomes of some families are more than $1,000 below the poverty line. For example, a family whose income is $2,000 below the poverty line will still be living below the poverty line even if it is given a monthly allowance of $1,000. In other words, the Government has the strength to alleviate poverty but it does not have a heart to do so. Although it has adequate financial resources, it does not have a powerful will to lift these non-CSSA poor working families out of poverty. I am sorry to say that they are still poor even after they are given a monthly allowance under the LIFA scheme. Under the LIFA scheme, 38 000 families will be lifted above the poverty line but 92 400 families will still be living below the poverty line. The LIFA can only help 2.1% low-income working families reach or go beyond the poverty line.

For low-income working families with children and young members, the LIFA can help 4.4% of them go beyond the poverty line but 15.5% of them still live below the poverty line. When the poverty line fails to alleviate poverty, its shortcoming and demerits will be highlighted, that is, the Government has the strength to alleviate poverty but it does not have a heart to do so.

President, to solve this problem, I believe the poverty line should be the target for poverty alleviation. Although it is still unknown if this is a feasible policy, the authorities must assist families living below the poverty line on various policy fronts, so as to help them get rid of poverty. One feasible approach is to provide an additional allowance to families living below the poverty line in addition to the basic LIFA of $1,000, so as to make up the income differences. These low-income people who have never thought of living on CSSA and they really want to be self-reliant. We should really and truly help them get out of poverty.

6748 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014

The second question is: why the Government has only selectively provided additional assistance to low-income families with children and young members? According to information provided by the Commission on Poverty, in addition to low-income families with children and young members, families in need include families with elderly members, families with people with disabilities, as well as families with chronically ill members. They are not on CSSA and family members are willing to earn for their living, but they still live in poverty. These three types of families actually need our help.

Why does the Government particularly wish to help children and young members? Is it because we should provide development opportunities to these young people? Is it because they are the future pillars of our society? All factors of consideration are related to the interest involved. Why does the Government not help the elderly? Have the elderly not contributed to society when they were young? Who have contributed to building up Hong Kong of today? Who have contributed to building up the current social and economic situations? It is the elderly members of society who have made such contribution. I am sorry to say that they are dying, but should we just disregard them? Chief Secretary, such a comparison really makes us feel very sad.

Why does the Government not help people with disabilities? According to the authorities, it is because these people already have received Disability Allowance or Old Age Allowance. Can these allowances be regarded as incomes? If the total family income including these allowances is above the poverty line, they will not be given additional allowance, but if the total family income including these allowances is still below the poverty line, why are the authorities still reluctant to give them additional help? That is why while people support the proposed LIFA, they feel sad. I hope the Chief Secretary would address this problem and make some improvements. Thank you.

DR ELIZABETH QUAT (in Cantonese): President, this year's Policy Address once again devotes some space on women's development, indicating that the Government is sincere in promoting women's welfare, right and benefits. We greatly welcome this act.

I hope that the Government will pay special attention to child care services, which are the pressing demands for many women in Hong Kong. President, for many women who cannot afford to be full-time mothers due to financial LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6749 difficulties, they can only choose not to have children if no one is available to take care of their children. This is also one of the causes of the ageing population in Hong Kong. Government statistics always show that there are vacancies in child care centres in the community but mothers in many districts are unable to find suitable service in this respect. This mismatch shows that the Government must make the service available at more convenient locations and at more flexible hours in order to help parent solve the child care problem. The most convenient service is after-school care services provided in schools so that working parents need not worry about picking up their children after school and then sending them to tutorial schools or child care centres while they are still working. Therefore, we hope that the after-school care services will be introduced in all districts as soon as possible.

In respect of extending the Neighbourhood Support Child Care Project to cover children under the age of nine and increasing the number of home-based child carers, I would like to remind the Government that to attain better results, it has to raise the incentive payment for home-based child carers to a reasonable level of not lower than the minimum wage. As such, more experienced women can be attracted to participate in this service to provide more alternatives and more reliable services for parents.

Besides, the DAB suggests that the Government should consider providing nursery care subsidy of $600 per child a month to eligible middle-class and low-income families with children aged three or below. We also propose that the Government should allocate funds to establish a child growth savings fund for newborn babies, so as to accumulate assets for the next generation through prudent investment. We hope that the Government will accept our proposals and genuinely reduce parents' burden of caring for their children.

President, a woman's health is also one of the keys to maintaining the happiness of the family. Regrettably, this year's Policy Address has not taken on board our proposals in this respect, which include setting up a databank for hereditary and rare diseases, subsidizing the safer T21 non-invasive prenatal DNA testing service, free breast cancer screening for women, free cervical cancer vaccination for women of the relevant age cohort and free cervical screening services on a regular basis for women, and so on. We will continue to urge the Government to attach importance to women's needs and health, and strive for the better protection of their health.

6750 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014

Finally, I wish to strongly request the Government again to expeditiously carry out the Phase II extension works of the Prince of Wales Hospital, so as to improve the healthcare quality in New Territories East to protect the health of the people.

President, I so submit.

MR VINCENT FANG (in Cantonese): President, the Policy Address has devoted considerable space to introducing the Chief Executive's measures with respect to poverty alleviation, elderly care, support for the disadvantaged, social welfare, and so on. We are in support of all these policies concerning the people's livelihood. However, regarding the healthcare issue which is similarly concerned with people's livelihood, the Policy Address apparently has devoted little space to it.

It may be argued that this is not the case. The Chief Executive introduces a number of measures, including the construction of an acute general hospital in the Kai Tak Development and a Chinese medicine hospital, the funding of colorectal cancer screening, and so on. However, if we take a closer look, a strategic study on the acute general hospital is being conducted; preparatory work for a pilot scheme of the colorectal cancer screening has just launched this year; merely a site is earmarked for the Chinese medicine hospital and it remains too early to say whether this initiative will be an empty talk like the Chinese medicine port or whether it will truly be implemented.

Supposedly, the Policy Address should tell people the policy direction of the head of government, yet I fail to see the Chief Executive's vision for healthcare services in Hong Kong. The problem of ageing population is increasingly serious in Hong Kong, which is a well-known fact. The present public healthcare system is faced with problems of shortage of doctors and overloading capacity. How can the future healthcare system cope with the increasing demand due to ageing population? The Policy Address simply makes no response to the issue.

In terms of GDP, the proportion of the Government's input in the healthcare sector has always been lower than other advanced economies. We have all along asked the Government to gradually increase the public healthcare expenditure in view of the considerable fiscal surplus each year. The LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6751

Government of the last two terms had allocated additional resources, but what is the healthcare policy of the current-term Government? What are the roles of the public and the private healthcare sectors and how is the division of labour between them? How do we resolve the problem of insufficient doctors in the public healthcare sector? How do we deal with the issue of scrambling for manpower and resources induced by the development of the healthcare industry? I totally fail to see any solutions, and I look forward to the announcement of the budget.

For the rest of time, I will speak on policies concerning the food industry and trading on behalf of Mr Tommy CHEUNG from my Party who is out of town.

Last year, the Government standardized the charges for municipal facilities and services in the urban area and the New Territories, including various types of food business licence fees, and adopted the lower charges. This should be a benevolent measure, but this year the Government indicated that it has initiated a review on the principles and levels of charges for such facilities and services, hence people are worried that the authorities will take this opportunity to increase charges. I hope that the authorities can, in reviewing the charges, consider the increasingly difficult business environment of small and medium enterprises (SMEs). Any increase in charges will only add extra burden on them.

In fact, SMEs have to face increasing operation pressure in recent years due to the implementation of successive new regulations. For instance, we have received a number of complaints about liquor licence application in recent years, claiming that the Liquor Licensing Board has substantially tightened the liquor licensing conditions. When some pubs which have been operating for years apply for renewal of the liquor licence, their applications are rejected due to the objection of a small number of people. The Liberal Party always considers that a healthy economy should not solely rely on large consortia, the finance and estate industries, instead it needs to have diversified development and create favourable business environment for operators of small business, so as to maintain sustainable and healthy economic growth, as well as provide more opportunities for upward mobility.

Therefore, we would like to remind the Government that it should not merely focus on monitoring and smothering the survival of industries. Neither 6752 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 should it undermine Hong Kong's economy and business environment for the sake of fulfilling the election pledges. Both the legislation on standard working hours and the abolishment of the offsetting mechanism under the Mandatory Provident Fund Scheme will produce a significant impact on SMEs. Many Honourable colleagues demand the Chief Executive to fulfil his election pledges, and in fact the Chief Executive has also promised in his manifesto, (and I quote) "a business impact assessment on SMEs and small merchants should be performed before the establishment of new regulations" (End of quote). The Liberal Party urges the Chief Executive to bear this pledge in mind.

Given that the Government has allocated $500 million to set up a Sustainable Fisheries Development Fund to help individual industries, it should proactively consider how to support other industries and trades, in particular those which can revitalize the local economy and create more local job opportunities, such as the construction of shopping malls and markets exclusively for SMEs, so as to counteract the monopoly of The Link REIT and large chain stores. We earnestly hope that the current-term Government can govern with new ideas. It should not be overcautious and flinch from moving forward for fear of being accused of colluding with the business sector. The administration of any government requires mutual co-operation between the Government, the business sector and members of the public.

I so submit. Thank you, President.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): President, as far as healthcare services are concerned, I think this year's Policy Address fails to make the grade. Why do I say so? As you can see, the Policy Address devotes as few as seven paragraphs on healthcare services. As many policies are dead in the water, we reckon that the Government does not want to make any big move on the healthcare front, in order to avoid further stirring up defiance and anger among the public. However, members of the public, especially the middle-class families, rely heavily on healthcare services, among others. This year's Policy Address is special in the sense that the Government takes particular care of the grassroots while caring less or ignoring the large swathe of middle-class people. Apart from education and housing, healthcare services are most concerned by the middle class. They are particularly disappointed in this respect.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6753

The Policy Address does mention some trivial developments. However, we eye on the big direction. The new Kai Tak hospital proposal appears to be able to address Queen Elizabeth Hospital's desperate need for redevelopment. However, that new hospital, if really constructed, can reportedly provide 1 600 patient beds only. That is even fewer than the existing number of patient beds in Queen Elizabeth Hospital.

Long ago in the 1980s ― I believe Secretary Dr KO would also remember that ― Dr Harry FANG of the then Medical Development Advisory Committee proposed a performance indicator of having 4.2 patient beds approximately for every 1 000 people. However, to date, the number of patient beds has decreased rather than increased. At present, the ratio of patient beds to the overall population is 3.78 beds for every 1 000 people. While the elderly population has continued to surge, the number of patient beds has not increased proportionally. There has even been a serious shortage of patient beds. Why do I say so? It is because of the different usage rates of hospital beds between people aged over and below 65. The hospital usage rate of people aged over 65 is four times that of those aged below 65. As for specialist accident and emergency services, their usage rate is even eight times that of people aged below 65.

If we analyse these figures in the context of future population ― our elderly population will reach 19% in 2021, 26% in 2031, and 30% in 2041 ― in accordance with the existing hospital beds-to-population ratio, we expect there will have a shortage of 1 040 patient beds in 2021, 2 927 patient beds in 2031, and 4 092 patient beds in 2041. What worries us most is that there will actually be a shortage of 6 686 patient beds in 2021, and over 20 000 patient beds in 2041, if we take into account the growth of our elderly population. The aforesaid figures come from documents previously submitted by the Government. However, the Government has not given us any explanation to date.

I just heard many Members, including directly elected Members and Mr Vincent FANG from the business sector, say that the Government's healthcare policy lacks a direction. That is what we are most worried about. In the run-up to the Lunar New Year, the Hospital Authority (HA) published the report of its well-known surgical outcomes monitoring programme. What astonishes us most is that Tuen Mun Hospital has been rated the worst performer for five years in a row. Its performance has stayed the same over the past five years. At the previous meeting of the Legislative Council Panel on Health Services, front-line doctors of Tuen Mun Hospital and one of its veteran doctors working there for 6754 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 over 16 years were invited to express their views. Simply put, they were worried about both scarcity and unequal distribution under the existing system. In fact, that is not something new. It had been expressed a decade ago at the Legislative Council Panel on Health Services. A decade later, and after conducting the outcomes monitoring for five years, why do all those regrettable situations still exist now? Nowadays, apart from the Government, we see that the most glaring ills lie in the HA's fiefdom. The HA is marred with fiefs of hospitals as well as departments. Many department heads are even like "all-powerful king". Why has our healthcare organization gotten itself into this situation? Secretary Dr KO and I both witnessed the era of the Medical and Health Department. We would not make any complaints when asked to serve other hospitals. If other hospitals have such needs, we were pleased to lend a helping hand. However, the teeming fiefs and their silo mentality nowadays have done a disservice not only to healthcare staff, but also to the isolated and helpless patients.

As we also know, the Secretary has appointed a committee to review the structure. Frankly speaking, I do not hold much hope on this committee after reading its membership list and having realized the experience of the HA's newly appointed Chairman. In order to accomplish this task, we have to make big move and conduct a "major surgery" to cure the disease at its root. As I recently learnt from a director of the HA overseeing safety, all Chief Executives are fair, they meet each month to discuss resource allocation, and no one has expressed any problems. Having heard that, I really cannot believe there is such an arrangement on earth. If there is a meeting of seven people, they would all indicate hungry even only three of them are starving. When the person-in-charge asked who are hungry, all of them would say that they are hungry. As a result, the person-in-charge would request them to maintain the status quo. That is the exactly why no changes have been made for years.

The Government has completely ignored the needs of those not mentioned today in the Legislative Council, that is, the disadvantaged and the patient groups including psychiatric patients, persons with learning difficulties and the mentally retarded. The Government thinks that by appointing a review committee on the management of mental patients, all problems can be tackled. Sorry, I beg to differ. Secretary CHOW set up this committee seven years ago and he had served as its member for as long as seven years. However, we still have not seen any significant improvement.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6755

President, medical and healthcare services are important social services that we are most concerned about. The Government has also pledged to offer such services. However, to be honest, this Policy Address has not provided us with any direction. Nor has it made concrete pledges or given us a glimmer of hope. We very much hope that the Government will think long and hard and reflect on its act when it comes up with the Budget or other policies. We should move forward and maintain an acceptable level of healthcare services which we were once proud of.

I so submit. Thank you, President.

MISS ALICE MAK (in Cantonese): President, I would like to talk about two issues today. The first is concerning wet markets. When Mr Steven HO talked about the problem of live chickens just now, I heard him mention that Hong Kong's live chickens had to be slaughtered before the Lunar New Year. It was, to a great extent, owing to the fact that the previous Secretary had not heeded the opinions made by members of the public and the industry. In fact, wet markets have also encountered the same situation.

In response to a report published by the Audit Commission in 2009, the previous Secretary indicated that wet markets' rental revenues were not desirable. They had low occupancy rates and mismanagement problem. As such, the Government decided not to build wet market anymore. At present, new towns such as Tin Shui Wai, Tung Chung and Tseung Kwan O have no wet market operated by the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD). What problems will it cause? Residents of these new towns have no choice in terms of grocery shopping.

As we all know, Hong Kong has experienced dramatic changes in its social and economic landscape since 2009. The public's demand for inexpensive goods has been on the rise. With the absence of wet markets operated by the FEHD, residents can only go grocery shopping at wet markets managed by The Link. Among the needs for food, housing, transport and clothing, many housewives would find the need for food unavoidable. They can give up buying beautiful clothing and travelling on foot instead of by car. However, they cannot live without food.

6756 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014

Let me cite a simple example. A catty of choi sum cost over HK$30 in Tin Shui Wai before the Lunar New Year. It is totally normal for a family of four to consume a catty of choi sum in a meal. However, for those families who live below the poverty line as defined by the Secretary, consuming a catty of choi sum every meal will take up a very large proportion of their household expenditure.

Therefore, to alleviate poverty, the Government should not just treat it as a social welfare policy. It should take into consideration all aspects of people's lives. Therefore, if the Government can build wet markets to be operated by the FEHD and, in particular, proactively consider building large-scale wet markets in the future new development regions, residents will have more choices when they go grocery shopping and thereby greatly improve the livelihood of the grassroots.

In addition, I would like to talk about healthcare vouchers. Since its introduction in 2009, its value has been increased time and again. The Policy Address this year further proposes to increase the value to $2,000. The Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions (FTU) strongly welcomes this move. We also think that the Government's move can make a signification contribution to the welfare of the elderly.

However, I would like to point out that there is still much room for improvement in the healthcare voucher programme. Apart from increasing its value, the Government can consider making improvement in several areas. The first area is the age limit. As far as age is concerned, it comes under the purview of not only Secretary Dr KO, but also Secretary Matthew CHEUNG. I remember telling the Secretary before that the existing welfare benefits for the elderly are grouped by classes and ages. Some benefits are for people aged 60 or above who are deemed as the elderly. For example, the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA) beneficiaries are eligible for dental subsidy ― they can receive financial assistance for dental treatment ― if they reach the age of 60. People reaching the age of 65 can apply for the Senior Citizen Card, receive the Old Age Living Allowance (OALA) or "fruit grant". However, only those who reach the age of 70 can apply for healthcare vouchers. Apart from requesting that the eligible age for healthcare vouchers be lowered to 65, we also hope that the Chief Secretary and Directors of Bureaux will study afresh the appropriate eligible age for receiving elderly benefits. Different benefits should not have different age requirements. Should we group the elderly into different LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6757 classes, such as the age groups of 60 to 64, 65 to 69 and 70 or above? Should we classify our senior citizens in such way?

According to the FTU's estimation, if we lower the eligible age for healthcare vouchers to 65, the increased number of eligible persons will cost an additional spending of just $400-odd million, assuming 70% of the eligible population use the vouchers. Under the current financial situation, the Government can absolutely afford this amount of spending. Therefore, I hope that the Secretary will go along with public opinion and consider lowering the eligible age for healthcare vouchers to 65.

Another problem is the operation of the healthcare voucher programme. Why does the usage rate of elderly healthcare vouchers fail to reach 100%? For one thing, many senior citizens now still do not clearly know how to use healthcare vouchers. I am not ashamed to tell you that my father asked me how to use the vouchers last month. I found that my father had never used the vouchers before. Therefore, I had to explain it to him. It turns out that there was also something wrong with the promotion of healthcare vouchers. For another, some districts, especially Tin Shui Wai, do not have many private doctors providing services there. Therefore, it is very difficult for the elderly living in Tin Shui Wai to find a doctor who has joined the healthcare voucher programme. As a result, the participation rate of the elderly is not high. As such, we very much hope that the Government will consider streamlining the overall operation of the healthcare voucher programme and its relevant procedures.

This Policy Address also touches on many retirement issues. Among which, it mentions that the Government will consider purchasing residential care places from an elderly home run by a Hong Kong non-governmental organization (NGO) in Shenzhen, and consider the feasibility of extending the OALA to Guangdong. We strongly welcome these initiatives, as welfare portability can help the elderly tackle their ageing problems. However, we hope that the Secretary will also consider allowing portability of healthcare vouchers, so that the elderly can use the vouchers on the Mainland. According to the survey conducted by the FTU Mainland Consultation Services Centre, the biggest problem encountered by senior citizens retiring on the Mainland is healthcare services. We understand that it may involve some technical problems for healthcare vouchers to be portable and used on the Mainland. However, we 6758 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 believe that these problems can be resolved if the Government has confidence and determination in this endeavour.

In addition, I have to talk about dental care. The FTU has all along requested the Government to introduce elderly dental care vouchers. This Policy Address includes the initiative of raising the value of healthcare vouchers to $2,000, so that the elderly can use the vouchers to see a dentist. Yet, the existing fees charged for private dental services are very expensive. I wonder if the increased amount of $1,000 is enough to pay for examining a molar tooth or an incisor tooth. Besides, it probably cannot bring across the message of dental care and protection to the elderly if the Government just increases the value of healthcare vouchers. Therefore, the FTU demands for the setting up of a special fund to introduce a dental care voucher programme, so as to allow senior citizens aged over 65 to use the vouchers for private dental services. The Government has repeatedly indicated that it will study expanding the subsidy coverage of the project on outreach primary dental care services for the elderly and the Community Care Fund's elderly dental services. However, it still cannot brush aside the need to introduce elderly dental care vouchers, as the public dental services in Hong Kong are extremely backward.

I would also like to briefly talk about the previous policy address's initiative of granting $100 million for each district to carry out local public works projects. The Kwai Tsing District Council submitted a proposal to the Legislative Council in January and got the green light to use half of the $100 million grant to subsidize the elderly living in Kwai Tsing for dental treatment. The eligible age is set at 60 or above. What I want to say is that the Government surely can afford to subsidize the elderly for dental treatment. A district council can reach this goal with merely tens of millions of dollars. Why does the Government lack the determination and effort to expand the coverage of dental services to all senior citizens across the territory? As the fees of local dental services are very expensive, dental care vouchers in fact can benefit not only the grassroots, but also the elderly of different strata (including the middle class). I hope that the Secretary and Chief Secretary for Administration will take into account every detailed aspect of the elderly's livelihood and think of ways to resolve the difficulties they encounter in their lives. That way, members of the public will be satisfied with the performance of the Government.

President, I so submit.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6759

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): In this year's Policy Address, the Chief Executive has indeed devoted more space to livelihood issues. When he was running in the Chief Executive election, he posed as one who cared for the grassroots and for that, he had gained extensive support from Hong Kong people during the election campaign. Therefore, we have a rather high expectation of the Chief Executive's administration, hoping that he can set the wrong right and rectify as early as possible the wealth disparity or serious poverty problem in Hong Kong over the years. Subsequently, the Chief Executive has established the Commission on Poverty chaired by the Chief Secretary and a poverty line has also been set. All these measures are in the right direction worthy of our support and commendation. The Chief Secretary has once said that she would ask for an insult if no action has been taken after setting the poverty line. Therefore, we can see that this year's bright spot is the Low-income Working Family Allowance (LIFA).

However, after setting the poverty line, the condition is indeed worrying. Based on the official poverty line, we note that nearly 20% of families in Hong Kong are living below the poverty line. Such a high poverty rate is unacceptable in developed regions or countries, particularly in Hong Kong today. Hong Kong's per capita gross domestic product ranks among the world's top 10, which can be depicted as "surpassing the United Kingdom and catching up with the United States", yet it is hard to imagine that such a high proportion of the population are living below the poverty line. Certainly, after the so-called transfer of welfare, our poverty rate has been lowered, but it still stands at 15.2% of the population, meaning that 1.02 million people are still living in poverty. Among the poor population, the poverty rate of children is about 20%, while the poverty rate of elderly people accounts for one third of the population, that is, for every three elders, one is living in poverty. Hong Kong should be ashamed of such phenomena.

As regards the Chief Executive's governance, we certainly do not expect that he can eradicate poverty in one go. However, since the poverty line has been set, the Poverty Summit has been held and the Commission on Poverty has been established, we should at least have the determination and target to eradicate poverty. The eradication of poverty is not definitely impossible, yet it is certainly quite difficult. However, if we lack the determination to fight against it, we have already admitted defeat even before a war has started. We are indeed extremely disappointed with such a mentality.

6760 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014

The LIFA can indeed improve the living conditions of working families, for which we express our support. Yet, there are problems concerning this policy. Firstly, the single working poor are neglected. Secondly, the threshold for working hours is truly too high, 208 hours a month is equivalent to 48 hours a week, which is even higher than the standard working hours in many countries. The working hours of applicants must be higher than this threshold in order to receive the LIFA, and we see no reason why such a high threshold is required. Is it possible that the Government has jumped the gun to set 48 hours as the standard working hours? In addition, the relevant scheme also fails to take into special consideration of families with members who are disabled, who suffer from chronic diseases or who are elders.

Recently, Mr Leo GOODSTADT, the former head of the Central Policy Unit in the colonial era, has published a book entitled Poverty in the Midst of Affluence, translated as《繁華底下的貧窮》in Chinese. The subtitle "How Hong Kong Mismanaged Its Prosperity" is worth pondering. He points out in the book that the current serious poverty problem in Hong Kong is in fact attributed to the SAR Government's negligence in some basic services in the past. Over the years, after the resumption of office by TUNG Chee-Hwa, we experienced the financial turmoil, economic difficulties, stringent control over expenditure as well as deterioration of the overall economy; then came Donald TSANG who had a bias view on welfare and considered it a waste of money. Today, under the stringent control over expenditure, many basic and people-oriented services, including healthcare, education, housing, and social services, are shrinking while a growing number of expenses have to be borne by members of the general public themselves.

Therefore, for many lower-middle class, and even for fairly well-off families, if they have family members who are disabled or if they to maintain elders, they have to bear a lot of additional expenditures as our Comprehensive Social Security Assistance system regards family as a basic unit. An increasing portion of our education services, such as schools under the Direct Subsidy Scheme, extracurricular activities and tutoring, are operating in a self-financing basis. As for the healthcare sector, a wide variety of drugs are not covered by the Central Drug Formulary, and very often patients have to pay out of their own pocket. Rehabilitation services, elderly services and social services are all moving towards privatization, which have given rise to a new generation of poverty. If the Government has have properly provided such basic services, we LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6761 would not have poor families in society. These families are the products of the administrative blunders of the SAR Government.

I hope that the current-term Government can set the wrong right, yet I am not too optimistic with the present situation. From this Policy Address, we learn that LEUNG Chun-ying will increase 5 000 residential care places for the elderly during his term of office. The increase seems to be substantial, but it turns out that 3 000 of the places are provided through the residential care service voucher. However, it appears that all systems in the name of "voucher" have failed to achieve good results. A case in point is the healthcare voucher which has been introduced for some time, yet the utilization rate is still on the low side. The Government intends to transfer elderly people with chronic diseases from the public to the private market by means of the healthcare voucher, but this is in fact "a waste of effort". As for the so-called education voucher, it has aroused great repercussions in the entire sector, and as a result, the expenditure has increased instead. Eventually the target is shifted to the 15-year free education, and the voucher will be terminated sooner or later.

Now the Government introduces the so-called "voucher" again, and the number is actually far below the demand. The proposed increase of 5 000 residential care places has included the 3 000 residential care service vouchers. At present, there are 31 000-odd people on the waiting list, but only an additional 5 000 places will be provided within the term of office of the Chief Executive, where would the remaining 20 000-odd people on the waiting list go? On the face of it, the figures are pleasing, for there had not been such a huge increase in the number of service places since the reunification. An additional 6 000-odd places will be provided for rehabilitation services, which include places for day training and vocational rehabilitation services, residential care services and pre-school rehabilitation, and so on. However, the supply in fact lags far behind the demand. For example, the proposal to increase 2 016 places for day training and vocational rehabilitation services will be implemented during the Chief Executive's term of office, that is, in the next three or four years, but the number of people current on the waiting list is as many as 3 898. The Government indicates that it will provide 2 700 additional residential care service places, yet currently there are 8 000-odd people on the waiting list. As for pre-school rehabilitation services, there will be 1 400 additional places before the expiry of the Chief Executive's term of office, but more than 6 600 people are now on the waiting list. This reflects that the Government has no planning at all over the 6762 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 years, and has not given any consideration to supply and demand. Consequently, it may not be possible to make up for the shortfall even if it intends to do so today.

Such kind of work requires certain plans and ideologies. I do not understand why to date the SAR Government still does not understand the meaning of long-term care. Planning for these services often handles the elderly, the sick and the disabled separately, but in fact they have a lot of needs in common. We set our policy direction in response to their needs, hoping that all services can enable them to make a choice, live with dignity and lead an independent life in the community. In other words, we should avoid sending them to residential care homes, and should allow them to remain in the community as long as possible. In that case, the Government will have to provide day support or day care centres, as well as home care services, and ultimately residential care homes when such a service is really necessary. At present, everything is merely an empty talk, a slogan. As Members can see, day care and home care services are mutually exclusive, and applicants can only opt for one of the services. The service vouchers introduced by the Government are under all sorts of names, such as the so-called integrated home care, enhanced home care to frail elders, elders discharged from hospitals, and so on. The services are confusing and overlapping with each other, and even professional social workers are confused. These coupons are for elderly services only, and services for people with disabilities are dealt with separately, yet the service contents are actually similar.

At present, the Community Care Fund recommends setting up an allowance for carers of the elderly. Carers of persons with disabilities may have a more difficult time, yet they are not granted any allowance. I do not understand why the SAR Government has, over the years, failed to provide services based on ideologies, thus ending up in a mess, which requires major integration and reviews. As Secretary Prof Matthew CHEUNG has said, many services are not target specific, thus causing wastage of resources. Therefore, I hope the Government will conduct reviews in a serious manner, and healthcare and social welfare services must be integrated. Dr KWOK Ka-ki has mentioned mental rehabilitation services earlier. Regarding rehabilitation services for persons with disabilities, in fact it must be considered together with healthcare and social welfare services, and with an overall planning, yet it is unavailable at the moment.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6763

Dental clinic has also been criticized for years. The Government often struggles with how much exactly it should spend. It hopes to minimize the expenditure and allow the market to deal with the issue as far as possible. However, is the market capable of resolving the issue? From the operation of private elderly care homes over the years, we can see that the Government relies on the market, and as a result, private elderly homes account for 60% to 70% while subsidized elderly homes only account for 30%. Do people want to go to private elderly homes? These places are of poor quality. Why is the quality poor? That is because the operation of these elderly homes are for profit making, and the profits made will go to individual's pocket rather than for elderly services. How can the Government expect the market to resolve the problem or purchase places in the Mainland? None of these is a solution. The Government must seriously commit itself and focus on service planning rather than separating services provided to residential care homes, people with disabilities, elderly people, and so on. All these approaches are wrong.

Finally, I would like to point out that we are extremely disappointed with the proposals of standard working hours and the offsetting mechanism under the Mandatory Provident Fund Scheme. Thank you, President.

MR CHAN HAN-PAN (in Cantonese): President, as described in the three lines of the main theme, the Policy Address announced by the Chief Executive stresses on helping the grassroots and the elderly, nurturing young people, and developing Hong Kong's overall economy. I would like to sum up my views on this Policy Address from the perspectives of "healthcare", food, housing and transport.

This is a pragmatic Policy Address. I would like to first talk about "healthcare". What I mean is "healthcare", not "clothing"2. In this respect, the Chief Executive only devoted seven paragraphs to talk about its healthcare policy this year. That is in stark contrast to the 23 paragraphs devoted last year. Nevertheless, three extremely important initiatives are mentioned in those seven paragraphs. They are the initiatives to subsidize colorectal cancer screening, to refine the arrangements for overseas doctors to practise in Hong Kong, and to set up a Chinese medicine hospital. Generally speaking, despite there are only three

2 The Chinese terms for "healthcare" (醫) and "clothing" (衣) are both pronounced "ji1" in Cantonese. 6764 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 initiatives, they can address the long-standing demands of most members of the public.

I would first like to talk about Chinese medicine. At present, a number of universities offer degree and relevant courses on Chinese medicine to nurture talents in this profession every year. Unfortunately, my friends in the Chinese medicine sector often complained to me the unfair treatment they receive from the Government. How many resources have been allocated to the Chinese medicine sector? Not many, very few indeed. Despite studying so hard for years, many Chinese medicine graduates find no way to develop their careers after graduation. Some of them even have to work as "drug clawers", that is, Chinese medicine dispensers. Therefore, we have all along hoped that the Government will set up a Chinese medicine hospital as a training and research base for Chinese medicine. Our dream eventually comes true, as the Government has agreed to set up a Chinese medicine hospital. However, we cannot underestimate the difficulties of building a Chinese medicine hospital, especially its mode of operation. I believe Secretary KO is well aware of it too.

Western medicine has long played a major role in Hong Kong. No Chinese medicine services have been provided in hospitals. We know clearly that it will indeed be very difficult to establish a mode of operation for Chinese medicine hospitals. For example, can Chinese medicine practitioners provide emergency treatment? What kind of equipment should be used for emergency treatment? Should acupuncture be performed? Can a Chinese medicine practitioner pronounce a patient legally dead based on his professional judgment? We know that all these questions make it very difficult to develop the mode of operation. Advanced consideration and study is necessary. Yet, can we just sit in an office and host some meetings to set up the mode of operation? I believe not. Practice is the only way to prove the truth. In our opinion, the Government should, before the completion of the Chinese medicine hospital, try introducing Chinese medicine treatments as auxiliary medical services in hospitals. At present, doctors can refer patients to receive physiotherapy treatment at the relevant unit in a hospital. Likewise, doctors can refer patients to receive Chinese medicine treatment by Chinese medicine practitioners in a hospital. That way, it can create an opportunity for Chinese medicine to be integrated with Western medicine. After years of integration, we believe the Government can base on such experience and framework to develop the mode of operation. I hope the Government will give it a consideration.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6765

In addition, I would also like to talk about the Chinese medicine trade. In fact, Chinese medicine cannot be neglected in Hong Kong. We also think that its development will not compare unfavorably with that of Western medicine. Apart from daily necessities and luxury goods, many tourists would buy proprietary Chinese medicines when they go shopping in Hong Kong. It is because they have more confidence in the medicines sold here which are made in Hong Kong. Since 2002, the Government has implemented the GMP regulatory system. It also hopes that pharmaceutical manufacturers will take the initiative to implement GMP on their own. However, it is very difficult to do so, as implementing GMP needs enormous capital and technological investment. Nevertheless, we agree on the implementation of GMP as it can ensure the medicines manufactured can meet the requirements for quality, safety and efficacy, while enhancing the international image and recognition of the Chinese medicines manufactured in Hong Kong.

As at March 2013, only 11 out of the 295 pharmaceutical manufacturers in Hong Kong have obtained GMP certification. It is progressing rather slowly. The number of GMP certified manufacturers is relatively small too. If the Government really wants to boost the Chinese medicine industry, we suggest that it should start from the Chinese medicine trade by encouraging manufacturers to implement GMP, stepping up promotion effort and providing assistance in respect of GMP implementation. Also, the Government should set up a fund, such as Chinese medicine development fund, to see if it can subsidize manufacturers to apply for GMP certification. We also hope that the Government will offer subsidies and loans to small and medium enterprises, so that their prescriptions and medicines will not be lost forever. As mentioned in the Policy Address, the Government will set up an Innovation and Technology Bureau. As a matter of fact, Chinese medicine also involves a strong technological element. We hope that the Innovation and Technology Bureau to be formed will not just focus on computer software and spare parts, or high-end products. In fact, the Chinese medicine trade also cannot be ignored. I hope that the Bureau, upon formation, will think about how to develop a cutting-edge industry of Chinese medicine.

Referring back to public healthcare services, or Western medicine services, we often complain that public healthcare services are extremely insufficient. Be it out-patient, general or specialist medical services, they are all short of manpower. As we all know, members of the public had to wait 10 to 20 hours for medical treatment during the New Year holiday. The waiting queue is 6766 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 getting longer and longer. We are facing a shortage of healthcare manpower. That is a fact. The Chief Executive mentioned in the Policy Address the refined arrangements for overseas doctors to practise in Hong Kong. We strongly welcome this initiative. We hope that letting overseas doctors to practise in Hong Kong will help us survive the "cold winter" of manpower shortage.

Also, the authorities set up a steering committee last year to review afresh the ancillary facilities of all hospitals under each cluster. However, this Policy Address only gives a brief description. We very much hope that the Government will summon up its determination to help clusters make improvements. Take Tuen Mun Hospital as an example. I believe other colleagues have also mentioned its problems. As the leading hospital in New Territories West, Tuen Mun Hospital serves a large number of people. Yet, its surgery performance does not even match up to that of a middle-sized hospital. Therefore, we hope that the Government will come to the rescue of Tuen Mun Hospital, so that its staff will not continue to suffer from low morale. As I mentioned before, I hope that the Chief Executive or the Secretary will take some actions to boost the morale of doctors working in Tuen Mun Hospital. In fact, doctors certainly would not feel good if their hospital always ranks last in all reports released. I also hope that the Government will seriously address the demand of Tuen Mun Hospital to improve its facilities and various ancillary services.

As regards cancer screening, we would like to talk about disease prevention. Recently, the World Health Organization warned that the number of new cancer cases has surged rapidly around the world. Among which, breast and colorectal cancers are among the top three killers in the world. As such, the Policy Address rolls out a measure to subsidize colorectal cancer screening. This proposal is worth supporting. However, many new cases may emerge after the programme is launched. Under the existing public healthcare system, the newly identified patients will probably have to wait several years for treatment. A good screening programme without the support of a good public healthcare system will make these patients, who are unaware of their diseases until then, panic after knowing that they have to wait several years for treatment. It will likely worsen their condition. Therefore, we hope that the Government would, before launching the colorectal cancer screening, study how the public healthcare system can give support. It may even consider forging collaboration between public and private healthcare sectors to help shorten the waiting time for treatment of those cancer patients identified by the screening programme.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6767

Other colleagues also talked about rare diseases just now. I hereby would like to call on the Government to pay serious attention to rare diseases. As we all know, a person have genetic problems does not know when the disease will onset after birth. The disease may onset immediately after birth or onset at adult age after a period of incubation. It is widely known that genetic diseases very often are incurable. More often than not, it will inflict lingering suffering to patients, making their family members physically and emotionally exhausted. The huge amount of medical expenses is also hard to bear. In fact, many rare and genetic diseases can be detected by prenatal screening. Unfortunately, the existing prenatal screening in Hong Kong is rather backward. Take T21 as an example. It is developed by Hong Kong scholars but introduced for use in Taiwan. The Government there has greatly supported it and provided subsidies for pregnant women to undergo such screening with a fee lower than that in Hong Kong. As a result, it is more commonly performed in Taiwan than in Hong Kong. We do not make good use of the technology we have developed but introduce it elsewhere. That is just like making bridal dresses for other people, get married and bear a child for other people. As such, I really hope that the Government will take rare diseases seriously and set up a relevant database to conduct scientific researches, so as to raise public awareness on rare diseases and strengthen prenatal screening.

As Chief Secretary for Administration is present here today, I would like to talk about something not cover in the topics of this debate session, that is, tourism. I have repeatedly raised the relevant problem on other occasions. Yet, the authorities have not taken the problem seriously. Therefore, I would like to talk about the problem now as Chief Secretary is present in the Chamber. According to the Assessment Report on Hong Kong's Capacity to Receive Tourists released by the Government last month, the number of visitors coming to Hong Kong has seen a continuous growth year on year. From a positive perspective, it is something good, proving that we are a bustling city. However, if we stay in the old ruts, refusing to explore new tourist attractions to divert tourists there and make the pie bigger to let the general public benefit from tourism, it is just a matter of time for Hong Kong to "burst at the seams". In recent days, some people suggested taking measures to dampen tourists' desire to come to Hong Kong. That is definitely a negative way of handling the problem, and is a counter-productive action that will eventually do Hong Kong harm. We absolutely would not support it.

6768 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014

However, the Government has really been acting "in slow motion" over the past years. It has dragged its feet to such an extent that no measures have been taken to cope with the increasing visitors. No wonder people have pent up so much anger. As with the case of Cheung Chau I mentioned before, it is always packed with people during holidays. However, people are mainly hanging around three streets, making it hard to bear by the residents living there. District Councillors and members of the community have raised many proposals, such as building a Tin Hau cultural plaza and a look-out pavilion in western and eastern Cheung Chau respectively. These proposals aim to divert tourists from the three streets to other areas, so as to reduce the density of tourist population and let surrounding residents benefit from tourism. However, as with stones being thrown into the sea, these proposals have gone nowhere with no feedback. Another problem facing the residents is that it is very difficult for residents to compete with so many tourists for ferry services. For example, on the fourth day of the Lunar New Year, over 9 000 people were waiting to get on a ferry to Cheung Chau. How can the residents travel to the urban areas then? This problem has not been taken seriously either. Some officials probably would say that they can wait for the next ferry ride. However, as we all know, people have to wait almost an hour, not 10 minutes, for the next ferry ride. That is not the case of waiting several minutes for the next train ride in Admiralty. Therefore, we hope that the Government, while developing tourism, will think big and act small to help local residents tackle the problems they encounter in their daily life. We know that the Chief Executive is very pragmatic and sets great store by district visits. Therefore, we very much hope that these problems can be taken seriously. Other such examples are numerous. However, I am not going to list them out one by one, so as not to take up Members' time.

I believe that the Government does understand the demands of people of all strata. However, the Government has just acted too slowly in rolling out measures, causing some dissatisfaction among people. In this Year of the Horse, I wish to add a line of encouragement in the Policy Address, that is, "to hit the ground running and immediately roll out all measures". I hope that the Government will have greater political courage and wisdom to seize the opportunities of the time to strive again and continue to work hard. The Policy Address is worth our support.

President, I so submit.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6769

MR CHAN KIN-POR (in Cantonese): President, the Food and Health Bureau has put forward a new proposal on the voluntary health protection scheme and will conduct a public consultation on the specific contents soon. The insurance sector has met with the Bureau recently to discuss health protection issues again. The Bureau indicated that it would not amend the proposed contents, and was only willing to incorporate some viewpoints of the insurance sector in the consultation paper. The insurance sector still thinks that the Government's proposed contents are rife with problems and it is hard for it to accept them at the present stage.

The difference in views between the Food and Health Bureau and the insurance sector is evident. We further consider that the Bureau's proposal is rife with many obvious problems. The sector cannot accept the Bureau's explanation. First, as the coverage of the standard health insurance plans put forward by the Bureau is deeper and broader than those generally available on the market, the standard premium will definitely be higher than those on the market now. The consultant commissioned by the Government thinks that the premium will only be 10% higher, but the sector questions the authenticity and credibility of this assumption and requests the Government to give an account of its calculation method.

However, the consultant makes many assumptions in the actuarial valuation. As each company has different operation cost and the market price also involves many different factors, hence it is impossible to make an accurate calculation a few years in advance. Moreover, from the perspective of the cost alone, it is hardly convincing that with the coverage being deeper and broader, the premium will only be increased 10%.

To be honest, we are by no means over-worried because when the scheme is launched onto the market, if the increase of premium is over 10%, the public will only think that the insurance companies suddenly raise the premium and they will not care whether the consultant has made mistakes in calculating the premium. In the end, the insurance companies will have to bear the blame for wrongful accusation. Therefore, without a clear definition of the problem, it is hard for us to accept such a scheme.

Second, concerning the operation of high risk pool management, the sector considers it impractical to set the administrative cost, including the operation cost and commission, at 12.5% because the administration expenses and commission 6770 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 of the products under the current market competition amount to about 15% to 30% in total. The sector thinks that the Food and Health Bureau is trying to use administrative measures to underestimate the expenses of the high risk pool, in the hope of winning the approval of the public without bothering to find out if it is feasible for insurance companies. The insurance sector finds this level of administrative cost unacceptable and hopes that the Government will discuss with the sector again based on the real situation.

Third, one of the factors that determines whether the health protection scheme will be successful is the availability of sufficient private hospital beds. Every now and then, there are patients who complain about having difficulty in reserving hospital beds. Patients also have to wait for hospital beds to receive surgeries in private hospitals. There are about a total of 4 000 beds in all private hospitals in Hong Kong and the Government plans to provide 40% to 50% more beds in the next five to six years, with a maximum of 2 000. But even if Hong Kong has 6 000 beds, will that be sufficient to cope with the development? Are they sufficient to accommodate the patients diverted from public hospitals? I have great doubt about it.

As a matter of fact, the Government of the last term earmarked four sites for the construction of private hospitals, but only one site has been granted so far while another site has been returned to the Government for housing construction. This makes people think that the Government has no sincerity in developing private healthcare service as it still allows people flocking to public hospitals to seek healthcare services.

The biggest problem with the new health protection scheme introduced by the Government is how to set up a standard policy system. When people take out insurance in future, they must first take out the standard policy. For those who have the need, they can take out insurance products which provide top-up benefits but products with less coverage and lower premium are no longer available in the market. This will stifle the private market which originally had a diversified development.

At the same time, the Government has taken away much essence from the original health protection scheme, making the new scheme less appealing. For example, it no longer urges private hospital to offer service packages. Besides, the original sum of $50 billion earmarked for the implementation of the scheme, and the measures such as setting up a high risk pool, provision of premium LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6771 discount for new subscribers and subsidy for savings for health protection premium have not been brought up again. Only the incentive of tax deduction remains while all other concessions have been cancelled. In other words, the estimated expenses earmarked has been reduced to less than $5 billion, a reduction of 90%, which means the scheme has lost 90% of the appeal. Consequently, with the lack of support from the insurance sector and interest of the public, the scheme will not even be passed by the Legislative Council in the end. What is the meaning of introducing such a scheme then? I hope that the Food and Health Bureau will think twice. Thank you, President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now suspend the meeting for five minutes.

9.39 pm

Meeting suspended.

9.42 pm

Council then resumed.

MR MA FUNG-KWOK (in Cantonese): President, in this year's Policy Address, the Chief Executive has attached special emphasis on poverty alleviation and caring for the elderly, and has introduced many new measures in that respect. On poverty alleviation, he introduces the Low-income Working Family Allowance (LIFA) and also regularizes a number of Community Care Fund programmes. In respect of caring for the elderly, he increases the number of places in residential care homes for the elderly and takes advantage of the favourable conditions in China and Hong Kong to solve the problem and enhances the welfare portability, which is at least a positive step forward.

The Government kept "handing out candies" every year in the past, emphasizing on "providing relief" but failing to "eradicating problem". This year, the Government increases the recurrent expenditure instead, showing its commitment to solving this problem. Its efforts should be recognized. I 6772 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 believe that in general most people in Hong Kong will support the Government's new attitude in tackling the poverty problem and agree that money should be spent on those who have the greatest need. However, some members of the community have responded strongly to the new measures. They worry that the recurrent expenditure will continue to rise and the Government will have to raise tax eventually. All these worries are worth noting and the authorities should respond to them.

As we all understand, resources are not inexhaustible and the Government is duty-bound to ensure that social resources are used on those who have the greatest need. More importantly, alleviating poverty and caring for the elderly is not a policy to win short-term applause from the people. On the contrary, the Government needs to be very careful to ensure the sustainability of the measures, and avoid leading Hong Kong to the dead alley, just like some welfare states which are the verge of bankruptcy with a collapsing economy. The price will be paid by our next generation.

President, while I support the Government's enhanced efforts to alleviate poverty and care for the elderly, I would also like to bring up a few questions for Members to ponder upon. First, when a rather big proportion of the working population are still unable to provide for themselves but have to rely on the Government's assistance to make ends meet, is it an indication that something has gone wrong in our labour market? Second, after the implementation of the minimum wage, why does the Government still need to introduce the LIFA, which is, in a way, subsidizing the labour cost and the enterprises, and what problems does that reflect? Third, after the introduction of the LIFA, how can we maintain the incentive for employers to increase workers' pay? Is it necessary to set a limit on the Government's interference in the labour market? Fourth, this is the greatest concern of the middle class. When enterprises and a rather big proportion of the working population have to rely on the Government's assistance, will that give rise to the culture of depending on the Government to solve problems for them, thus eroding the core value of Hong Kong people being self-reliant? Finally, although some new measures regarding the elderly services have been implemented, they are still far from adequate, they are like a drop in the bucket when compared to the speed that the population ages. To seriously tackle this problem, the Government needs to make far greater efforts. How will the Government handle this problem?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6773

All these problems concern the sustainability of the measures to alleviate poverty and care for the elderly. I hope that the Government will consider very carefully how to achieve a reasonable arrangement, engage in long-term planning and alleviate people's worries. Thank you, President.

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

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): President, originally I intended to speak tomorrow, not today. But as no one wishes to speak now, I might as well speak.

First of all, I wish to quote the words of our great leader LEUNG Chun-ying. They come from an article in the book he gave me, "Those who insist on holding this point of view have probably lived on Mars instead of Hong Kong in the past 40 years." This article was published in a column called "Array of Pens" in Ming Pao Daily News titled "Discussion on the Property Market and Housing – part 3".

Of course, I will not talk about the property market and housing today. As I went to the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in Hong Kong to plead for justice on behalf of LIU Xiaobo when the last session was held, I could not speak on that topic … President, did you go to the reception?

I would like to refute his arguments. First, he said that rent control would lead to the collapse of the property market, disappearance of rental flats and rental increase. I will not comment on this statement for the time being. He must have lived on Mars instead of Hong Kong. At the time when rent control was implemented, did the rent surge like today? If rent did rise, it was still under control.

Since he knows that the "double curbs" measures can curb the speculation of properties, why does he act on the contrary in respect of rent control? Therefore, LEUNG Chun-ying is beyond redemption; his is either insane or cunning.

While I quoted his remarks, I do not wish to talk about this subject. The subject I wish to talk about is universal retirement protection. Does this Chief 6774 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014

Executive of ours live on Mars or in Hong Kong in the past 40 years? Given the ageing population and the absence of protection provided by the Mandatory Provident Fund for housewives, the poverty rates of the elderly and housewives are shooting up. Does he live in Hong Kong?

Chief Secretary, you were once the Director of Social Welfare; and not to mention you, Matthew CHEUNG. Do you live in Hong Kong? How long do we still have to wait?

LEUNG Chun-ying is an expert in taking no actions for things said, and taking actions for things not said. Take social welfare as an example. Last time when I filibustered, he responded by saying that he had commissioned Prof Nelson CHOW to conduct a study. When I filibustered in March, he said that he had commissioned Prof Nelson CHOW to write a report. Now Prof CHOW has already published the report and put forward a proposal. However, he said that he did not see any chance that it would succeed. That means this Government is not doing enough and LEUNG is only using Prof CHOW to silence us. Using an elderly man to palter with us, isn't he too cruel? Do you all live on Mars?

Tell me, what is the trend of the past 40 years? Is the number of poor elderly people on the increase? After bringing up their children, housewives have to take care of their grandchildren. Do they not "work from young till old and work from old till they can work no more and have to beg"? What moral high ground are you standing on to refuse implementing retirement protection but stalling for three more years?

Immediate actions are taken to set up the 10 border control points, but our elders are treated like dirt. We are not asking much. We just ask the Government to set aside $50 billion and set a timetable for the implementation of retirement protection. But as the Government refuses to do so, I have to filibuster again. Let me tell you, I will definitely filibuster again. Even if I come here in crutches, I will still filibuster because he does not give me an answer. Do you all live on Mars or in an even farther place beyond the galaxy? Another year has passed, has a little progress been made?

He takes actions for things not said. I have gone through the whole Policy Address. The title of the Policy Address last year was … He is so weird. I have studied his stuff carefully. The theme of his last year's Policy Address was "Seek Change Maintain Stability Serve the People with Pragmatism" ("穩中求 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6775

變 務實為民") while the Chinese title of his manifesto was also "穩中求變". Buddy, in respect of the allowance for low-income people, even Mr MA Fung-kwok can raise the comment that he wants to subsidize the capitalists. He takes actions for things not said. He is fond of acting like that. President, does he treat you in the same manner? He takes actions for things not said but takes no actions for things said. He is constantly playing these tricks.

Frankly, President, I have seen LEUNG Chun-ying through. He only has two tricks. The first is to form a committee. If he fails to take action, he proposes to form a committee to conduct a study. His term of office is only five years while the term of office of a committee is two to three years. By the time the term of office of the committee expires, he will also be flaccid and paralysed. The second trick is to launch pilot schemes which also last for three years. He only has these two tactics. The "Blue Dragon and White Tiger" have got it done. What is the task for the Chief Secretary for Administration? She only needs to wander around and talk to people. What kind of government this is? If he did not know what to do, he should not have run in the election. He gave an impressive show during his election campaign, right? Why did he do so? President, do you know what political reward is? I do not know if he has rewarded you. Since you are now the President of the Legislative Council, you cannot receive any rewards. To reward someone means if someone or some NGOs are on speaking terms with LEUNG Chun-ying and if certain political party want some favours, they would ask LEUNG and LEUNG will give them some bread crumbs. Then everyone will announce that they have successfully strived for so and so. But "Long Hair" is such a failure. "Long Hair" cannot successfully strive for anything because the Government will not reward him. If someone puts forward a reasonable proposal, the Government will reward him in return, even though the reward is just dog food. Therefore, I can see that LEUNG Chun-ying only talks but never gets things done.

Second, I wish to point out the problems about the healthcare system. He has set aside $10 billion for the Hospital Authority to carry out maintenance work, but the work is long overdue. Anyone who has a little knowledge about doing business knows about depreciation. Can you regard that a virtuous policy? President, what has he done in the area of healthcare? What progress has been made in respect of health insurance? The sum of $50 billion is now frozen stiff. If he gave the $50 billion to "Long Hair", "Long Hair" would have immediately spent it on universal retirement protection. What kind of government is that? The money has been frozen stiff. He always accuses the 6776 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 last-term Government for doing nothing. How is he going to deal with the sum of $50 billion? Just let the money be frozen stiff? He has achieved nothing, and he continues to slack off. He does not say that he would not take actions. Now I am going to give him a task as I feel for the people and share their anxiety. If he does not do anything and does not implement universal retirement protection, let me tell him, if one person dies, one ghost will come to haunt him. It is very dangerous. He will have to make confession all the time. What is wrong with this Government?

In respect of education, before LEUNG Chun-ying was elected, he said in his manifesto … Fortunately I am smart and have kept everything. Even though water has been poured on the manifesto, I still keep it. He said in the manifesto that he would enhance the subsidy for tertiary education. What has he done? Buddy, what has he done? Apart from allocating funds to students to study abroad or allowing the trustees of Funds to spend the money recklessly, has he set the date of implementation? What is the percentage of the increment? The site for building a Chinese medicine hospital of the Baptist University is now used to build luxurious apartments. What kind of Government is this? It is useless for him to lay the blame on Donald TSANG. The current problem is his problem. President, as I need time to talk about other issues, I will stop talking about this problem. I hope that there are two LEUNG Kwok-hung, and then I will have 60 minutes …

President, it is very simple. I have seen clearly what kind of person LEUNG Chun-ying is. I call him a dodgy Chief Executive, I do not call him a Chief Executive who repudiates a debt because that is a crime and the offender will be caught. Being dodgy is like what we did when we were small. We told the minibus driver that someone would pay later and then got off the minibus without paying the fare. LEUNG Chun-ying is doing exactly the same thing. He keeps blaming Donald TSANG for the blunders; yet all the measures that he proposes now will only have deferred effects. Set up a committee to study for three years and then implement a pilot scheme for three years, and then there is only one year left. He should feel ashamed even if I do not condemn him. I am telling Mrs Carrie LAM, if she does not urge the Chief Executive or John TSANG to launch the universal retirement protection scheme, she will have to hold a press conference to censure me again for being incompetent and letting the elderly down. Thank you.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6777

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

(No Member indicated a wish to speak)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): If no Members wish to speak, I now invite the three officials to speak.

CHIEF SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION (in Cantonese): President, this debate session covers the policy areas of poverty alleviation, welfare, medical services, public health and elderly care. Among the 20-odd Members who spoke in this session, over 10 of them made remarks on poverty alleviation, especially the proposed the Low-income Working Family Allowance (LIFA). As Chairman of the Commission on Poverty (CoP), I will focus on responding to the views about poverty alleviation.

I noticed in this and the first session that the remarks made by Members about the poverty alleviation initiatives of the 2014 Policy Address were largely positive. They welcomed the relevant poverty alleviation measures. It was encouraging to me and my colleagues of the relevant Policy Bureaux. I would also like to take this opportunity to thank all members of the CoP for their hard work over the past year or so. They include four Members of the Legislative Council, namely Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che, Mr Michael TIEN and Mr LEUNG Che-cheung.

According to the 2014 Policy Address, poverty alleviation is one of the priority policy areas of the Government. It is absolutely not the case as described by Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung that it is a gesture in mending the Chief Executive's or the SAR Government's popularity rating. Nor do we bend to the populist wind to seek a short-lived round of applause. Rather, the Chief Executive is strongly convinced that the poverty problem in Hong Kong needs to be taken seriously and handled immediately.

In fact, since the current-term Government took office, we have progressively rolled out a number of policies and measures to sooth the problem of poverty over the past year or so. As Mr TAM Yiu-chung has earlier listed out in his speech our key milestones, I am not going to repeat them here.

6778 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014

Among the various initiatives, the most outstanding one is the setting up of a poverty line. The official poverty line serves as an objective and scientific basis for the Government to understand our poverty situation, formulate policies and assess the effectiveness of poverty alleviation policies. In fact, poverty line analysis was critical to the formation of this Policy Address's poverty alleviation blueprint. For example, one of the important poverty alleviation measures, that is, the proposed LIFA, is based on poverty line analysis to come up with its design and arrangements. If the setting up of a poverty line was an unprecedented move, the launch of LIFA can be regarded as a highlight of the current-term Government's out-of-the-box thinking.

Mr Frederick FUNG and Dr Fernando CHEUNG have both queried in their speeches and amendments as to why the Government, after setting up the first official poverty line, does not set up a target of poverty alleviation or elimination. They wondered if it is a sign that the Government is willing but unable to do so.

When announcing the poverty line, we have already made it clear that the poverty line has its own limitation. For example, it only takes into account incomes but not assets. Besides, the poverty line adopts the concept of "relative poverty". Therefore, it is statistically unavoidable that we will always have some people defined as poor. As such, it is not ideal to use the poverty line as a benchmark for setting up poverty alleviation standards.

We have also been forthright to indicate that the poverty line cannot be directly taken as the poverty-alleviation line. That means we cannot just base on the threshold of the poverty line to define the eligibility for assistance. As we can image, if the Government only focuses on reaching the target of poverty alleviation or elimination, public resources will unavoidably be concentrated on helping families living under the poverty line. As a result, families living on the edge or slightly above the poverty line will be turned down from relief measures. It will go against the common belief that poverty alleviation policies should also serve to prevent poverty.

We think that poverty alleviation policies should have flexibility and adjustability, in order to strike a proper balance between poverty alleviation and prevention. In fact, among the 200 000 households benefiting from the proposed $3 billion worth of LIFA, 110 000 households live slightly above the poverty line, compared with about 90 000 beneficiary households living below the poverty line. As such, it can also serve to prevent poverty.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6779

You may ask, what is the purpose of setting a poverty line, if it is not a poverty-alleviation line? I can clarify here, with the help of a poverty line and a full grasp of the poverty situation, we can have grounds to illustrate the effectiveness of new poverty alleviation measures. Take, for example, the poverty situation in 2012. After factoring in the impact of taxation and recurrent cash benefit transfer, the overall poverty rate in Hong Kong dropped from 19.6% to 15.2%. After the launch of the proposed LIFA, the overall poverty rate will further lower by 2.1 percentage points. Likewise, before factoring in the impact of taxation and recurrent cash benefit transfer, the child poverty rate was 24.2%. After factoring in the existing cash benefit transfer, the child poverty rate dropped to 19.9%. After the launch of the proposed LIFA, the child poverty rate will further lower by 4.4 percentage points. That is also what Mr TANG Ka-piu would like to know ― how to monitor the effectiveness of poverty alleviation measures. Therefore, I think that we, for now, should make good use of the poverty line as a policy tool to focus our resource allocation to help the needy families, as far as the public finances allow. The poverty line analysis and the overview of Hong Kong's poverty situation will be updated annually to let the public monitor the effectiveness of poverty alleviation measures.

President, the poverty alleviation initiatives mentioned in this Policy Address cover a wide range of areas, benefiting many community groups. Here, I would like to share with you the vision, belief and concrete strategies behind this poverty alleviation blueprint. As Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che just said, policymaking should mostly be led by vision.

The Chief Executive's vision in poverty alleviation can already be found in his election manifesto, that is, to encourage young people and adults to become self-reliant through employment, while putting in place a reasonable and sustainable social security and welfare system to help those who cannot provide for themselves.

We also firmly believe that most Hong Kong people are willing to work hard and stand on their own feet rather than relying on welfare assistance. It can be reflected in the past figures of Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA) application. Take the figures of the past 24 months as an example. During that period, Hong Kong's economy was booming with the unemployment rate persistently stayed below 3.5%, a state of almost full employment. This, coupled with the introduction of statutory minimum wage, led to a more than 5% decrease in the number of CSSA cases, down from about 276 000 cases in 6780 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014

January 2012 to 261 000 cases in December 2013. The decrease in unemployment and low-income CSSA cases was more significant, dropping 20% and 27% respectively. The firm belief I just said is totally in line with Mr TANG Ka-piu's view.

Based on the aforesaid mission and belief, our concrete strategies for poverty alleviation can be summed up in the following words: "supporting employment and caring for children".

Based on the strategy of "supporting employment", we suggest introducing the LIFA to help a total of some 140 000 non-CSSA working families, covering 490 000 people. Children are our future and the greatest hope for families to get out of poverty. According to the report entitled "Measuring Child Poverty" published by the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) in May 2012 (I quote): "Because children have only one opportunity to develop normally in mind and body, the commitment to protection from poverty must be upheld in good times and in bad … Governments can and do take steps that are remarkably successful in counteracting child poverty. " (End of quote) I think that Hong Kong should be no exception in this respect. We should take effective measures to counteract child poverty too.

The Hong Kong Poverty Situation Report 2012 shows that child poverty is a problem that should be seriously addressed in Hong Kong. We have not evaded the problem. After factoring in cash benefit transfer, there were 1.02 million people living below the poverty line. Among them were 209 000 children, translating into a child poverty rate of as high as 19.9%. That was 4.7 percentage points higher than the overall poverty rate of 15.2%. This situation must be improved expeditiously.

Therefore, under the proposed LIFA, a child allowance will be provided to eligible families to help them cope with their children's living and learning needs. In fact, among the estimated $3 billion funding for LIFA, about half of which will be used on more than 180 000 eligible children and young people.

Apart from LIFA, the Policy Address also mentions many cash assistance and services for children. It aims to take better care of their learning and living needs and provide more opportunities for them to have all-round development, so as to reduce inter-generational poverty. I am grateful for Mr Christopher CHEUNG's support on this initiative. These new measures are included in the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6781 sections of "Poverty Alleviation", "Support for the Disadvantaged" and "Nurture the Next Generation". Due to time constraint, I am not going to list them out here. Members can refer to our specific leaflet named "Nurturing young people".

In the following time, I will focus on responding to several Members' views concerning LIFA, such as its working-hour requirement and its asset test on single working people and other family members. First of all, I have to point out that LIFA was conceived in accordance with the poverty situation of Hong Kong. As indicated in the poverty line analysis and the Poverty Situation Report released in September last year, about 140 000 working households, or 490 000 people, were still living below the poverty line. They were not on CSSA. Although many family members of these households worked very hard on a full-time basis, they found it very hard to support a number of family members on their own. It is particularly worth noting that 60% of the working poor households had to raise children and almost half of such households had to raise two or more children. For these 150 000-odd children or school-age young people living in poor families, it will help them break the cycle of inter-generational poverty if they can have more resources to be used on learning.

Seen in this light, single people are not included in the beneficiary groups of LIFA. As I just said, if single people work hard on a full-time basis and meet the working-hour threshold of LIFA, that is 144 hours, their monthly income in fact should exceed 60% of the median monthly household income under the protection of the existing statutory minimum wage. In other words, they are not eligible for LIFA. In fact, they do not have to support other family members either. Yet, single people can still benefit from the Work Incentive Transport Subsidy Scheme.

The second problem is related to the working-hour requirement. I have to clarify here that the working-hour threshold of LIFA is 144 hours. Applicants whose monthly working hours reach 144 can receive a basic allowance of $600 every month. To encourage people to work harder, applicants whose monthly working hours reach 208 or above are suggested to receive a basic allowance of $1,000.

However, to clarify few Members' misunderstanding, I have to make it clear that the child allowance under this scheme is not affected by the working hours of the relevant households' working members. The child allowance will 6782 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 only take into account the household income. In other words, if a family with monthly income equivalent to or below 50% of the median household income, or below 60% of the median household income, each eligible child of the family can receive a monthly allowance of $800 for full rate, or $400 for half rate.

The third issue is concerning asset test. The existing LIFA was finalized after taking reference to over 15 proposals. Among the proposals from the political parties and concern groups, one of the biggest differences is whether an asset limit should be imposed on LIFA. Those agreeing with such a proposal consider that the limit should be more generous than other social-security schemes. We have a duty to ensure that this government-funded and broad-based poverty-alleviation measure is going to help those in need on a reasonable and sustainable basis. We therefore consider that the household applicants should be subject to asset tests. We propose to broadly adopt the asset limits for public rental housing. This rather generous arrangement will encourage low-income households to save for hard times. If we give up asset test at this moment, it cannot conform to the principle of proper use of public funds. Worse still, it will also give members of the community the impression that the rules of our welfare schemes are too lax, causing unnecessary disputes in society.

I notice that a number of Members indicated in their speeches that the working-hour requirement of the scheme, especially the requirement of 208 working hours, is too harsh. They also thought that we may need to provide extra allowance to other members of the eligible households, such as the elderly, the disabled, and chronic patients. As far as working hours are concerned, the whole LIFA scheme was devised with the vision to help those who have worked hard on a full-time basis but still cannot meet the needs of their whole families. As such, reducing the working-hour requirement for non-single parent households' members will go against the vision of this policy and may affect the labour market.

As for the elderly, the disabled and chronic patients of the low-income families, the elderly can already benefit from the Old Age Living Allowance (OALA) launched last year, while the disabled can benefit from the cash allowance for persons with disabilities. If we provide extra allowance to these family members, it seems not appropriate as far as effective use of public funds is concerned.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6783

President, following the launch of OALA, LIFA is another important poverty alleviation initiative of the current-term Government. After the Policy Address was announced, the community's response to this measure was largely positive. We will carefully look into and consider Members' views on this scheme, and seek funding approval from the Legislative Council after finalizing all the details. Mr POON Siu-ping wished to know whether this scheme would be rolled out in early or late 2015. As this is a scheme benefiting 200 000 households, its implementation is extremely complicated. I am afraid I cannot provide a definite answer now. Anyway, if the scheme can be endorsed by Members of the Legislative Council sooner, I believe it will be conducive to its early implementation.

President, Secretary for Labour and Welfare and Secretary for Food and Health will later speak on policy measures regarding "care for the elderly and support for the disadvantaged", "social welfare", "healthcare services and public health" respectively. Lastly, I would just like to talk about the support for ethnic minorities as covered in this debate session. I note that only Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che and Ms Claudia MO have mentioned the support for ethnic minorities in this session. They both expressed their welcome and support to the measures. I am very pleased to say that the whole set of proposals supporting ethnic minorities in the Policy Address were well received by the Equal Opportunities Commission and ethnic minority concern groups following its announcement. I know that the next step of implementation is crucial. We pledge to closely monitor the implementation and assessment of the whole set of proposals. We also welcome Members' monitoring, so that we can join force to do a better job.

President, the Chief Executive has mapped out the current-term Government's blueprint for poverty alleviation in the 2014 Policy Address. It underscores the determination and commitment of the current-term Government in tackling the poverty problem. These series of measures were formulated on the basis that they are financially sustainable and can reasonably help the needy groups, so as to build a caring society.

With these remarks, President, I urge Members to support the 2014 Policy Address. Thank you, President.

6784 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014

SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): President, I will focus my response on the scopes of elderly care and other welfare. Within these scopes, the Labour and Welfare Bureau conducts pragmatic and forward-looking studies while providing, enhancing and improving the existing services at the same time, which includes, firstly, breaking through the existing subsidy modes; secondly, strengthening the medium- and long-term planning; thirdly, promoting cross-sectoral collaboration.

I express my sincere thanks to many Members who have spoken just now to affirm the Government's efforts made in this year's Policy Address regarding welfare and elderly care issues. They agree that we have stride a step forward and made some breakthroughs.

This year's Policy Address has actually devoted considerable space to elderly care. It has introduced a series of new policies to outline a navigational chart for the SAR Government's "Elderly Care liner", as well as made a comprehensive planning to meet the challenges of an ageing population in Hong Kong.

For those elders who are in good health, we are committed to providing an environment of "active ageing" and "a sense of worthiness". For the relatively frail elders, under the policy direction of "ageing in place as the core, institutional care as a backup", we support elders in need and their families in accordance with their various physical needs.

To further promote "active ageing", we propose to inject $50 million into the Elder Academy Development Foundation, and the popular scheme allowing the elderly to travel at a "concessionary fare of $2" will be extended in phases to include green minibuses.

With regard to increasing residential care places for the elderly, we will adopt a multi-pronged approach and we have the courage to explore new modes.

With regard to breaking through the existing subsidy modes, we will purchase residential care places from an elderly home run by the Hong Kong Society for Rehabilitation in Yantian, Shenzhen to provide an option for elders on the Central Waiting list for subsidized residential care places. We understand that the elders are concerned about healthcare supporting services after settling in that elderly home, therefore we will subsidize certain relevant medical support, so LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6785 that elders who settle in that elderly home can use the resident doctor services, and the elderly home can arrange transportation for follow-up consultations at hospitals in the North District of Hong Kong. We are also discussing similar arrangements with another elderly home in Zhaoqing.

Meanwhile, we will continue to pilot the concept of "money following the user". The Social Welfare Department (SWD) rolled out the first phase of the Pilot Scheme on Community Care Service Voucher for the elderly in September 2013. "Money following the user" is an innovative subsidy mode, therefore both the elderly and their families need time to understand and comprehend the contents and arrangements of the Pilot Scheme. I am aware that some elders who once refused to participate in the Pilot Scheme have recently informed the SWD that they wish to try out the voucher scheme, and the number of applications received by the SWD has significantly increased in recent months. On the other hand, we will ask the Elderly Commission to study the feasibility of introducing the residential care service voucher. The Government has also earmarked resources of about $800 million for issuing a total of 3 000 residential care service vouchers in three phases from 2015-2016 to 2017-2018. By means of a multi-pronged approach, and taking into account these 3 000 vouchers, the current-term Government is able to provide about 5 000 additional subsidized residential care places, which will encourage the market to provide more quality residential care places for the elderly to choose in the medium to long term.

We will also allocate additional resources to gradually extend the continuum of care to subsidized nursing home places; strengthen support services rendered to elderly persons, including those with dementia, and their carers by elderly centres; regularize the District-based Scheme on Carer Training starting from 2014-2015; and ask the Community Care Fund to launch a pilot scheme on providing a living allowance for low income carers. We will monitor the development of the pilot scheme, so as to examine whether the corresponding measures are applicable to persons with severe disabilities.

Some Members demand the Government to implement a universal retirement protection scheme. The Social Security and Retirement Protection Task Force under the Commission on Poverty has invited a team of consultants, led by Prof Nelson CHOW, to conduct studies on retirement protection, so as to lay a solid foundation for future discussion. The team is expected to submit a final report by mid-2014. The Government will adopt an open and pragmatic attitude in considering the way forward for retirement protection.

6786 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014

In respect of support for the disadvantaged, we will introduce a series of measures to enhance support for people with disabilities and their carers, including proposals to upgrade the ranking of the Commissioner for Rehabilitation and strengthen the establishment of the Commission's team.

The Government has also decided to regularize the Pilot Bought Place Scheme for Private Residential Care Homes for Persons with Disabilities and raise the cap of subsidized places in each home from 55% to 70%, with the aim of encouraging more quality homes to join the Scheme. During the current term of this Government, we will provide 6 200 additional rehabilitation service places for people with disabilities.

With regard to employment, in addition to providing vocational training and employment support, the Government will continue to adopt positive measures, including the Talent-Wise Employment Charter and the Inclusive Organizations Recognition Scheme, with the aim of encouraging good practices and offering incentives and assistance for employers, so as to promote active participation of employers and enhance the employment of persons with disabilities.

We are fully aware of and concerned about the shortage of land for welfare uses. The Labour and Welfare Bureau currently provides additional places for elderly services and rehabilitation services for people with disabilities through the Special Scheme on Privately Owned Sites for Welfare Uses. In order to optimize the use of land, we utilize the Lotteries Fund in a flexible manner and encourage social welfare organizations to better use their land. The Scheme have been supported by about 40 social welfare institutions, providing about 60 in situ expansion or redevelopment projects. Based on the rough estimates of these organizations, the Scheme can increase a total of some 17 000 service places for the elderly and persons with disabilities. We propose to additionally allocate $10 billion for the Lotteries Fund, so that social welfare organizations can have sufficient resources in this regard to implement their work. At the same time, we will provide the necessary assistance in the course of development. This Scheme will also provide a good foundation for the planning of manpower and welfare facilities in the medium to long term.

Some Members have expressed concern about the social welfare sector and the care personnel. To cope with the demand, last year we introduced a "first-hire-then-train" pilot scheme for recruiting young people to provide care LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6787 service at residential care homes for the elderly. We have earmarked resources to expand the scheme to cover rehabilitation services and provide 1 000 additional places in the coming few years.

In addition, we will ask the Elderly Commission to design a residential care service scheme for the elderly and hope the Elderly Commission can submit a report within two years.

With regard to the subvention system, the Lump Sum Grant Independent Review Committee submitted a report in 2008, stating that the principles of the Lump Sum Grant Subvention System (LSGSS) are sound and the system is therefore worth retaining. The Committee also considers that the LSGSS provides non-governmental organizations (NGOs) with the flexibility needed, so that work procedures can be streamlined, service priorities can be reset, resources can be reallocated and innovative thinking can be introduced, and all these are eventually conducive to enhancing service quality. In order to further improve the LSGSS, we announce in the Policy Address that the Government will increase annual recurrent funding for NGOs, strengthen their central administrative and supervisory support and will increase the provision of "other charges" under the NGOs' Lump Sum Grant. In addition, the Government will provide additional funding to enable NGOs to recruit and retain paramedical staff more effectively, or hire paramedical services. Meanwhile, the Government will allow NGOs more flexibility in using the Provident Fund reserve.

We plan to submit funding application to the Legislative Council for injecting $400 million into the Partnership Fund for the Disadvantaged, of which $200 million will be earmarked for launching more after-school learning and support programmes for primary and secondary students from grass-roots families. The Government also proposes to earmark $300 million in the next financial year to ensure the sustainability of the Child Development Fund.

The Labour and Welfare Bureau and the Women's Commission are conducting a survey to find out the reasons why Hong Kong women leave the labour market and the factors that attract them to take up employment again. The findings will serve as reference for the authorities to further promote measures on women's employment. The survey is expected to conclude the findings by the end of 2014.

6788 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014

From 2014-2015, the Government will enhance the Neighbourhood Support Child Care Project by lifting the age limit of service beneficiaries from six to nine, and provide additional places for the home-based child care services. To meet different service needs, the service beneficiaries of various child care services are also different. For children aged six to 12, the Social Welfare Department will allocate additional resources for some after-school care service organizations starting from 2014-2015, so as to extend the service hours on weekday evenings, weekends and school holidays in some after-school care centres and provide additional fee-waiving and fee-reduction quotas. The service beneficiaries are children aged six to 12. The relevant services include homework tutoring, parent guidance, education, skill learning and so on, and it will also cope with the needs of children aged six to 12.

President, in conclusion, this year's Policy Address explicitly shows that the SAR Government is proactive and progressive in the scope of welfare, and fully reflects the Government's sincerity and commitment. I must also emphasize that absolutely we will not move towards welfarism. The Government remains firmly committed to the principle of fiscal prudence, carefully balancing the needs in various aspects and aiming for groups in need, so as to formulate feasible and sustainable measures.

With these remarks, President, I call upon Members to support this year's Policy Address. Thank you.

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, first of all, let me thank Honourable Members for their comments and suggestions made at previous Panel meetings and during today's debate in respect of the contents of the Policy Address in connection with the two subjects of food safety and health. Now, I will begin by specifically responding to the key concerns expressed by Honourable Members in these two major areas.

First, regarding food safety and environmental hygiene, the first issue is the supply of powdered formula. Many Honourable Members, as well as members of the public, are concerned about the supply of powdered formula. It has been almost a year since the Import and Export (General) (Amendment) Regulation 2013 came into operation on 1 March last year. While the problem of parallel trading of powdered formula has been alleviated, as I pointed out in my report to the Panel earlier, we consider it premature to repeal the restrictions in the Import LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6789 and Export Ordinance on the export of powdered formula at this stage. We will continue to adopt three strategies, that is, first, to continue the export restrictions so as to control the flows of parallel trading; second, to continue discussions with the industry so as to improve the supply chain, including improving its ordering service to address the needs of local infants and young children; and third, to continue collaborating with the Hong Kong Customs and Excise Department in combating parallel trading activities.

As regards the development of the agricultural and fisheries industries, the current-term Government is very concerned about the development of these industries. I am grateful to the Finance Committee of the Legislative Council for approving the allocation of $500 million last month to set up the Sustainable Fisheries Development Fund to promote projects and studies on the sustainable development of the fisheries industry. In addition, several Honourable Members have raised concerns about agricultural development in this debate. Among them, Mr Steven HO and Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che have particularly mentioned the protection of agricultural land. In this year's Policy Address, we have proposed to conduct, within this year, a review and a consultation on how best to spruce up the existing agricultural policy. The purpose of the review is to upgrade the local agricultural industry and promote the sustainable development of agriculture, thus allowing better utilization of the positive value of agriculture to society. In this regard, we will later come up with some ideas, and then think of ways to propel the review together with the industry.

With respect to municipal services and environmental hygiene, several Honourable Members are concerned about the issue of columbarium niches. In October 2013, we already reported to the Panel on the overall progress made by us in the supply of public niches and how to regulate private columbaria through a statutory licensing scheme. We aim to introduce the relevant bill into the Legislative Council in the second quarter of this year. Meanwhile, we are also proactively taking forward a number of public columbarium works projects in promoting the district-based development mode. I hope that different political parties and their district organizations can give as much support to the projects as possible during our consultation with the relevant District Councils, so that these facilities needed by local communities can be commissioned as early as possible. As for some rather creative and long-term proposals, such as the use of caverns for developing columbaria as mentioned by an Honourable Member, we will also explore them with an open attitude.

6790 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014

In addition, some Honourable Members have also expressed concerns over our policies on public markets and hawkers. In June last year, we launched a five-year assistance scheme under which a one-off grant/ex-gratia payment will be granted to hawkers who reconstruct their stalls at the same locations, relocate their stalls or choose to surrender their hawker licences. As at the end of 2013, the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department already completed the handling of 150 cases. Besides, the consultancy study on improvements to the operating environment of public markets will be preliminarily completed in the middle of this year. We will report on the findings and recommendations of the study to the Legislative Council and stakeholders in due course.

On the front of animal welfare, both Mr Albert CHAN and Dr Helena WONG are concerned about our proactiveness in promoting animal welfare. The Government has all along been promoting animal welfare in three aspects, that is, first, legislation; second, enforcement; and third, publicity and education. Honourable Members may be aware that the police have already introduced the Animal Watch Scheme, which has proved to be effective, and the Court has recently imposed heavier sentences in cases of cruelty to animals in the light of our enforcement actions. This apart, an Honourable Member has alluded to the tightening of the statutory regulation of sales of dogs bred by private pet owners, and we very much hope that Legislative Council Members and animal groups will soon reach a consensus on the new licensing system proposed by the Government last year to better regulate pet trading. This is because after our last reporting at the relevant Panel meeting, we have noted many different views that clash with each other from members of the trade, resulting in our departments having to do more work in communicating and co-ordinating with the organizations concerned, so that they may reach a consensus as soon as possible, thereby allowing us to implement this proposal.

Regarding public healthcare services, there are comments from Honourable Members that there is little mention of healthcare services in this year's Policy Address. I suggest that Honourable Members should not just look at the number or length of the paragraphs concerned. In fact, on the whole, as pointed out in both the Chief Executive's manifesto and this Policy Address, our long-term direction is to pursue the development of a dual-track system of public-private partnership. Actually, in this regard, Honourable Members should understand that many very important projects and reviews initiated by us are in progress. Let me cite some examples. For instance, our work on the voluntary Health Protection Scheme (HPS), which aims for a balanced development of public and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6791 private healthcare services, has reached a decisive stage and we will consult the public on the contents of a relevant consultancy study later this year. What is more, our work on promoting the population-wide electronic health record (eHR) sharing system, a very important information sharing platform, has also advanced to a crucial stage and we will introduce a bill on the privacy and information security of the eHR sharing system into the Legislative Council within this year.

As for healthcare manpower, which is a matter of concern to a number of Honourable Members, we have also conducted a strategic study and will submit reports on the review results for different grades of staff one after another to Honourable Members for discussion this year. With respect to public hospital services, we have earlier set up a committee to conduct a review of the cluster management and resource allocation by the Hospital Authority (HA), and it is now in full swing. We are in the process of closely communicating with a lot of different stakeholders and listening to their views in the hope that the review will be more fruitful.

As regards public hospital facilities, we have earlier submitted a blueprint for the long-term development of these facilities to the Panel on Health Services of the Legislative Council, in the hope that our healthcare facilities will be able to serve the needs of our growing and ageing population in the next two to three decades. As to private healthcare services, we are very actively working on two initiatives in respect of the regulatory framework and development of facilities. On the regulation of private healthcare institutions, we have established a steering committee, which is now studying ways to enhance the role of the Department of Health in regulating private healthcare institutions in the community or hospitals, and we will probably need to amend the legislation in the future to step up regulation in this regard, so as to boost public confidence in private healthcare services. Also, to address the problem of inadequate private healthcare service facilities, we have earlier disposed of a site in Wong Chuk Hang for private hospital development, and we are actually having discussions with different existing private hospitals and some organizations, mainly voluntary agencies or non-profit-making organizations, on certain proposals from them, including the provision of additional beds in hospitals and the construction of new hospitals.

Moreover, in two very important areas, namely mental health and Chinese medicine development, we have also set up two committees, which are now in operation. President, in each of the aforesaid important areas of work subject to a review, it is not always the case that we must wait until the entire review report 6792 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 is completed before we can commence our work. We can give many examples. For instance, the work of the Chinese Medicine Development Committee is still ongoing, but as there were suggestions raised in the meantime that a Chinese medicine hospital should be established, we have responded in the Policy Address that a site has been reserved accordingly.

Of course, regular work is also very important, and we have to continue to deal with the threat of infectious diseases. Now, let me focus on responding in greater depth to some points raised by Honourable Members in relation to several areas mentioned just now. As for hospital facilities, among the public hospital facilities mentioned in the Policy Addresses for this year and last year as a whole, a children hospital is now under construction apart from the major acute general hospital in Kai Tak, and we also have the Kwong Wah Hospital redevelopment project, the Queen Mary Hospital redevelopment project, the United Christian Hospital expansion project, and so on. In addition, our review of the HA is being conducted with a particular focus on the problem of uneven allocation of resources among the several existing hospital clusters, as mentioned by a number of Honourable Members. At present, as I said just now, we are in the process of meeting with stakeholders to understand their views.

With respect to private healthcare services, Mr CHAN Kin-por just now raised a number of doubts about the voluntary HPS in particular. I would like to point out here that in devising the proposed voluntary HPS, we have not only commissioned a detailed consultancy study, but have also drawn reference from many overseas examples, so the whole scheme was not entirely invented by us, nor was it created behind closed doors. Of course, we will carefully listen to and fully consider the views of members of the industry, and later we will fully absorb the opinions from the industry and the public at large during our public consultation before deciding on the way forward.

On the front of elderly healthcare, a few Honourable Members have voiced concerns. This year's Policy Address has proposed to double the Elderly Health Care Voucher amount to $2,000 within this year, and I note that this is, relatively speaking, acceptable to the community and many Honourable Members. After the proposal has been put forth, there will certainly be different views on whether the amount can be further increased, or the eligible age be lowered. I believe that after this initiative has been implemented, we will assess the effectiveness of the entire Elderly Health Care Voucher Scheme, and then consider if there are other ways to enhance it further. A few Honourable Members have particularly LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 6793 mentioned dental services. The Pilot Project on Outreach Primary Dental Care Services for the Elderly in Residential Care Homes and Day Care Centres launched by us earlier is a rather successful project, and we will convert it into a regular programme. Also, Honourable Members are very concerned about our elders in the community; we acknowledge that, in truth, their demand for dental services has yet to be fully satisfied. The Community Care Fund Task Force is very actively considering how to expand existing elderly dental services in the community to benefit more elderly people with financial difficulties.

Several Honourable Members have particularly mentioned a pilot project, namely the pilot programme on colorectal cancer screening. Actually, this is a very important direction of policy development. As you may be aware, in the past the Government was rather cautious about committing itself to preventive work, especially screening work. As far as this initiative of colorectal cancer screening is concerned, firstly, colorectal cancer has actually become the most common cancer in Hong Kong since 2011, and secondly, there is sufficient evidence accumulated worldwide to prove that colorectal cancer screening does have a positive impact on public health. We understand the various issues raised by the Members, such as how resources should be deployed to render support, whether there are enough facilities and manpower, the procedures involved, and whether a public-private partnership approach will be adopted. There are indeed many issues to be dealt with, but I wish to point out that if we do not make the first step, we will never be able to accomplish this. Therefore, in my view, the Government has decided to make the first step this time around ― of course we need some time to make preparations for the pilot programme, which involves a lot of matters concerning resources, procedures, and so on ― and I think this is a very important first step. Going forward, we will make more efforts to examine the feasibility of other screening and preventive programmes in the hope of taking them forward one after another in future policy addresses.

As for Chinese medicine development, several Honourable Members have particularly commented on the proposal to develop a Chinese medicine hospital, especially on the mode of operation of the hospital, as well as the collaboration between Chinese and Western medicine. In this connection, let me just respond to one point raised by Mr CHAN Han-pan. In fact, we have already appointed the HA to select some beds in a few public hospitals for carrying out an experimental or pilot project on the mode of collaboration between Chinese and Western medicine for in-patient services in view of the possible commissioning of a Chinese medicine hospital in the future. Later, we will specifically select 6794 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 13 February 2014 certain illnesses on which we think the curative effect of Chinese medicine is relatively strong, such as cancers, pains and strokes, for treatment under this project through which in-patients will be treated with integrated Chinese-Western medicine. This will help gather experiences in the operation and regulation of integrated Chinese-Western medicine and Chinese medicine in-patient services, so that we will be able to give full play to this mode as and when a Chinese medicine hospital is really commissioned.

Lastly, regarding the control of infectious diseases, everyone is concerned about the impact of avian influenza A (H7N9) on Hong Kong at the moment. Tomorrow morning, I will meet with representatives of the industry and talk to them about two issues. The first issue is the loss suffered by the industry in the incident concerned, and tomorrow I will advise them of the view formed by us after our assessment. Another point of common concern is the segregation of live chickens from the Mainland and those from local farms, which is indeed a rather difficult issue. But most importantly, I hope all of you can understand that we agree that at least there should be a way to separate two batches of chickens while one is being tested and the other is waiting for the test result. It will be difficult to put this into practice, but we will try our level best. In any event, upon the resumption of the supply of live chickens next Wednesday, I will explain our stance on these two issues in further detail.

President, I hope Honourable Members will support our various initiatives on health and food safety proposed in the Policy Address, and I look forward to working together with the Legislative Council and the public at large to perfect our mechanisms concerning healthcare and food safety. With these remarks, President, I urge Honourable Members to support the Policy Address.

SUSPENSION OF MEETING

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The third debate session has ended. I now suspend the meeting until 9 am tomorrow.

Suspended accordingly at twenty minutes to Eleven o'clock.