LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 May 2020 7431

OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Thursday, 28 May 2020

The Council continued to meet at Nine o'clock

MEMBERS PRESENT:

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

THE HONOURABLE JAMES TO KUN-SUN

THE HONOURABLE LEUNG YIU-CHUNG

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

7432 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 May 2020

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

THE HONOURABLE WAI-CHUN, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE CLAUDIA MO

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

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

THE HONOURABLE WU CHI-WAI, M.H.

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

THE HONOURABLE CHARLES PETER MOK, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHI-CHUEN

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

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

THE HONOURABLE

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

DR THE HONOURABLE KWOK KA-KI

THE HONOURABLE KWOK WAI-KEUNG, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE WING-HANG

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

DR THE HONOURABLE CHIU-HUNG

DR THE HONOURABLE PIK-WAN

THE HONOURABLE IP KIN-YUEN

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 May 2020 7433

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

THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG-KONG, G.B.S., J.P.

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

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

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

THE HONOURABLE CHUNG KWOK-PAN

THE HONOURABLE ALVIN YEUNG

THE HONOURABLE SIU-KIN

THE HONOURABLE CHU HOI-DICK

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

DR THE HONOURABLE KWAN-YIU, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE HO KAI-MING

THE HONOURABLE LAM CHEUK-TING

THE HONOURABLE HO-DING

THE HONOURABLE SHIU KA-FAI, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE SHIU KA-CHUN

THE HONOURABLE CHONG-SHING, M.H.

THE HONOURABLE YUNG HOI-YAN, J.P.

DR THE HONOURABLE

THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHUN-YING, J.P.

7434 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 May 2020

THE HONOURABLE TANYA CHAN

THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG KWOK-KWAN, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE HUI CHI-FUNG

THE HONOURABLE LUK CHUNG-HUNG, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE LAU KWOK-FAN, M.H.

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

DR THE HONOURABLE CHENG CHUNG-TAI

THE HONOURABLE KWONG CHUN-YU

THE HONOURABLE JEREMY TAM MAN-HO

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

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

THE HONOURABLE CHAN HOI-YAN

MEMBERS ABSENT:

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

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

PUBLIC OFFICER ATTENDING:

THE HONOURABLE ERICK TSANG KWOK-WAI, I.D.S.M., J.P. SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 May 2020 7435

CLERKS IN ATTENDANCE:

MISS FLORA TAI YIN-PING, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

MS DORA WAI, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

MR MATTHEW LOO, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

7436 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 May 2020

GOVERNMENT BILLS

Second Reading of Government Bills

Resumption of Second Reading Debate on Government Bill

PRESIDENT (in ): Honourable Members, at yesterday's meeting, Mr HUI Chi-fung set off a sound device and placed it at the air conditioner outlet above his seat, thereby disrupting the proceedings in the Council.

I hereby give Mr HUI Chi-fung a warning. Please do not disrupt the proceedings in the Council again by setting off any sound device or creating other nuisances at Council meetings. Otherwise, I will regard such conduct as grossly disorderly, and will order Mr HUI Chi-fung to withdraw from the Council immediately in accordance with Rule 45(2) of the Rules of Procedure.

I now make it clear in advance. Should any Member create similar nuisances at Council meetings, I will directly order the Member to withdraw from the Council immediately without any further warning.

Mr Kenneth LEUNG, please speak.

NATIONAL ANTHEM BILL

Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 23 January 2019

MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, please do a headcount under Rule 17 of the Rules of Procedure first.

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

(While the summoning bell was ringing, a phone rang inside the Chamber)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 May 2020 7437

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please switch their mobile phones to silent mode.

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

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Kenneth LEUNG, please speak.

MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, the most important consideration in examining whether a bill is fit for resumption of Second Reading debate is whether the bill is consistent with the spirit of the rule of law.

As often noted by pro-establishment Members in the past year or two, after a bill is passed into a law under the rule of law principle, provided that members of the public abide by the law upon its implementation, the rule of law will be upheld. In my view, this is only one component of the entire rule of law concept. As to whether the National Anthem Bill ("the Bill") is consistent with the spirit of the law, it is essential to examine the purpose and social implications of the Bill, and the proportionality of the clauses thereof.

Before I discuss the content of the Bill, I would like to briefly talk about the factors determining whether the society as a whole is equipped with a comprehensive rule of law system and the spirit of the rule of law. You may have heard about the difference between "rule of law" and "rule by law". In fact, apart from the social implications of primary legislations and the clarity of legal provisions, factors such as an independent judicial system, equality of all before the law, and easy access of the public to affordable legal assistance, etc., are indispensable components of the rule of law spirit.

What is the purpose and spirit of the Bill? At the outset, the Bill promotes respect for the national anthem. However, what is "respect"? "Respect" is an ideology. Can respect for others be fostered by legislation alone? There is a colloquial expression in the Guangzhou dialect: "Respect is accorded by others; notoriety is brought on by oneself". Is it feasible to impose "respect" on members of the public, or should members of the public pay respect to the national anthem of their own accord? Let me cite an example. When we go to 7438 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 May 2020 a concert, we will naturally sit quietly and listen to the music. We will listen quietly or stand up when we hear the national anthem of any country. I have noticed that in the Mainland …

(Mr CHU Hoi-dick displayed a placard reading "Best Chairman Starry LEE" in his seat)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHU Hoi-dick, please leave the Chamber immediately.

MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, why?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): As I said yesterday, no placard with insulting words shall be displayed.

Mr CHU Hoi-dick, please leave the Chamber.

(Mr CHU Hoi-dick stood up, holding the placard and speaking loudly; he did not withdraw from the Council as directed by the President. Security officers moved forward to assist him in leaving the Chamber)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHU Hoi-dick, please leave the Chamber.

(Security officers continued to assist Mr CHU Hoi-dick in leaving the Chamber, but he refused to leave)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now suspend the meeting.

9:11 am

Meeting suspended.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 May 2020 7439

10:15 am

Council then resumed.

(Mr WU Chi-wai yelled in his seat: "Beware of tripping, Andrew LEUNG!")

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please do not yell in their seats.

(Mr CHAN Chi-chuen stood in an aisle of the Chamber and spoke loudly)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please do not shout in their seats or while standing in the aisles.

(Some Members indicated their intention to raise points of order)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): First of all, please let me expound on some points of order.

I believe you are fully aware that at the Council meeting held last week, some Members repeatedly used offensive and insulting language about Deputy President Ms Starry LEE. Both the Deputy President and I had repeatedly reminded Members and warned them against using those expressions again. In the end, the Deputy President and I had ruled the expressions to be offensive and insulting, and advised Members against using them again. As I clearly indicated last week, should any Member use such offensive or insulting expressions at Council meetings again, I would directly order the Member to withdraw from the Council immediately without any further warning.

At yesterday's meeting, Mr CHU Hoi-dick displayed a placard with offensive words about Ms Starry LEE. At that time, I immediately ordered Secretariat staff to remove the placard and stressed that I would directly order any Member who displayed similar placards again to withdraw from the Council immediately without any further warning.

7440 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 May 2020

Today, Mr CHU Hoi-dick displayed another placard reading "Best Chairman Starry LEE". Considering the fact that Mr CHU Hoi-dick placed a placard to target Ms Starry LEE yesterday, I consider that Mr CHU Hoi-dick, who displayed a placard today reading "Best Chairman Starry LEE", obviously attempts to continue to offend and insult Ms Starry LEE in an ironic way.

(Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, standing in an aisle of the Chamber, queried the President's ruling loudly)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, please sit down.

(A number of Members yelled in their seats, and some Members displayed the placards reading "Best Chairman Starry LEE" in their seats)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): If Members continue yelling, I will regard such conduct as grossly disorderly.

(Mr CHAN Chi-chuen still spoke loudly in an aisle of the Chamber)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, please return to your seat. If you still fail to do so, I will regard such conduct as grossly disorderly. Please return to your seat.

(Mr CHAN Chi-chuen did not return to his seat as directed by the President)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, this is my last warning to you. If you still do not return to your seat, I will regard such conduct as grossly disorderly.

(Some Members indicated their wish to raise points of order)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 May 2020 7441

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, are you unwilling to return to your seat?

(Mr CHAN Chi-chuen did not return to his seat as directed by the President, and continued to speak loudly)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, are you unwilling to return to your seat? Mr CHAN, please leave the Chamber.

(Security officers moved forward to assist Mr CHAN Chi-chuen in leaving the Chamber, but he refused to leave; at this juncture, some Members chanted "Best Chairman")

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now suspend the meeting.

10:18 am

Meeting suspended.

10:40 am

Council then resumed.

(Some Members chanted "Best President Andrew LEUNG, beware of tripping!")

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I will now repeat my explanation. Earlier today, Mr CHU Hoi-dick displayed another placard reading "Best Chairman Starry LEE". Considering the fact that Mr CHU Hoi-dick placed a placard to target Ms Starry LEE yesterday, I considered that Mr CHU Hoi-dick, who displayed a placard today reading "Best Chairman Starry LEE", obviously attempted to continue to offend and insult Ms Starry LEE in an ironic way. As I consider such behaviour unacceptable, I ordered Mr CHU Hoi-dick to leave the Chamber immediately.

7442 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 May 2020

Here is my warning in advance. Should any Members display similar placards or statements in the Chamber, I will order them to withdraw from the Council right away without further warning.

Ms Starry LEE, please speak.

MS STARRY LEE (in Cantonese): President, in fact, we all know the ins and outs of this issue. I, being the House Committee Chairman, am legally elected in accordance with the Rules of Procedure ("RoP").

We have been extremely tolerant, but the Members sitting on this side keep using this kind of …

(A number of Members spoke aloud in their seats while some Members said they wish to raise a point of order)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Starry LEE is speaking. Please let her finish her speech first.

MS STARRY LEE (in Cantonese): President, please ask them to keep quiet as they are obstructing my speech.

President, I would like to raise a point of order since I am involved in this issue. I repeat once again: I am legally elected as the House Committee Chairman in accordance with RoP. Members who question the legality of my election may follow up through other channels.

(Some Members kept shouting in their seats)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please stop shouting in their seats. I will deal with your points of order one by one in a while.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 May 2020 7443

MS STARRY LEE (in Cantonese): In this Council, many Members are from the legal sector and they should know that adjudication is the right way to solve legal disputes. It is wrong for them to disrupt the order of the Council repeatedly and launch personal attacks against me.

President, I would like to point out that it is important to protect all committee and panel chairmen elected in accordance with RoP, and I am not the only one involved in this issue. President, in my view, RoP must be enforced strictly to facilitate the smooth running of meetings.

(Mr WU Chi-wai indicated his wish to raise a point of order)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WU Chi-wai, what is your point of order?

MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): President, RoP 41(5) clearly provides that no Member should speculate on the motives of another Member for his speech. Regarding the expression "Best Chairman Starry LEE", how could you have interpreted it as an insulting or ironic statement if you had not speculated on the motive?

Besides, you did not give Mr CHU Hoi-dick any chance to give an explanation. Today, I am here to show the same placard. Can you also read my mind, knowing that I am making an ironic comment about Ms Starry LEE?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I have already explained the relevant considerations of my ruling in detail.

MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): You have speculated on the thoughts of Members.

(Mr CHAN Hak-kan indicated his wish to raise a point of order)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Hak-kan, what is your point of order?

7444 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 May 2020

MR CHAN HAK-KAN (in Cantonese): President, I have a point of order. According to RoP 41(1), "A Member shall restrict his observations to the subject under discussion and shall not introduce matter irrelevant to that subject." Today, the subject under discussion is the National Anthem Bill. How are the placards in the hand of Mr WU Chi-wai, in the hand of Dr Fernando CHEUNG and on other Members' desks relevant to the National Anthem Bill? The placards should be removed if they are not relevant.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): It is the long-established practice for the President to allow Members to display placards relevant to the subjects under discussion in the Chamber during Council meetings. However, I have ruled that Members must not display placards which insult or satirize Ms Starry LEE at the meeting. Just now, I also warned in advance that if any Members displayed similar placards or statements in the Chamber, I would order them to withdraw from the Council right away without further warning.

(Dr Fernando CHEUNG indicated his wish to raise a point of order)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Fernando CHEUNG, what is your point of order?

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, can you please clarify which provision you have applied to rule that it is a breach of RoP for Members to display ironic statements in the Council?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I have already made my ruling.

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): You cannot just make a ruling. You have to specify which provision that you have applied in making that ruling.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): RoP 41(4).

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Just now, you said that Mr CHU Hoi-dick had used an irony.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 May 2020 7445

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I have made my ruling under RoP 41(4) to rule that the statement on Mr CHU Hoi-dick's placard was in breach of RoP.

(Mr Alvin YEUNG spoke aloud while standing in his seat)

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): But the statement on the placard today is not offensive.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I have already made my ruling.

(Mr Alvin YEUNG indicated his wish to raise a point of order)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Alvin YEUNG, what is your point of order?

MR ALVIN YEUNG (in Cantonese): President, your ruling is so brilliant and so wise that it must be the final decision. However, we, as Members, need to know how you apply RoP. If we are not allowed to write "Best Chairman" on our placards, can we write "Wisest Member"? How about "Best decision"? If you cannot provide us with an objective standard, all Members may be caught by your ruling inadvertently.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Alvin YEUNG, how is this placard relevant to this meeting? If they are not relevant …

MR ALVIN YEUNG (in Cantonese): They are of course relevant. She may have to act as the Deputy President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Alvin YEUNG, I have already given a reply to your point of order.

(Mr LAM Cheuk-ting indicated his wish to raise a point of order)

7446 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 May 2020

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, what is your point of order?

MR LAM CHEUK-TING (in Cantonese): President Andrew LEUNG, just now, you said that the statement on Mr CHU Hoi-dick's placard was irrelevant to the subject of our meeting today. If so, you should have first asked him to put away his placard instead of expelling him from the Chamber right away. Besides …

(Mr HUI Chi-fung left his seat)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HUI Chi-fung, please return to your seat immediately.

(Mr HUI Chi-fung, who was holding an item in his hand, walked towards the President's podium while security officers moved forward to stop him)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HUI Chi-fung, please leave the Chamber immediately!

(Mr HUI Chi-fung dropped the item in his hand onto the floor)

MR LAM CHEUK-TING (in Cantonese): What is this?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now suspend the meeting. I am not sure whether the item thrown by Mr HUI Chi-fung is dangerous or not.

10:47 am

Meeting suspended.

4:00 pm

Council then resumed.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 May 2020 7447

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): As Honourable Members are aware, early this week, I issued a circular via the Secretariat to inform Members of the time allocation for handling the National Anthem Bill ("the Bill"), where eight hours have been reserved for the Second Reading debate and the time used for quorum calls and other procedural matters during the consideration of the Bill will be counted in the 30 hours mentioned above.

The Second Reading debate which started at 3:00 pm yesterday should have ended around 1:00 pm today. Yet, due to the grossly disorderly behaviours of certain Members today, the meeting has to be suspended a number of times, resulting in a loss of over seven hours of meeting time. Notwithstanding this, I will allow Members to speak on the Second Reading debate for another hour. After that, I will call on government official to reply and then put to vote the motion on the Second Reading of the Bill. If the motion is passed, this Council will proceed to the consideration of the Bill by the committee of the whole Council. I call on Members to make good use of time to consider the Bill.

MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, my thoughts were interrupted by you this morning. At that time, I was talking about the rule of law, that is, the issue of "rule of law" or "rule by law". We have to look at the legislative intent, social effect and clarity of provisions of the National Anthem Bill ("the Bill") before discussing whether or not the Second Reading debate of the Bill should be continued.

(Mr Vincent CHENG indicated his wish to raise a point of order)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Vincent CHENG, what is your point of order?

(Mr Vincent CHENG did not put on his microphone before speaking)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHENG, please put on your microphone.

MR VINCENT CHENG (in Cantonese): President, I notice that some extremely impolite words are written on the placards behind Mr Kenneth LEUNG. Please make a ruling.

7448 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 May 2020

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will the Secretariat staff please remove those two placards and the placard on Dr Fernando CHEUNG's seat as well. Mr Kenneth LEUNG, please continue.

MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, my thoughts have been interrupted by you once again. I have to see whether the Bill has any legal basis and whether its strict enforcement is supported by the rule of law. Certainly, this is merely one of the elements but not the overall spirit of the rule of law.

I raised a few other arguments this morning. As far as legislation is concerned, I will cite the example of the apartheid policy adopted in South Africa in the 1970s. Back then, the black were banned from travelling on the same vehicle and dinning in the same restaurant with the white. The country had enacted relevant laws. Yet what were their significance and impacts on society and what was the legal basis for their enactment? Certainly, after 20-odd years, we now consider such laws totally unethical and not conducive to racial integration in any way.

Certainly, now, we have to look at the social significance of enacting the national anthem law. The legislation requires people to respect the national anthem. Yet, I have said previously that "face is given by others but disgrace is done by yourself", and being respectful actually means giving face. I have also mentioned that people who attend concerts to enjoy singers' performance will listen quietly to show respect. However, why would a small group of people take such actions? Why do we not reflect on the reasons and deep-rooted problems involved?

The Government resorts to legislation to deal with insulting behaviour against the national anthem, with a maximum penalty of up to three years' imprisonment. Certainly, a penalty of five years or above could have been imposed. Nevertheless, if punishment is used to force people to show respect, would such respect be genuine respect? Such respect is neither sincere nor voluntary.

I note that the United Nations has published the General comment No. 34 on Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights ("the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 May 2020 7449

Covenant") on freedoms of opinion and expression. It is mentioned in paragraph 38 that the Human Rights Committee of the United Nations ("the Committee") has observed that in circumstances of public debate concerning public figures in the political domain and public institutions, the value placed by the Covenant upon uninhibited expression is particularly high. Thus, the Committee disagrees that forms of expression considered to be insulting to a public figure are sufficient to justify the imposition of penalties, albeit public figures may also benefit from the provisions of the Covenant. Moreover, all public figures, including those exercising the highest political authority such as heads of state and government, are legitimately subject to criticism and political opposition. Accordingly, the Committee expresses concern regarding laws on such matters as, lese majesty, desacato, disrespect for authority, disrespect for flags and symbols, defamation of the head of state and the protection of the honour of public officials, and laws should not provide for more severe penalties solely on the basis of the identity of the person that may have been impugned. State parties should not prohibit criticism of institutions, such as the army or the administration.

Why should our freedom of expression be restricted? It is because some people may fabricate false remarks to undermine other's reputation or cause other losses, which is within the scope of civil actions. Of course, some cases may involve defamation of criminal nature. Further restrictions beyond this should not be imposed. Moreover, the Amnesty International ("AI") has put forth some fundamental views. AI states that freedom of expression is fundamental human rights, and the primary principle is that every one has the right to seek, receive and impart information and ideas in any form without fear or interference. This human right is safeguarded by international covenants and local laws, including Article 27 of the Basic Law, Article 19 of the Covenant and Article 16 of the Bill of Rights.

How is the respect for the national anthem related to patriotism? Of course, the national anthem is merely a song. What is patriotism? What is the definition of country? Yes, our national anthem does mention Chinese people. I recall a conversation with Mr SZETO Wah a dozen years ago about where the love was in patriotism. We love the scenery, land and people of the country, and instead of a monoethnic country, there are 50-odd ethnic groups in China. Our love is for the culture of the country but not the institution, the government or the 7450 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 May 2020 ruling regime of the country. Hence, patriotism in the broad sense is about the love for the nation as a whole, including its culture. As such, I find it rather bizarre that the respect for the national anthem and patriotism are linked to the Bill. Though the Government says that adjustments have been made to the Bill so that provisions that used to apply to the Mainland have become comparable to common law, I cannot find any similarity between the Bill and common law in any way. Besides, the drafting of many parts of the Bill are extremely vague and ambiguous.

Hence, President, in view of the above reasons and some recent social incidents, I would like to seek the President's permission for me to move a motion without notice. I move a motion that the debate be now adjourned under Rule 40(1) of the Rules of Procedure. Would the President please consider this.

Motion under Rule 40(1) of the Rules of Procedure that the Second Reading debate on the National Anthem Bill be now adjourned

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Since Mr Kenneth LEUNG has moved a motion that the debate be now adjourned, this Council will deal with this motion first. However, since the time I have reserved for the Second Reading debate is up, I will exercise my discretion to allow Members to debate on this motion of adjournment for one hour, and the motion will then be put to vote.

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

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

MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): You originally said that one hour would be set aside for the Second Reading debate, and I will not argue whether this one-hour limit is reasonable, but as it is a new motion being proposed now and with only one hour, it would be enough for only four Members to speak on it. And, excluding the sponsor of this motion, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, only three other Members could speak, and this is unreasonable. It is because originally you did not expect anyone to propose an adjournment motion and the debate on the adjournment motion is outside the scope of the Second Reading debate. Therefore, this debate should not be subject to a time limit. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 May 2020 7451

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Jeremy TAM, I already set aside a reasonable amount of time for the consideration of the Bill. If Members could make good use of the time, I think Members would have enough time to express their views on the National Anthem Bill and its amendments …

(Some Members spoke loudly in their seats)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Can you first let me finish? Regrettably, the behaviours of some Members were grossly disorderly and this has wasted the time for debate. As I have pointed out repeatedly, the time used for quorum calls and other procedures will be counted in the overall 30 hours reserved for the Bill. The debate on the adjournment motion is an item proposed in the stage of Second Reading and therefore, I can only allow about one hour for this debate.

(Dr KWOK Ka-ki indicated his wish to raise a point of order)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, what is your point of order?

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): President, really, I have never heard of this great invention before, because this new motion being proposed now is intended to adjourn the Second Reading debate. I do not know how you calculated the time, and this is your business. But the Legislative Council has its constitutional role. We can see that there have been great controversies over this issue, or else we would not have seen so many Members expressing dissatisfaction at some rulings.

Now we need sufficient time to debate why the debate has to be adjourned. It is your business as to how to calculate the time but we must perform our duties and President, you cannot deprive Members of the opportunity to engage in discussions proposed in this Council under the Rules of Procedure ("RoP"), and I have never heard that a debate on an adjournment motion is subject to a time limit. I would like to ask if the Secretariat or Legal Adviser can give us advice and tell us why a time limit can be imposed on a formal motion so casually.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, I think the behaviours of some Members are obviously intended to cause delays to the proceedings of the meeting. I must stress that Members do not have the right to exploit the 7452 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 May 2020 provisions of RoP to prolong the procedures of the meeting or obstruct the Legislative Council from preforming its constitutional function. When I preside over meetings in my capacity as the President of the Legislative Council under Article 72(1) of the Basic Law, I am duty-bound to ensure that the meeting is conducted in an orderly, efficient and fair manner, so that the Legislative Council can complete the scrutiny of the National Anthem Bill within a reasonable time.

Regarding the arrangement for the National Anthem Bill, I have had communication with Members already and issued a notice early this week on the arrangement of setting the time limit at 30 hours. Besides, a substantial amount of legislative work is still pending in this legislative year and therefore, it is an appropriate arrangement to set this limit.

(Mr Alvin YEUNG indicated his wish to raise a point of order)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Alvin YEUNG, what is your point of order?

MR ALVIN YEUNG (in Cantonese): What if this motion on adjournment is passed? What will you do?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): If this motion is passed, I would adjourn the Second Reading debate.

MR ALVIN YEUNG (in Cantonese): If so, why can you not allow Members to debate it for a longer time? This motion may have the effect of adjourning the Second Reading debate. Why do you have to set a time limit for the debate?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Alvin YEUNG, I already made it very clear, and I also communicated with your representative and that of the pro-establishment camp at noon time. I think this arrangement is appropriate.

(Ms Tanya CHAN indicated her wish to speak)

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

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 May 2020 7453

MS TANYA CHAN (in Cantonese): President, your communication with me was only a kind of one-way communication to inform me of this arrangement, and I simply could not say no. Up to this point in time, although you already made a ruling, I think you should listen to the views of colleagues because I was only informed of this arrangement earlier, and I told my colleagues about it right away. The adjournment motion is another item. Now this motion is officially moved and colleagues wish to speak on it and this, I think, is most reasonable. Earlier on when you talked to the journalists, you pledged your unfailing support for the national security law, and while I will not comment on how you can represent us Members in the pro-democracy camp, at least you have said that we still have six weeks for deliberations to be carried out. Why must you set the deadline at 4 June?

Moreover, an adjournment motion is now moved during the Second Reading debate and this is another item of the meeting which is dealt with separately by another provision in RoP. The Second Reading procedures do not include adjournment debates. An adjournment debate can be proposed for every item on the Agenda. It is an extra item, so how can you deal with it by lumping everything together? You only informed me of this arrangement earlier. Now we hope to appeal to you to take a proper handling approach, and this is in order.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms CHAN, I have heard your view but I have already made a ruling.

Mr Kenneth LEUNG, you have moved a motion on the adjournment of the debate under RoP 40(1). Please speak on the motion.

(Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung indicated his wish to raise a point of order)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, what is your point of order?

MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): You said earlier that the President has the duty to ensure that the meeting is conducted efficiently and fairly but now you have limited the speaking time on the adjournment motion to one hour. 7454 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 May 2020

How can this be fair when some Members can speak and some cannot? Let me ask you this: How do you define fairness?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think the arrangement is fair because I have already set aside 30 hours for the consideration of the National Anthem Bill.

MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): No, you are not. Tell me, when Members debate the motion on adjournment, how can each Member take part in the debate fairly? How do you explain the definition of fairness?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Article 72(1) of the Basic Law provides for the power and function of the President of the Legislative Council to preside over meetings, and the Court of Final Appeal also stated that the time for debates in the Legislative Council belongs to the Legislative Council as a whole, and it is not the case that each Member will definitely be allowed time to speak in a debate. Please stop impeding the proceedings of the meeting.

Mr Kenneth LEUNG, are you going to speak on this motion?

MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, can you reconsider your decision?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Had Members made good use of the time earlier, certainly we would have time to deal with other business. But the behaviours of some Members were grossly disorderly today and this has wasted much time of this Council.

Mr Kenneth LEUNG, please speak.

(Ms Tanya CHAN indicated her wish to speak)

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

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 May 2020 7455

MS TANYA CHAN (in Cantonese): President, even though you have made your ruling from your point of view on the behaviours of some colleagues, some of the time spent in this meeting today was not under our control, such as the time spent on collecting evidence or cleaning up. With respect to the time spent for these purposes, of course, you may say that it is the end result or consequential in nature. But these were things that happened in the aftermath, and they were out of our hands. President, particularly regarding the collection of evidence, that was all the more out of our control, not to mention the time spent on cleaning up. You could have changed to another venue but you did not use …

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

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Tanya CHAN, is your mobile phone around you?

MS TANYA CHAN (in Cantonese): No, I do not have my mobile phone around me.

There is a Room 1 here but you did not use it and just waited until the clean up was done. So this has, to a certain extent, caused us to lose some meeting time. The meeting could have continued but maybe you considered that the incident was more serious and you, therefore, preferred focussing on the handling of what happened in the Chamber. But actually we could use Room 1, just that you did not give an instruction on a change of venue. Therefore, we lost a few hours for the debate because of your decision. So may I ask why we should be forced to bear with it?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Tanya CHAN, had there not been grossly disorderly conduct on the part of a Member who brought into the Chamber a foul-smelling, rotten object and dropped it on the floor, how could this consequence have arisen? As there were problems with the air in the Chamber back then, I must report the case to the Police, and the meeting could be resumed only when I could be certain that the Chamber was safe. Moreover, I had conducted an inspection on the Chamber with some staff members earlier, and I 7456 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 May 2020 announced the resumption of the meeting when the odour was proven acceptable and after confirming that the safety of Members and staff members would not be jeopardized. Therefore, I hope that Members will not entangle themselves in this issue anymore and please make good use of the time to express views.

Mr Kenneth LEUNG, please speak.

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

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

MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): President, you said that you would allow only one hour for the speaking time but you have not turned on the system for Members to press the "Request to Speak" button. In that case, with regard to Members intending to speak on the adjournment motion, how will you determine their speaking order? This is the first point.

Second, RoP 36(5) clearly provides that subject to RoP 37 (Recommendations of House Committee as to Time of Speaking), a Member shall not make a speech lasting more than 15 minutes. Now you have arranged for Members to speak for one hour, and as I said just now, after Mr Kenneth LEUNG has spoken and if you still allow Members to speak up to 15 minutes, it means that only three Members can speak, and as you have not turned on the system to allow Members to press the "Request to Speak" button, I have no idea how you will handle it. Besides, under such circumstances, will you consider not allowing each Member to speak up to 15 minutes? Otherwise, how can it be possible that only three Members are allowed to speak and then a vote is to be taken to make a decision? You said that an extra one hour is provided but actually it will take up the time originally allocated for the Second Reading debate. The Second Reading debate and the adjournment motion are entirely two different items.

President, can you consider how you will handle it? Let us not talk about whether the one-hour limit set by you is reasonable …

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 May 2020 7457

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Jeremy TAM, you have already stated your point.

First, when Mr Kenneth LEUNG starts to speak, the Secretariat will turn on the system to allow Members to press the "Request to Speak" button but the speaking order will be decided by me, and in line with usual practice, decision will be made according to the order in which Members pressed the buttons.

Moreover, in accordance with RoP, Members may speak up to 15 minutes, not that they must speak for 15 minutes. Since Members are aware of the time constraint, they should speak as concisely as possible, so that there will be time for more Members to express their views and state whether they support or oppose the motion.

(Mr Jeremy TAM asked in his seat whether the President would shorten the 15-minute limit of the speaking time)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): It is up to Members to decide how they will use the 15 minutes of their speaking time.

(Mr Jeremy TAM continued to question in his seat that this time limit, if adopted, could only allow three Members to speak)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Members would have to exercise self-discipline.

(Mr Jeremy TAM requested that his microphone be turned on)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I have told you already. This is not time for a debate. Mr Jeremy TAM, your microphone is turned on.

MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): President, I do not wish to debate with you. This is a question of reasonableness. Earlier you also stressed the need to be fair, and we are not here to rush to deliver results, though I know that you wish to have this Bill passed on 4 June. But regarding what you are doing now, can it be considered fair as you stressed earlier? Even if we refer to Article 72 of the 7458 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 May 2020

Basic Law, you are responsible for presiding over meetings only, and no one is telling you that you must turn 4 June into a day to celebrate the passage of the national anthem law, right? No, this should not be the case. What you have done is unreasonable. Do you understand, President?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I have arranged for a total of 30 hours for the consideration of the National Anthem Bill but I did not specify that the Bill must be passed on 4 June. I only said that a line would be drawn at 30 hours.

MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): But the objective conditions …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please expeditiously …

MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): There is only one hour for the debate on this adjournment motion but each Member can speak up to 15 minutes. If such being the case, you cannot possibly control for how long Members will speak during the given time …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This is why I appeal to Members to speak as concisely as possible. Please do not waste our time here anymore.

Mr Kenneth LEUNG, please speak.

MR KENNETH LEUNG: President, I am moving this adjournment motion mainly for three reasons. First of all, I think this legislature is …

(Mr Jeremy TAM rose to express his dissatisfaction as Members have not been informed that they could press the "Request to Speak" button)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr TAM, you have pointed out the problem. The Secretariat will follow it up. Please sit down.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 May 2020 7459

MR KENNETH LEUNG: I am moving this adjournment motion mainly for three reasons. First of all, I think the Members of this Chamber are very tense. I mean there is a sharp division of opinion, sharp feelings amongst us. President, you, as the President, may not have tried to allay the tension this morning. In fact, I feel this tension has been escalating for the past few hours.

Secondly, the reason why I need to move this adjournment motion is that for the past few days there has been a lot of social incidents which led to the massive arrests of nearly 400 young people in the street. What have they done? Of course, there is that law called the Public Order Ordinance, under which there is a charge called unauthorized assembly. What have they done yesterday? They were just gathering in shopping malls, in the street, chanting or singing, and that is all. Why were they faced with such an atrocious treatment by the Police? They were chanting, and they were singing. But, of course, if you look into the law there is this draconian charge called unauthorized assembly. They were just expressing their points of view, their dissatisfaction with the Government, and their dissatisfaction with the way the Police have been handling all the public order incidents since June last year.

All this debate about the National Anthem Bill and its imminent passage aside, the National People's Congress has already done its task in pushing through this national security legislative process, which has added on grievances to the people of Hong Kong. Now, the Government is not dealing with these grievances. What the Government has been doing is just telling us, "Oh, it is alright. Everything is alright. It will be life as usual." But, what are the reasons behind your view that life will be as usual? The Secretary for Security just said yesterday, "Oh, yeah, the Basic Law has not been changed." Of course, the text of the Basic Law has not been changed but you are adding various pieces of legislation to constrain the freedoms which we have been enjoying under the Basic Law. It is a constraint added on. You have not changed the Basic Law. You do not need to change the Basic Law. You only have to add on more legislation or more exceptions to restrain our freedom of expression, our freedom of assembly, and our freedom of the press.

Thirdly, President, why I move this adjournment motion is because Hong Kong is facing an unprecedented crisis. It is a social crisis. It is a political crisis. And the international environment is changing so rapidly that we need to digest the situation, and engage in what we should do, what we have to do. We just cannot sit here in this Chamber and pass this piece of legislation―I am so 7460 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 May 2020 sure this piece of legislation will be passed―without paying attention to what is happening to our citizens.

We urge Members to support this motion. Thank you, President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the Second Reading debate on the National Anthem Bill be now adjourned.

Honourable Members, there are already 11 Members who have pressed the "Request to Speak" button. Will Members please learn from Mr Kenneth LEUNG and make their speeches as concise as possible, so that other Members may also speak.

MR STEVEN HO (in Cantonese): President, just now Mr Kenneth LEUNG proposed an adjournment motion under the Rules of Procedure ("RoP"). I believe that when considering the motion, we should not only think about whether the debate should be adjourned. Instead, we should note that over the past period, many incidents of black violence took place in society. Many young people were even incited to commit crimes in the street. In addition, today Mr HUI Chi-fung has committed an even more preposterous act in the Chamber. As a matter of fact, Mr HUI Chi-fung is involved not only in today's incident of the "stink bomb". Yesterday, he had also put a so-called personal alarm inside an air duct in the Legislative Council. Hence, in our view, actually all their tricks, including this adjournment motion, are just delaying tactics. Yet delay should be done in style. All such behaviour, like Mr HUI Chi-fung's act of hurling a "stink bomb" impairing the dignity of the Legislative Council, has certainly fallen under the eyes of the public. However, what the heck are we discussing at this moment? Just now various Members raised questions on RoP and argued heatedly with the President. They were merely exhausting every means to haggle with the President …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Please hold on. Will the Secretariat staff please remove the placard from Dr Fernando CHEUNG's seat.

Mr Steven HO, please continue.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 May 2020 7461

MR STEVEN HO (in Cantonese): Sorry, I thought you needed to make a ruling on something. Just now I was saying that seeing them employ so many petty tricks, I think Members of the opposition camp, such as Mr HUI Chi-fung, merely wish to find loopholes to haggle with the President. These certainly include many different slogans which, as we can see, are irrelevant to this motion. Therefore, the people of Hong Kong should take a close look at the facts. What the heck are we discussing today? I chatted with many members of the public when I went out yesterday. They asked on what the Legislative Council was actually deliberating. From the national security law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("HKSAR") …

(Prof Joseph LEE indicated his wish to raise a point of order)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Prof Joseph LEE, what is your point of order?

PROF JOSEPH LEE (in Cantonese): President, I request a headcount.

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

(While the summoning bell was ringing, THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, MS STARRY LEE, took the Chair)

(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber, but some Members did not return to their seats)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): A quorum is present in the Chamber. Will Members please return to their seats.

Let me remind Members that in accordance with the earlier decision of the Legislative Council President, I will call upon the public officer to reply at about 5:20. Will Members please make good use of the debate time. Since there are now 12 Members waiting for their turn to speak, will Members please be as concise as possible so that more Members will have the opportunity to speak.

7462 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 May 2020

MR STEVEN HO (in Cantonese): Deputy President, my speech has in fact been interrupted a couple of times already. Just now I was advancing the notion that over the past period, the opposition and the "mutual destruction camp" employed many different petty tricks, including Mr HUI Chi-fung's act of stuffing a personal alarm in the air duct which caused the suspension of the meeting for a few hours. Today, he threw out a "stink bomb", affecting one of our Honourable colleagues, Ms CHAN Hoi-yan, who consequently had to be sent to the hospital for treatment. Why did he make so many gestures? We should look for clues from the speeches made by the opposition camp. Do they actually support or oppose the legislation for the National Anthem Law, and why did they propose the adjournment motion today?

Yesterday, the most ridiculous point was that even Mr LAM Cheuk-ting claimed to be patriotic himself. A kaifong called me to tell me a joke, that is, LAM Cheuk-ting said he was patriotic. It was indeed quite hilarious. I told him not to believe it because Mr LAM Cheuk-ting was just casting around for something to say. Although he called himself a "Greater China moron", no one in Hong Kong will believe him. In the past, even many of his party comrades were unable to catch up with the pace of the about-turn of his party. Neither could they follow the words of their incumbent chairman Mr WU Chi-wai.

Let me recap what he said yesterday. He said that for the sake of seizing power and position, many people in society, in striving for their social status, surrendered themselves, sucked up to the communist party and fawned over the political regime. I immediately visited the web page of Wikipedia to do a search and keyed in "WU Chi-wai". Surprisingly, two English letters were shown after his name. It was "WU Chi-wai, MH". We suddenly saw the light. Why did his name appear as "WU Chi-wai, MH"? Yesterday, I heard Mr CHAN Han-pan say that MH stands for Medal of Honour. If my memory serves me right, many Honourable Members here may not have this title.

Back then, I was awarded BBS (i.e. ). A few days before the announcement of the list of honours, I received a call asking if I would accept the honour awarded by the SAR Government. Of course, at that time I declined for a while, but I believe …

(Some Members laughed in their seats)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 May 2020 7463

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please keep quiet.

MR STEVEN HO (in Cantonese): … I believe Mr WU Chi-wai accepted the honour with pleasure. That is why we can see the two English letters "MH" after his name on the web page today. Did he actually, in his words, surrender, suck up to the communist party or fawn over the political regime?

I immediately checked the old document. As soon as I opened it, I saw it read that he had contributed a lot to Wong Tai Sin District. I then thought, none of the three reasons mentioned by Mr WU Chi-wai was the reason why he had gained his social status. Why did he put such labels on us? We work hard in the districts in silence, serving the community with sweat and toil, thereby gaining status and respect in society. Did we do all the work for the sake of sucking up to the communist party?

Hence, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting and Mr WU Chi-wai made such speeches yesterday simply because they could not find any other excuses to stop us from discussing whether we support or oppose the legislation for the National Anthem Law or even the national security law of HKSAR. They thus cooked up some accusations, kicking up a fuss so that they could have something to speak on. Since there was nothing else they could speak on, they sent Mr HUI Chi-fung to hurl the "stink bomb" and place the personal alarm, resorting to every possible trick.

That is why he requested a headcount when I had spoken for one minute or so just now. If he cannot find anything to say, he had better not say anything. I see somebody wish to interrupt me again. Deputy President, perhaps you should deal with his question first.

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

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

7464 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 May 2020

MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I request a headcount.

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

(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber, but some Members did not return to their seats)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): A quorum is present in the Chamber. Will Members please return to their seats.

Let me remind Members again that in accordance with the decision of the Legislative Council President, I will end the debate on this adjournment motion at about 5:20 and then call upon the Secretary to reply. After that, the question will be put to vote. Will Members please make good use of the debate time, avoid raising points of order and be as concise as possible because there are still 12 Members waiting for their turn to speak.

Mr Steven HO, please continue with your speech.

MR STEVEN HO (in Cantonese): Deputy President, your kind advice is merely typical nonsense to their ears because while questioning the lack of speaking time, they kept requesting the counting of the quorum. My speech has been interrupted four times because of that. As I stated just now, they actually have nothing to say. They simply made up excuses to stall the meeting, including the point of order raised by Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, the "stink bomb" thrown by Mr HUI Chi-fung and the personal alarm placed by him, as well as Mr WU Chi-wai's speedy volte-face and wavering position as I have mentioned earlier. All these are merely stalling tactics. They claim that they respect the freedom of speech, but my speech has been interrupted four times in six minutes in the Council today. So, how much do they actually respect the Council and the freedom of speech? Hong Kong people should have a better idea.

Let me go back to the national security law and the National Anthem Bill ("the Bill"). I have to mention the Democratic Party, in particular. Why? It LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 May 2020 7465 is because back then the SAR Government thought they could possibly be united. However, I do not find the united front tactic appropriate. It is surely normal to win over a few more people during war times in order to strive for victory, but the united front tactic may not work when it comes to politics. As everyone remembers, the Government awarded a Medal of Honour ("MH") to Mr WU Chi-wai in 2006. According to Mr WU Chi-wai, receiving such an honour could mean sucking up to the communist party, surrendering or fawning over the political regime. Yet, how effective was it? It might be effective 10 years ago. Does everyone still recall that in 2012, the Democratic Party supported the constitutional reform package after a few party members paid a visit to the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region? Did it mean awarding honours worked? Perhaps.

Members may recall that LEUNG Chun-ying has appointed two opposition Members to be Justices of the Peace when he planned to set up the Innovation and Technology Bureau during his term of office as the Chief Executive. He asked whether they would accept the appointment of the SAR Government to be Justices of the Peace and I am not sure how they replied, but two alphabets have been added after their names thereafter. I do not think this approach worked very well because even though two alphabets have been added after Mr Charles Peter MOK's name, he still opposed the motion eventually, using a lot of excuses, of course. Therefore, the united front tactic did not work as far as this matter is concerned.

Both camps have become irreconcilable in regard to the national security law and the Bill. Yesterday, Mr WU Chi-wai said "you must pay back." I have never seen any chairman of the Democratic Party using abusive language, so why did he do so? Because the democrats have turned into extremists and radicals under the prevailing political atmosphere. I cannot say that they have the elements of terrorism because it may violate the rules in the Council by saying so. Nonetheless, I hope Hong Kong people will realize that the Democratic Party is the chameleon in the Council. During the "1124" District Council election, the "black violence" last June and the return of the "black violence" this year, have Members severed ties with the wrong values in the society? Have they upheld the correct values of Hong Kong? Not at all. Because of them, Hong Kong society confused black and white and even sunk to such a low-level as to talk about who support the national security law and who do not; who support the Bill and who do not. They said the Government should make people 7466 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 May 2020 respect the national anthem voluntarily, rather than forcing them to do so. Let me take the national security law as an example. Some people said it should not be enacted for the time being because the United States may sanction Hong Kong. We must not think in this way. Economic development or whether the United States will sanction Hong Kong does not bear the same significance as national security at all. Anyone who puts the two on the same scale is telling us that he is a potential traitor because he will abandon national security if more money is put on one side to weight the scale down.

Does the same apply to the Bill? They used political or economic developments to confuse Hong Kong people's social values and the objectives of the Bill while taking advantage of the situation to reap political capital. Eventually, the next generation poisoned by them took to the streets.

Yesterday, some Members wondered if Ms Starry LEE should suspend the meeting as people were "fighting" outside. It would be a waste of time as the President has made it clear that 30 hours have been reserved for Members to debate the Bill. If Members of the opposition camp have to go out to save people, they can just let me know. I will give up my 15-minute speaking time so that they can take their time to do so. Yet, did we see any opposition Members getting arrested eventually? While young people got arrested, they shouted "Take care! Add oil, Hongkongers!" from afar, continued to reap political bonus in the Council and ate "steamed buns dipped in human blood". Then, they spent the donations on audio equipment for sending to the Lai Chi Kok Reception Centre. Why did they have to buy audio equipment? It is because they are too far away. They are getting farther and farther away.

Have Hong Kong people woken up yet? Have the so-called supporters of the opposition camp woken up yet? Hong Kong society does not care about the Bill under discussion today, actually. They are using this platform as a pretext to continue their attacks on the SAR Government and waste the Council's time.

It was reported in the newspapers two days ago that Mr HUI Chi-fung has been making "stink bombs" in his office. He dared to say "Sorry for the foul smell, everyone". I asked the security guards to buy cleaning stuff to wash up themselves and get rid of the foul smell as he will definitely throw it. It was a premeditated act to disrupt the order in Council. Such incidents will continue to happen in the Council. Fortunately, the President has made a ruling that the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 May 2020 7467 debate on this adjournment motion will come to a close in one hour. Then they asked why the freedom of speech has to be suppressed. I am sorry but they have been informed long ago that 30 hours have been reserved for this debate regardless of what they do, or else the Council will not be able to move forward.

I rise to speak because 17 meetings of the House Committee have been played with while a bill concerning the fisheries industry has yet to be tabled to the Council. There are loopholes in the Fisheries Protection Ordinance (Cap. 171) which was last amended in 2012. After seven years of struggle, the Fisheries Protection (Amendment) Bill 2019 finally has a possibility to be tabled to the Council in this session. However, as it is being blocked now and thus many fishermen can only conduct fishing at the Government's discretion. I want to plug the loopholes and do people justice. Yet, they are making political gestures in the Council every day and ignore people's livelihood by proposing adjournment motions. Deputy President, how many adjournment motions have they proposed this year? How much time has been wasted? As a matter of fact, their voting intentions have been determined before proposing the adjournment motions. On second thoughts, why did we enter the Council in the first place? It was because we wanted to do something for the society―it might not be the reason for them, but this is what I think―what does the society get from these political motions? The society is increasingly chaotic because these people just pass the buck and accuse the Government of being unbecoming. I really hope Members can reflect on whether people can be happy under chaotic circumstances.

Is the adoption of the national security law really such a big issue? We must not fall into a low-level discussion as to whether the national security law or the Bill is draconian. Hong Kong itself should enact legislation to implement Article 23 of the Basic Law. We can discuss how it should be enacted, instead of saying today it is a draconian law that will deprive us of our freedoms. The United States have increased investments in Macao since the enactment of the National Security Law there in 2009. The entire opposition camp claims today that the United States will sanction Hong Kong and we should feel remorseful, does it not? This is such a waste of time. Yet, some people believe them and refuse to wake up. How can I help them? How about starting it all over again? I do not mind continuing our discussion here so that I can let loose my feelings. I just hope that the Fisheries Protection (Amendment) Bill 2019 can be tabled to 7468 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 May 2020 the Council for scrutiny this year so that fishermen can be licensed again. This is my humble request. I beg you to please leave Hong Kong people alone!

Thank you, Deputy President.

(Some Members tapped the bench)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please keep quiet.

MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): Deputy President, regarding the incident occurred just now and the overall social phenomenon, I would not get as emotional as Mr Steven HO did, for the present debate is on the adjournment motion.

Members may recall that this debate is proposed during the Second Reading debate of the National Anthem Bill ("the Bill"). Yet, regrettably, apart from Mr Martin LIAO speaking in his capacity as the Chairman of the Bills Committee on the National Anthem Bill ("the Bills Committee"), I have not heard any Members examining the Bill in a really serious manner so far. We have wasted the time of the legislature and the efforts made by the Secretariat in preparing the 28-page report of the Bills Committee. The report elucidates issues in disputes and the arguments raised during the scrutiny of the Bill, as well as areas causing concern and requiring improvement. Certainly, to be fair, the report also includes certain proposals put forth by opposing colleagues and the amendments they may propose during the Committee stage.

In a nutshell, the Second Reading debate should not regress to such a poor state. The course of debate should not be mere slogan-chanting, discussion of social incidents and the suspension of meeting for Members to take care of young students whom they have provoked to participate in protests and riots. As nine colleagues had pressed the "Request to Speak" button indicating their wish to speak in this stage, I am indeed obliged to make good use of my time to focus on the debate of this adjournment motion, so that more colleagues will have the opportunity to speak. Regrettably, I notice that despite the tight time frame, certain Members still request for a headcount, which is evident that they show no interest in making good use of time. If this is their attitude and I take it too LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 May 2020 7469 seriously by finishing what I need to say hastily, but missing certain points or remarks which I should have said had I not tried to save time for other Members, I will feel sorry for myself and the legislative procedures. I get things all wrong and what I intend to do is unnecessary. Hence, I will deliver my speech according to the speaking time I have. Deputy President, if I digress from the subject, please correct me. Yet, I trust that I will not digress too much from the subject given my usual standard and performance.

I will first talk about the adjournment motion put forth by Mr Kenneth LEUNG. He has mentioned three points. First, the atmosphere is very tense outside. Second, many people are protesting outside. Third, whether Members have considered the political crisis now faced by Hong Kong. This exactly reflects the point I mentioned just now, that is, the entire Second Reading debate, instead of focussing on the Bill, is about the discussion of certain subjects unrelated to the examination of the Bill. Worse still, the adjournment motion is proposed for these reasons. What a pity that Mr Kenneth LEUNG is a lawyer and an accountant. His standard is really too low.

(Mr Kenneth LEUNG stood up)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Kenneth LEUNG, what is your problem?

MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I consider the remarks of Mr Paul TSE insulting.

MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): Deputy President, pardon me. I may apologize to him now … Yet, I am not saying that of Mr Kenneth LEUNG is low in general. I mean the standard of the three reasons he put forth just now as the justifications for proposing the adjournment motion is too low.

Deputy President, as the passage of the present adjournment motion would mean the death of the Bill, I have to mention the importance and merits of the Bill at the present stage to justify my opposition to the motion. There are also comments alleging that the Bill was presented to the Legislative Council directly, which are very unfair to the Chairman of the House Committee. According to Rule 54(5) of the Rules of Procedure, apart from the passage of the Bills 7470 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 May 2020

Committee, the procedures for presenting the Bill to the Legislative Council include the notice of resumption of Second Reading given by the relevant public officer in consultation with the Chairman of the House Committee. According to my understanding, all these procedures have been followed, so the Bill is not presented to the Legislative Council directly and there is no question of violation of rules. I hope the public will understand this point clearly.

Deputy President, as I mentioned just now, the debate of the Bill this time around is very disappointing. If the records of the Legislative Council have not shown any discussions which truly target the merits of the Bill, I am afraid it will affect the public's impression on the Legislative Council and we will be doing a disservice to this Council in history. Hence, I must mention what we are doing in my opposition to the adjournment motion.

Deputy President, whether taking a look at the report of the Bills Committee or the papers prepared by the Secretariat, provided that we genuinely respect the spirit of the rule of law … Even if the drafting of the Bill is relatively vague and uncertain in certain areas, or many areas, as pointed out by various Members, all these inadequacies and observations may be referred to the case of NG Kung-siu―to be fair, I should say the case of defendants NG Kung-siu and LEE Kin-yun―handled by the High Court and the Court of Final Appeal ("CFA"), where most of the doubts have been clearly explained and worries of the public, if any, should have been dispelled. Had they truly believed in the spirit of the rule of law and that CFA handed down its judgment by strictly adhering to the spirit of the rule of law, any allegations that the provisions are unclear, ambiguous and uncertain would have been cleared and rendered invalid.

Deputy President, I mention in passing that many colleagues from the opposition camp have stated that we cannot force others to love and respect the country, just as Mr Kenneth LEUNG has said repeatedly that "Face is given by others but disgrace is done by oneself". Yet, what we are talking about here is neither the love nor respect for one's country but insulting behaviour. The spirit of the entire case and the legislation as a whole is to prohibit the desecration of symbols and signs representing the country and Hong Kong. It is as simple as that. More so, we are not prohibiting people from talking about concepts, be they against communism, against the country or against the Communist Party. People may talk about these. Yet, among the various approaches in expressing opposition, there is one restriction. No matter what people are opposing, they should not act in any way to desecrate or defile the one and only symbol and sign LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 May 2020 7471 representing the country and Hong Kong. The same applies to the national flag, the national emblem and the national anthem. It is as simple as that. You do not need to love or respect the country, yet you should not desecrate the country, just like you should not desecrate other countries.

Certainly, the existing penalty is similar to that in Germany. Some countries choose not to criminalize such acts, and there are even cases where the offences are struck down by the local supreme courts. Let me cite a simple example. Many colleagues from the opposition camp admire the United States. They should bear in mind that the United States has struck down a relevant law. The nine judges of the Supreme Court voted 5:4 in respect of the verdict of a case. Justice KENNEDY was the fifth judge who voted in favour of the defendant. He made it clear that it was a very difficult decision, for he could not imagine there would be any citizens showing no respect for the symbol and national flag of their own country. Yet, he said that according to the spirit of the rule of law in the United States which stressed the freedom of expression, he considered that he had to rule the defendant not guilty and strike down the law in spite of his reluctance. The reason is farfetched.

As for other countries, the laws are relatively lenient, for they do not want to criminalize offences of desecrating the national emblem, the national flag and the national anthem. Let us look at the examples of Japan and Norway. They are great. They allow desecration of their own national flag but prohibit the desecration of the national flag, national emblem and national anthem of other countries. As evidenced by the approach they adopted, they respect the legislation on respecting the national emblem, national anthem and national flag implemented by many country around the world. The approach of some countries, like Germany, is similar to that of Hong Kong. And so is Italy. As for Portugal, the approach is more stringent than Hong Kong.

In general, we still have some basic requirements. People may choose not to love their country and not to respect their country, yet they should not desecrate the signs and totems representing their country. Even if someone really breaches the law―anyway, we will not violate the law easily. If Members are familiar with the criminal law, they should know that apart from behavioural violation, the Bill puts particularly explicit emphasis on "intent". The terms "intentionally" and "intent" are used throughout the Bill. Hence, even if someone commits an act of violation, it will not be considered as a violation casually. Only deliberate, planned and intended acts will be considered as unlawful. Hence, the public do not have to worry about that.

7472 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 May 2020

What if one really violates the law? The only case in Hong Kong is the NG Kung-siu and LEE Kin-yun case. According to the relevant ordinance, the maximum penalty is a fine of $50,000 and imprisonment for three years, which is the same as the present Bill. Yet, do Members remember the sentence of the NG Kung-siu and LEE Kin-yun case? They were bound over to keep peace on their own recognizance of $2,000. What does it mean? For friends who are not familiar with the law, they may not know for sure. It means just sign and go. They are merely required to pay the fine if they commit the offence again. In other words, they can simply slip away at no cost. This is the verdict of the only case on contravening the National Flag and National Emblem Ordinance ("NFNEO") where an appeal has been lodged to CFA. Hence, the public should not be scared by the opposing views, thinking it is true that they will be arrested, prosecuted and imprisoned if they do not love and respect their country. There is no such thing.

Have Members properly discussed these issues to alleviate the worries of the public? I hope we can stick to the topic and be reasonable, so that the rule of law and civilization which we respect all along will be safeguarded in society. Yet, what are Members doing? I will skip those acts of hurling unknown objects. Nevertheless, have we as Members made use of our honourable status and spent time on discussing these legal issues in the Chamber so that the public will receive the right messages and know what is happening in society as a whole? You are just hurling things at each other―I do not want to say what these are. Such practices will lead to the degeneration of the Legislative Council. Of course, some people would say that the Legislative Council has already degenerated to a hopeless state. Probably. But if I have one minute or a single opportunity, I would like to tell Members that I hope the Legislative Council will remain a robust institution where there is healthy democracy and mutual respect. I hope that in the Hansard of the Legislative Council of the current term and the Gazette―more likely in the Hansard―the public would not see that the Legislative Council is so incompetent, nonsensical and opportunist.

Deputy President, another point is that we could have many opportunities to discuss thoroughly the important subject concerning the impact of the legislation and cases on the freedom of expression, and whether the enactment of the legislation to regulate certain situations and prohibit the desecration of the national emblem, national flag and the national anthem will affect the freedom of expression. This is the key point about which nearly the whole world is concerned. Since Hong Kong is a place which strenuously strives for freedom of expression and all other freedoms, this is an important point warrants even LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 May 2020 7473 more attention and a paramount subject in a constitutional context. Deputy President, has anyone among us touched on this subject? Has anyone mentioned the concern about freedom of expression? No. What have they said? They keep intimidating the public and said the National Security Law will come soon―we will discuss this in depth when the opportunity arises.

As for the present Bill, it is drafted according to the existing mechanism. Given the enactment of NFNEO and the robust judgment of CFA―no one has ever queried the verdict of CFA. Certainly, even if there are queries, the verdict of CFA should be final for as long as we respect the rule of law. Have Members pointed out that CFA, comprising the highly respectable Justice Andrew LI and Justice Syed Kemal Shah BOKHARY, a legend in the legal and judicial sectors who is concerned about the freedom of expression and human rights, has unequivocally made the confirmation? The judgment of the two judges has unequivocally confirmed the relevant legislation and that NFNEO has not infringed the freedom of expression, the Basic Law of Hong Kong, the Hong Kong Bill of Rights and the International Bill of Human Rights. It is fully confirmed that there is no problem with all these.

After all, we are not preventing any person from expressing their views. The scope of restriction is really narrow. We have been very cautious and reasonable in stipulating the contents which people have the right to express. Yet, among the various forms of expression, people are prohibited from desecrating the national emblem, national flag and the national anthem. It is just that simple.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Since it has already passed 5:20, the debate ends here and nine Members waiting for their turn to speak would not be able to speak. Will Members please take the opportunity to speak in the remaining time of the Second Reading debate.

Secretary, do you wish to reply?

(Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs indicated that he did not wish to reply)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Kenneth LEUNG, do you wish to reply?

7474 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 May 2020

MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I have to respond to the remarks given by Mr Paul TSE just now. First, as regards the level of standard he has suggested, I know that Mr Paul TSE has always been very self-important. We all know this. But I do not agree that my proposing of the adjournment motion is an act of low standard as he has referred to, because people's representatives cannot merely engage in discussion of official business or political issues inside the ivory tower but ignore the sentiments in society and people's opinions. Of course, Honourable colleagues can say that the National Anthem Bill ("the Bill") only prohibits some insulting behaviour, and yet the clauses therein state that people should respect the national anthem. The Law of the People's Republic of China on National Anthem even provides that it is to "promote patriotism, and cultivate and live by the core socialist values". Why must such thinking be imposed on people? What is "patriotism"? In fact, the freedoms of thought and expression enjoyed by the people of Hong Kong have been protected under the Basic Law and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Pursuant to Article 16 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights, everyone may hold any opinion he wishes―i.e. people can choose on their own to be patriotic or not and to love the party or not―and has the freedom to express himself, and to give and receive ideas and information of all kinds through any medium.

Moreover, Mr Paul TSE also mentioned penalties. But, having looked up relevant information of other countries, I found out the situations of Singapore, a place which is quite similar to Hong Kong. Many Members of the pro-establishment camp have also cited Singapore as an example, but actually we are a far cry from Singapore. I hope Honourable colleagues will stop citing Singapore as an example from now on, for the reason that, though it does have a single ruling party, namely the People's Action Party, at least―Deputy President, at least―its parliament members are all returned by direct elections, except a few seats. Of course, I am aware that candidates having lost in the parliamentary election may become appointed parliament members. It is a rather strange mechanism that apart from members returned by direct elections, the Parliament of Singapore has a few members who are appointed among lost candidates. The penalty for contraventions of the expected behaviour of people when the national anthem is played or sung is merely a fine of S$1,000, i.e. nearly HK$5,480. As LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 May 2020 7475 for Malaysia which is more conservative than Singapore, the relevant penalty is 100 Ringgits (Malaysian dollar), approximately HK$185.

Likewise, we should not make comparisons with European countries and the United States. I reckon that no comparison should be made between all our existing legislation and that of other countries such as the United Kingdom, the United States, France and Australia. Deputy President, it is because there are alternations of governments in those countries, be it by direct or indirect elections, and the members of their parliaments are all elected by their nationals. Deputy President, I hope you can remind all public officers that, when presenting bills to the Legislative Council for scrutiny in the future, comparisons should be made with Iran or North Korea. Precisely a few days ago, Iran released a statement stating its support for the National People's Congress in enacting a national security law for Hong Kong. We are at the same level as countries such as Iran or North Korea. We should not compare ourselves with the United Kingdom, the United States or France anymore. I hope whenever public officers come to the Legislative Council to speak on Government Bills, they should first check out the relevant legislation of Iran or North Korea. I also hope that the President will urge our public officers to look into the penalties for disrespect for the national anthem in Iran and North Korea. We do not have information in this respect. As regards the relevant penalties in the United Kingdom, the United States, France, etc., we do not want to know now because Hong Kong is on par with Iran and North Korea.

As regards this adjournment motion, Honourable colleagues need not think that we cannot discuss the merits of the Bill when speaking in this debate. It is the wrong way to do it. It is exactly out of our reservation on too many clauses in the Bill that, despite 17 meetings of the Bills Committee being held, we still could not be fully convinced to accept all uncertainties. We just wish to change some terms in certain clauses, but the Government did not take heed of any of our specific suggestions―we did give specific suggestions. Moreover, we also do not understand why it is really necessary to impose such a harsh penalty of a three-year imprisonment on a … someone who breaks the law inadvertently. Of course, Mr Paul TSE would not agree since it requires to prove beyond reasonable doubt that a person has the intention to commit such a crime in order to validate a conviction.

7476 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 May 2020

However, as regards some other behaviour that violates the Bill, such as secondary creation, the drafting of the Bill may bring a person to court if he puts other lyrics to the score of the national anthem, albeit not intending to undermine the dignity of the country but just for fun, and the fact that some people may also find it really amusing. Moreover, there is another uncertain factor that I have repeatedly mentioned but the Government has failed to give me a detailed reply. For example, someone attends a soccer match in Italy and, together with other people, boos when the national anthem of China is being played. In the course of it, his appearance has been filmed. Such footage ended up being uploaded to the social media in Hong Kong. I have made enquiries with the authorities on this scenario and was told that normally the behaviour in question has to be committed in Hong Kong―not overseas―for it to constitute a criminal offence. But the problem is that the footage has been uploaded to social media platforms in Hong Kong for the viewing of all Hongkongers. Then what can be done about this?

(THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair)

President, I hope Honourable colleagues will consider this motion from the perspective of doing the real work. President, I also hope that you will not pick on Members for some of their behaviour from now on―of course, you do not like such behaviour―but when they were just displaying placards in silence, I hope you could deal with it with tolerance. I am not criticizing your ruling. I certainly am dissatisfied with your ruling, but I do not wish to reverse your ruling. President, I only hope that you … because the general public in Hong Kong can see what all Honourable colleagues are doing here, as well as your ruling. I am not saying your ruling is right or wrong, for you are above all others in this Council―you probably think so yourself―and we are unable to reverse your ruling. You have reiterated that the President's ruling is final and not subject to debate. I am not debating your ruling now, but just feel dissatisfied with it.

President, I so submit.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 May 2020 7477

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

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

Mr Kenneth LEUNG rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Kenneth LEUNG has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for five minutes.

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

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

Functional Constituencies:

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

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON 7478 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 May 2020

Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr HO Kai-ming, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan, Mr Kenneth LAU and Mr Tony TSE voted against the motion.

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

Geographical Constituencies:

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

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

THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 34 were present, 10 were in favour of the motion and 23 against it; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 27 were present, 11 were in favour of the motion and 16 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the motion was negatived.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This Council now continues the Second Reading debate on the National Anthem Bill. I will call upon public officer to reply at about 6:30 pm.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 May 2020 7479

MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese): President, we will now continue to scrutinize the National Anthem Bill ("the Bill"). This, coupled with the draft decision of the National People's Congress on establishing and improving the legal system and enforcement mechanisms for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region to safeguard national security ("the Draft Decision") that has just received 2 878 affirmative votes and one negative vote, has brought Hong Kong to a crossroads, where changes await us. To change for the better or change for the worse is probably a decision away.

President, when news about the Draft Decision emerged last week, the Hang Seng Index of Hong Kong plummeted 5.6%, its worst drop in five years. President, this might be a very natural response, for compared with the Draft Decision, the Bill we are now scrutinizing is only a piece of cake. However, regardless of whether we are talking about the Draft Decision or the Bill, this is an alarm about the erosion of Hong Kong people's freedoms.

This morning our dear President demonstrated what is "best ruling". He evicted Mr CHU Hoi-dick and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, as he ruled that the words "Best Chairman" on their placard were sarcastic. The President almost considered their conduct grossly disorderly, and he is indeed worthy of being the "best judge". Sometimes I really miss former President , who is eloquent and convinces people with his reasoning. Today those who watch the live broadcast include not only Hong Kong people, but also people in Beijing. I think that people in Beijing must have also shaken their heads and sighed in disbelief. At such a critical juncture, the President should not have made a ruling on the words "Best Chairman" in such an awkward way. This must be his another masterpiece following "Mr Alvin YEUNG, please sit down" on another occasion. There will be no need to hold any Oscars ceremony in the future, as what we call the best picture, best actor, best actress and best director are all sarcastic. As for whether the Bill will make us break the law inadvertently, the President has personally given a demonstration. I have said these words ostensibly. The President is not supposed to know what I am thinking, but he can vividly elaborate my thought.

That said, President, I will return to the Bill itself. At the Second Reading stage, we are most concerned about whether people will be indicted for expressing their views under the Bill or the national security law. The clauses are ambiguous. People are particularly concerned that the expression "subversion of state power" is a skeleton key that may be used against anyone, 7480 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 May 2020 and Hong Kong people will be made defenceless and inadvertently break the law anytime. President, this explains why people lack a sense of security.

The very person that should be held accountable for the consequences today is . She has seldom spoken in public these days. On an evening last week when she made the announcement about the Draft Decision, she looked rather piqued in meeting with the press. Beijing lets her govern Hong Kong, but she has, for the purpose of toadying up to it, introduced a draconian "China extradition bill" and caused widespread resentment to the extent that even Beijing mistrusts her. The national security agency to be established in Hong Kong is obviously meant to bypass Carrie LAM and the Hong Kong Police Force, who, unfortunately, await the settling of accounts.

As the next Member to speak happens to be Mrs Regina IP, she might need to give a reply. Many people asked her about whether she was fearful of any sanctions. Mrs IP said she was not, adding that SAR officials would bear the brunt of any sanctions imposed and her turn has yet to come. The national security legislation is indeed inflicting losses on the innocent. Back then, Carrie LAM alone went against the tide and forcefully introduced a draconian bill. Now the national security legislation is inflicting losses on the innocent bystander. A younger sister who errs is getting her elder sister into trouble.

President, let us see how Carrie LAM has responded to the US Chamber of Commerce. The United States has issued a statement on the national security legislation, and the SAR Government has responded to it. In its response to the US Chamber of Commerce, the Government said that Hong Kong and the United States have a long history of mutually beneficial cooperation, more than 85 000 United States citizens live and work in Hong Kong, and in the past decade, the United States' trade surplus with Hong Kong has been …

(Mrs Regina IP indicated her wish to raise a point of order)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr KWONG Chun-yu, please hold on. Mrs Regina IP, what is your point of order?

MRS REGINA IP (in Cantonese): President, this Council is now debating the National Anthem Bill instead of the national security law.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 May 2020 7481

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I remind Mr KWONG that this Council is now debating the National Anthem Bill. Please return to the subject of this debate.

MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese): President, there is no need to be afraid. Mrs IP need not worry either, as she should not be subject to sanctions. Before the implementation of the Bill and the national security law in Hong Kong, I must explain why ambiguous clauses will impact on Hong Kong. I will continue with my speech.

Carrie LAM looked rather piqued and gave a reply to the US Chamber of Commerce saying that the aggregate merchandise trade surplus amounted to US$297 billion from 2009 to 2018. Simply put, as the United States has enormous interests in Hong Kong, it should not take any excessive action. But this response gives people the impression that Carrie LAM has been petrified. This morning, it was widely rumoured that the SAR Government contacted the Consul General of the United States to seek clarifications. It is as if everything has been messed up. Frankly speaking, this woman by the name of Carrie LAM must be held accountable. This …

(Mr Paul TSE indicated his wish to raise a point of order)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Paul TSE, what is your point of order?

MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): President, I have been listening to the speech of Mr KWONG for five minutes, but one third of his speech is not related to the Bill, which this Council is now debating. Pursuant to Rule 41 of the Rules of Procedure, will the President please call on Mr KWONG not to waste the precious time for the Second Reading debate.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr KWONG Chun-yu, please return to the subject of this debate.

7482 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 May 2020

MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese): Mr Paul TSE need not hurry. I have only been speaking for several minutes, and I have yet to come to the main points. I wonder whether sanctions will be imposed on Mr Paul TSE following Mrs IP, but I believe that will not be the case.

President, I believe even some pro-establishment Members will not be opposed to my view that the introduction and implementation of the Bill and the national security law one after another will impact on Hong Kong. There is karma in this world. Last year Carrie LAM first introduced a draconian "China extradition bill", and then snitched on her allies. She severed her ties with the pro-establishment camp in a "snitching report", accusing the latter of being incapable. What is more absurd is that Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development Edward YAU has said that the status of Hong Kong as a separate customs territory is provided for under the Basic Law, rather than conferred by other countries. Now, the Bill is about to be implemented in Hong Kong, and the Draft Decision has just been passed. There will be causal effects.

If the special status of Hong Kong or the special treatment accorded to it is taken back, how significant the impact will be? The international community is concerned about the impact of the national security legislation on Hong Kong, but the President has said that the national security legislation is a matter at the state level, and we should not discuss this in any way. Whether the Bill will erode the freedoms we have, whether the punishments will be too severe, and whether ambiguous clauses will make people inadvertently break the law will all have bearings on how the international community sees Hong Kong.

President, Hong Kong has been accorded special treatment. As such, when disputes arose from the trade war between China and the United States, and the United States imposed additional tariffs on goods imported from China and introduced export controls, Hong Kong is not directly affected. However, we honestly do not know what will happen in the future. As this legislature is now scrutinizing the Bill, and the national security law will be implemented in the future, we do not know what it will be like in the future. President, this certainly has an impact on the Hong Kong economy. We must clearly state in the Chamber that if ambiguous clauses of the Bill will make people inadvertently break the law, not only will public confidence be dampened, but confidence of the international community in Hong Kong may also be affected.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 May 2020 7483

President, in 2019, 12% of China's exports were routed through Hong Kong. In 2018, the import and export trade of Hong Kong accounted for 17.2% of its GDP …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr KWONG Chun-yu, I have reminded you time and again to return to the subject of this debate. I am reminding you for the last time. If you still do not return to the subject of the Second Reading debate on the National Anthem Bill, I will order you to stop speaking. Please return to the subject of the current debate.

MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese): President, I am only stating that if laws concerning our personal freedom, freedom of creation and freedom of speech are implemented one after another this week, how significant the impact on Hong Kong will be. I just want to provide another figure. As I said just now, the import and export trade of Hong Kong accounted for 17.2% of its GDP while the financial industry merely accounted for 19.8% of its GDP. I want to stress that if the clauses of such laws are ambiguous and give rise to a collapse of confidence, can we afford it?

President, I will now return to the Bill. What is the biggest problem with the Bill? Many cities and countries have national anthem laws, but do they have such severe punishments? Even in the case of Singapore, which is renowned for its severe punishments, the convicted will not be imprisoned. Under the Bill, however, the convicted may be fined $50,000 and sentenced to three years in prison. President, do we need such severe punishments? Can we achieve the objective of making people respect the national anthem by way of legislation? I have long held that legislation can only generate hatred instead of love. The Government is now seeking to intimidate or frighten people with severe punishments, rather than having them respect the national anthem from the bottom of their heart. Is this our legislative intent?

Hong Kong is a very friendly and interesting place. A most important cornerstone for our achievements today is our freedoms. The Bill seeks to prohibit people from insulting the national anthem by way of severe punishments. Mr Paul TSE has also mentioned this. However, when the Government seeks to achieve its end by way of punishments, can members of the public be fully convinced? Forced acceptance is meaningless, and real respect comes from the heart.

7484 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 May 2020

In fact, we have so far debated many polices. Those in power should start from the perspective of the people, and consider how to make people respect the national anthem from the bottom of their heart. I often quote the saying that "It was through losing the people that Jie and Zhou lost the Empire, and through losing the people's hearts that they lost the people". What should the Government do when it has lost even the people's hearts? As the Chief Executive of Hong Kong, Carrie LAM should be held fully accountable for this. If she can help people meet their basic needs and address the plight of the needy, there will not be social unrest. Even if the national security law or the Bill is implemented, there will not be serious social unrest. However, the situation nowadays is really a mess. If the clauses of the laws are ambiguous, how can members of the public have confidence in law enforcement officers?

President, in the case of social gathering restrictions, such restrictions are well-intended. Due to the spread of the disease, gatherings of four or more people were banned. Gatherings of no more than eight people were subsequently permitted. Consequently, we have seen the Police invoke social gathering restrictions and issue a penalty ticket against a person on his own. On the other hand, when it comes to those people from the pro-Government camp, the Police issue no penalty tickets against any of them, but just advise them to leave. By the same token, if the Bill gives rise to law enforcement problems, from whom can we ask for help?

President, when we scrutinized the Bill yesterday, people in various districts of Hong Kong took to the streets, with the hope of continuing to safeguard a very important value of Hong Kong, namely freedoms. Hundreds of people ended up being arrested, among whom the youngest was only 13 years old. Some law enforcement officers―I insist on using "some", as some of them might be unwilling but their supervisors asked them to do so, and they could not disobey the order―will law enforcement officers please do some thinking. The belief you have long upheld is that the Police are supposed to suppress the evil and pacify the good. You do not have to exercise the power conferred upon you by the law to the fullest. On certain occasions, you do not have to use your baton too forcefully. Some policemen saw the forceful use of baton on the part of their colleagues, but they dared not speak out as they were fearful of being boycotted. As a result, a vicious cycle has come into being. Something as simple as social gathering restrictions has led to problems of power abuse and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 May 2020 7485 arbitrary arrests. What will happen in the future when various laws are implemented? President, this indeed makes us very worried.

I would like to tell some enforcement officers that when you entered the Police College, you harboured no ill intention towards others. Even when the situation is very bad, you should not abuse your power, otherwise our system will crumble, and members of the public will be concerned that no one can be held accountable for unfair law enforcement. President, is there anything that can be done? Yes, it is recently widely rumoured that the Police will conduct an internal integrity check, as a police officer orchestrated the hurling of petrol bombs, and another officer responsible for seizing drugs turned out to be engaged in drug trafficking. Both of them have been arrested. According to my understanding, police morale seems to have been dampened. When a policeman exercised his power to press a child on the ground, and met the gaze of the latter, he would ask himself what he was doing, and whether he was discharging his duties under a just law.

By the same token, when the clauses of the Bill under scrutiny today are ambiguous and can be interpreted arbitrarily, can this problem not be solved? When the Legislative Council scrutinizes a bill, Members must express their points of view. If the clauses of the Bill are ambiguous, there will be a series of problems which will impact the Hong Kong economy. When I talked about such problems just now, Mrs Regina IP and Mr Paul TSE accused me of deviating from the subject.

President, there will be causal effects. NI Kuang, a novelist whom I admire most, has said the following words: What destroys a big city may not necessarily be a natural disaster but a man-made calamity. There is no need to destroy any structures in the big city nor kill any of its residents. As long as the big city is stripped of its advantages, its destruction or demise will be made possible. Even if we shout ourselves hoarse here, the Bill will still be passed. However, making people's voices heard is our responsibility as elected representatives. When law enforcement can be unfair and ambiguous provisions can make ordinary people inadvertently break the law, we must come forward and speak out.

President, I have five seconds left in my speaking time. I can only say that, in respect of the Bill, I hope that the parties concerned will think twice before taking any action (The buzzer sounded) …

7486 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 May 2020

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

MRS REGINA IP (in Cantonese): President, I rise to speak in support of the resumption of Second Reading of the National Anthem Bill ("the Bill"). Having listened to the speeches of many Members of the opposition camp, I really do not understand why some Members of the Legislative Council who have already sworn to uphold the Basic Law and sworn allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region would oppose the Bill. The Standing Committee of the National People's Congress adopted the decision to add the Law of the People's Republic of China on National Anthem ("the National Anthem Law") to Annex III to the Basic Law of Hong Kong and Macao at end 2017. Hong Kong lags behind Macao in this respect as the latter has successfully enacted local legislation in 2019. Therefore, I cannot see any reasons in principle for Members who have sworn to uphold the Basic Law to oppose the Bill.

As regards the content of the Bill, whilst many Members of the opposition camp have described the Bill as a draconian law, actually the Bill is rather mild and its structure resembles that of the National Flag and National Emblem Ordinance. Similar to the National Flag and National Emblem Ordinance which prescribes the shape and dimensions of the national flag, as well as the specifications of the national emblem, the Bill first prescribes the lyrics and scores of the national anthem. As far as the regulations regarding protection of the national anthem are concerned, the Bill specifies the occasions on which the national anthem can be played and sung, and those on which the national anthem cannot be played and sung such as private funeral events. In respect of the offences, I have noticed that the offences stipulated under the Bill are absolutely in line with the common law principles, since all of the provisions have specified what constitutes an offence. For instance, section 7(1) provides that a person only commits an offence if he has the intention to insult the national anthem, or if he publicly and intentionally insults the national anthem in any way. The person would not commit an offence if he has a reasonable excuse. In other words, the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau and the Department of Justice have, when drafting the Bill, taken full account of the element of mens rea in common law, which means the intention to commit a crime. As a result, the disabled would definitely not break the law for having to sit in a wheelchair as they are unable to stand up.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 May 2020 7487

Furthermore, regarding the penalty, whilst Mr KWONG Chun-yu has mentioned just now that the penalty of a fine of $50,000 and imprisonment for three years is too heavy, this is actually the maximum penalty which is on par with that under the National Flag and National Emblem Ordinance. Nevertheless, the penalties imposed in actual cases are quite lenient. President, you may also be aware that four cases involving people having burnt, trampled on the national flag or thrown the national flag into the sea took place last year, but the penalties imposed are very light in all these cases. The penalty prescribed under the National Flag and National Emblem Ordinance is the same as that proposed under the Bill, with the maximum penalty (level 5) set at a fine of $50,000 and imprisonment for three years. The case which has aroused most attention in the past year involves a 13-year-old girl and a 21-year-old chef having burnt and trampled on the national flag in Tuen Mun. They were only sentenced to probation order of 12 months and community service order of 240 hours initially. Although the Department of Justice had subsequently lodged an appeal, after which the Court of Appeal provided guidance that the starting point for sentencing should be four months notwithstanding that the maximum penalty is three years' imprisonment. Given that the starting point for sentencing is four months for burning, trampling on and insulting the national flag, and there is still room for negotiation, for example, the penalties might be commuted if the offenders are very young and subject to the probation report. Besides, as the offenders concerned have already been detained for some time, they were finally sentenced to 20 days' imprisonment only. Therefore, if the Members who spoke have really read through the Bill carefully or if they understand the principles of common law, they need not worry at all that people would be punished heavily. What is more, I believe that the several lawyers present here should also know that according to the criminal law system in Hong Kong, the minimum age of criminal responsibility is 10 years old under the Juvenile Offenders Ordinance in Hong Kong. That said, according to the doctrine of doli incapax under common law principles, it is assumed that youngsters under the age of 14 are incapable of committing a criminal offence, unless the prosecuting authority can prove beyond doubt that this youngster or child really knows that he is committing a crime, and that the crime committed is a serious one, rather than he is just being naughty to play a trick. In fact, given that the provisions are quite lax, and according to the case law and judgment principles in common law, a youngster will not be heavily sentenced in the future even if he is disrespectful to or insults the national anthem. For this reason, the 7488 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 May 2020

Bill is definitely not a draconian law. I cannot see any reason why Members of the opposition camp have to oppose the National Anthem Law by describing it as a draconian law.

I would like to take this opportunity to respond to the remarks made by Mr WU Chi-wai yesterday. In fact, Mr WU Chi-wai is usually quite gentle, but I have no idea why it looked as though he had taken some wrong drugs when he spoke yesterday, during which he kept scolding the ruling party of our country and even demonized it. I find it grossly unfair. No government of any country can solve all the problems, but the facts are in front of us. In the first place, the ruling party of our country―i.e. the Communist Party of China ("CPC")―has indeed lifted 700 million people in our country out of poverty after coming to power in 1949, especially since the reform and opening up of our country. Second, it has indeed removed our stigma of being bullied by imperialist countries in the late Qing and Republican eras, and China's position did have risen in the international community.

In addition, there has been remarkable improvement in people's livelihood as well as a lot of tremendous developments with the reform and opening up of our country. The technological advancement of our country is obvious to all and Huawei is being suppressed simply for its leading 5G technology. Moreover, our country has many other achievements in the science and technology field, apart from the express rail, we also have the Five-hundred-meter Aperture Spherical Telescope ("FAST") system in Guizhou. Even the creative industry is flourishing brilliantly as well. Take the TV drama series produced in Mainland China as an example―I wonder if the President has time to watch some of them―I had to get some entertainment when undergoing isolation for 14 days after travelling to the Mainland last month, so I watched some Mainland drama and found that their quality was pretty good. A Qing Dynasty palace drama in the Mainland titled Story of Yanxi Palace even set a world record in 2018 for being streamed 15 billion times. Google has also referred it as "the most Googled TV series", which is searched for more times than The Crown of the United Kingdom. From this we can see that after CPC has come to power, especially since the reform and opening up, our country has significantly enhanced its strength in various aspects such as the economy, social development, technology and culture, while at the same time offering more development opportunities for a billion-odd people. Hence, I was very angry when Mr WU LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 May 2020 7489

Chi-wai wantonly derogated the achievements of our country by means of the National Anthem Law yesterday.

As such, I strongly agree with the provisions of the National Anthem Law. On the front of education, we should teach students to sing the national anthem at schools. I have also noticed that the United States attaches great importance to the respect for its national anthem. I wonder if the President can recall that in September 2017, a black basketball player in Alabama expressed his dissatisfaction with racial discrimination in the United States by kneeling down while singing the national anthem. As a result, President Donald TRUMP was extremely furious and demanded his dismissal. Therefore, all countries have the justifications to request their people to respect the national flag, the national emblem and the national anthem, which I think is perfectly reasonable. Perhaps Mr KWONG Chun-yu, Mr Kenneth LEUNG and Mr Charles Peter MOK are too young to remember the situation before 1997. When we were young, photos of the Queen of the United Kingdom were also displayed in schools, and we would first see a video clip of the Queen of the United Kingdom riding a white horse when we watched a movie. Before the end of television service hours every night, a video clip of the Queen of the United Kingdom singing the British national anthem while riding a white horse would be broadcast as well.

Therefore, in my opinion, being citizens of a civilized society, we must respect the national anthem of other countries, and we must certainly respect our national anthem as well. I agree with the remarks by many Members in their speeches that merely enacting legislation is inadequate, we should also launch promotion in society to educate members of the public to respect our country. It is my hope that Members of the opposition camp will do some self-reflection, and that in the future, they will persuade young people whom they know well not to casually behave in a way disrespectful to the national flag and the national anthem. Yesterday, some Members wished to have the meeting suspended in light of the riots taking place in various places across Hong Kong, so as to allow them to assist those participating in the protests and riots. Yet, what they ought to do is actually to call on those young people not to break the law lest they would ruin their own future.

With these remarks, President, I support the resumption of Second Reading of the Bill.

7490 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 May 2020

MR JEFFREY LAM (in Cantonese): President, I rise to speak in support of the National Anthem Bill ("the Bill").

President, the national anthem, national flag and national emblem are the symbols and signs of a country and nation. Representing the dignity, history and cultural background of a country, they are sacred and should be respected. Not only should we respect the national anthem, national flag and national emblem of our own country. When we travel abroad or go to other places on business, we also need to respect the national anthems, national flags and national emblems of other countries. We must not publicly commit any insulting or disrespectful act. The core spirit of the formulation of the Bill is to respect the national anthem. The relevant penalties are only directed at acts of publicly, deliberately and intentionally insulting the national anthem or misuse of the national anthem. Similar to the National Flag and National Emblem Ordinance ("NFNEO") which has been implemented for years, the Bill simply seeks to align relevant approaches.

President, Hong Kong is an inalienable part of the People's Republic of China ("PRC"). It is also a special administration region within PRC. It is only natural to hoist the five-star red flag and play and sing China's national anthem in Hong Kong. To respect the national anthem, national flag and national emblem is just the right thing Hongkongers should do. However, Members of the opposition camp raised objection on all kinds of pretexts. They even went so far as to filibuster for seven months during the procedures of the election of Chairman of the House Committee, blatantly expressing their wish to obstruct the passage of the Bill.

In November 2017, the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress ("NPCSC") adopted the decision to add the Law of the People's Republic of China on National Anthem ("National Anthem Law") to Annex III to the Basic Law. It is the constitutional duty which Legislative Council Members should duly discharge to expeditiously complete the local legislation of the National Anthem Law. If Legislative Council Members fail to complete and even obstruct the legislation, it is in nature tantamount to challenging the Central Government and the Basic Law. I also doubt whether these Members who are so antagonistic to the National Anthem Law, that means being disrespectful to the State, truthfully uphold the Basic Law and bear allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of PRC.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 May 2020 7491

President, these six months or so have been the most difficult period of Hong Kong since the reunification. Owing to the continuous social movements, the Hong Kong economy was already in a moribund state. The rampant spread of novel coronavirus pneumonia further rubbed salt into the wound. Many medium and small enterprises had long been unable to pull through. Tides of unemployment followed. Wage earners could hardly make a living. Although the epidemic situation in Hong Kong has slightly eased off now, the economy has stepped into a severe winter. Business is slack in all trades. Many members of the public expect the Legislative Council to share the people's urgent concern. Attending meetings and maintaining the normal operation of the Legislative Council are the most basic responsibilities of Legislative Council Members. Members who fail to do so, in my opinion, have indeed failed the taxpayers. Hence, I hope this time they will really rein in at the brink of the precipice and stop filibustering so that the Legislative Council can expeditiously pass the Bill and other laws conducive to the development of the economy and people's livelihood.

President, back to the Bill. The formulation of this Bill originates from 2017, when NPCSC adopted the decision to add the National Anthem Law to Annex III to the Basic Law. I emphasize this point here because enactment of the Bill in Hong Kong is based on the fact that the National Anthem Law, a national law, has been added to Annex III to the Basic Law. Under the powers vested by Article 18(2) of the Basic Law, it shall be applied in Hong Kong by way of direct promulgation or local legislation by SAR.

Recently, regarding NPCSC's passage of the national security law to be implemented in Hong Kong, some people in society have raised queries, considering that NPCSC does not have the power to enact a national security law for Hong Kong bypassing the Hong Kong Legislative Council. This is absolutely a deliberate distortion of the Basic Law which will even mislead other people into misinterpreting the Basic Law. NPCSC is the legislature of the State. It is constitutional, fair and reasonable to exercise its highest legislative power to effect the implementation of a national law in Hong Kong in accordance with the provisions in the Basic Law. Judging from the social turmoil and actual situation in Hong Kong in recent years, the relevant issues have already posed a serious lurking danger to national security. Not only can the timely legislation of NPCSC deter the destructive force in Hong Kong. It can also make the people of Hong Kong feel assured.

7492 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 May 2020

Over the past year, Hong Kong has experienced ferocious social turmoil. Endless demonstrations and protests, as well as violent charging acts, have resulted in serious social disorder and drastic decline in consumer sentiment. Coupled with the novel coronavirus epidemic which has persisted for months, local businesses are thus facing an unprecedentedly grave challenge. The economy has fatally weakened. The unemployment rate has risen to 5.2%, hitting a new high in 10 years. Over 200 000 people have lost their "rice bowls". Inbound tourism has been hit hard. The unemployment rates in sectors related to consumption and tourism have even soared to 9%, hitting a record high in 15 years.

President, we must admit that in Hong Kong, national security has been threatened by internal and external forces. In recent years, acts of advocating "Hong Kong independence" …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LAM, please come back to the question of the Second Reading debate on the National Anthem Bill.

MR JEFFREY LAM (in Cantonese): President, during these riots, the national flag was desecrated and the playing of the national anthem was disturbed. This is my reason for citing these incidents.

In recent years, acts of advocating "Hong Kong independence" have become increasingly rampant. Violent radicals attacked the Police in an organized and planned manner. They even hurt members of the public holding political views different from theirs. It is evident that local terrorism is breeding. During the disturbances arising from the opposition to the proposed legislative amendments, foreign countries openly interfered in Hong Kong affairs time and again. Some western anti-China forces even confounded right with wrong and flagrantly backed people opposing China and upsetting order in Hong Kong. How would the Central Government possibly turn a blind eye to the increasing aggressive interference? Which country in the world can tolerate secession behaviour and terrorist activities?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 May 2020 7493

President, Hong Kong has reunified with China for almost 23 years. Before all else, we should expeditiously complete the Bill. Besides, legislation for Article 23 of the Basic Law in Hong Kong is yet to be completed, turning Hong Kong into a national security loophole. Now the Central Authorities have stepped in to resolve Hong Kong's problem in maintaining national security and ensure effective and proper implementation of the relevant legislation in Hong Kong. This is not only demanded by the exigencies of the situation. It is also an exercise of power by the Central Authorities under the Constitution and the Basic Law to fulfil their responsibility. Such an approach is constitutional, fair and reasonable. Similarly, the Bill was formulated on this principle.

President, back to the Bill. The Bills Committee has held 17 meetings to conduct the scrutiny. It can be said that each and every detail and word have been considered carefully. The Administration has also repeatedly explained and clarified certain scenarios which are exaggerating or extreme. For example, will failure to sing the national anthem with standard pronunciation of Putonghua and omission to sing along or stand up when seeing the national anthem being played on television in a restaurant be regarded as an insult to the national anthem? As a matter of fact, the Administration has repeatedly clarified that similar scenarios will not constitute an insult to the national anthem. The report of the Bills Committee has also expounded in detail the disputes which may be arise from various provisions. I believe it can allay people's concern.

In fact, what is meant by "insult"? What amounts to an insult? Is certain behaviour deliberately insulting? Educated people should be able to distinguish it clearly. Only people who bend every effort to exploit the loopholes in law and attempt to challenge the authority of the State will be obsessed with splitting hairs. Basically, the implementation of the Bill will not affect the daily life and personal freedom of the masses.

President, someone says that the National Anthem Law forces patriotism. Instead of requiring people to respect the national anthem, we had better ask the Government to do better so that members of the public will love the country of their own free will. Such a remark is putting the cart before the horse because the enactment of the National Anthem Law does not seek to force people to sing the national anthem. Rather, it seeks to prohibit acts of disrespecting the national anthem and insulting the country. Some other people say that the 7494 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 May 2020

National Anthem Law deprives people of freedom of speech, freedom of the person and freedom of creation. President, I have drawn reference from information about NFNEO. In the case of HKSAR v Ng Kung Siu in 1999, the then Chief Justice Andrew LI pointed out in the judgment that the national flag is a unique symbol of the State and the sovereignty of the State. It represents the State, with her dignity, unity and territorial integrity. Hong Kong has a legitimate interest in protecting the national flag and the regional flag. The Court of Final Appeal also held that the restriction of the freedom of expression imposed by NFNEO is limited rather than wide. To protect the national flag which is a unique symbol of the State, such restriction is necessary. In fact, signatories of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, such as Italy and Germany, similarly treat insult to the national flag as a criminal offence. Hence, the Bill was formulated merely to align with NFNEO. It is not anything novel. Moreover, we should introduce legislation to plug the loopholes in law.

President, using all kinds of excuses, some people are unwilling to pass the Bill simply because they do not wish to admit that Hong Kong is a part of PRC. They keep calling on the Central Government to adhere to "one country, two systems" and "a high degree of autonomy", but they give no regard to "one country". They see only "two systems" but not "one country". Perhaps the "one country" in their eyes is the United States or the United Kingdom. They often go to foreign countries to make their requests. They wear T-shirts in the Hong Kong Legislative Council, but in the foreign countries, they dressed up in suits and ties, claiming to be representatives of Hong Kong. Who are the most important in their eyes? It is obvious to all.

Now they even advocate "Hong Kong independence" and self-determination, willing to be used by foreign forces as pawns against the Central Authorities. I believe most people of Hong Kong oppose "Hong Kong independence". Yet some politicians just went to different places to badmouth Hong Kong. Moreover, in collaboration with foreign forces inside and outside the territory, they begged foreign countries to interfere in Hong Kong affairs, which would only make the situation in Hong Kong even more complicated, further aggravate social conflicts and undermine national sovereignty without doing Hong Kong any good. In my view, these people are either stupid or wicked. Regrettably, many young people in Hong Kong are led astray by them. Blinded by the idea of so-called "achieving justice by violating the law", they LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 May 2020 7495 take the path of opposing China and upsetting order in Hong Kong, disrupting social peace.

President, that is the case with the National Anthem Law. So is it with the implementation of the national security law in Hong Kong. Hong Kong has already suffered much from politics. The favourable business environment has been eroded and ruined. Violence and social conflicts have caused anxieties among the public and discouraged foreign investors. It is necessary to set things right. To get back on the right track, laws must be put in place for strict and impartial enforcement. I hope the opposition camp will rein in at the brink of the precipice. We must put public interest above everything else. We should leave our stance and prejudice aside such that all sectors in society can refocus on fighting the epidemic, relieving people's burden and reviving the economy. I (The buzzer sounded) …

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

MR ALVIN YEUNG (in Cantonese): President, Members of the Executive Council are really at a different level. When discussing the national anthem, they mentioned national security; and when discussing national security, they certainly have to elevate this matter to the highest level. The two Members of the Executive Council are just the same. This must be the "standard" as referred to by Mr Paul TSE earlier on. I am most delighted to listen to their views, and will certainly learn from them.

I recall that Mr Tony TSE mentioned traitors at the meeting yesterday. He said that people who do not support the National Anthem Bill and even the national security law must be traitors. Mr Tony TSE is not in the Chamber now but I believe he will surely have the opportunity to give a response. I wonder if he has renounced his right of abode in Britain. It has been more than two decades after the reunification of Hong Kong. I just wonder if he has renounced his right of abode in Britain. If he has the right of abode in Britain, I wonder if he is considered a traitor or not. If he already renounced it, that makes him a former traitor, right? Having said that, President, I have no intention to pick on anyone, including this person sitting here. I only think that when some people 7496 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 May 2020 hold high the banner of patriotism and sing high praises for the greatness of the country, saying that people not supportive of the National Anthem Bill are traitors and that people not supportive of the national security law are traitors and in short, people who do not vote "yes" are traitors, then, regarding all those people who vote "yes", do they themselves and their next of kin have any property or right of abode in foreign countries? Why do they not all move to the Greater Bay Area?

Speaking of patriotism, we certainly have to talk about history. I feel very "safe" in these several days, President, as I am surrounded by so many policemen outside. But let us think about the past, and for people who are familiar with Chinese history, do they know when it was the last time the parliamentary assembly was so "safe" in the modern history of China? It was in the year 1913 when YUAN Shikai sent the army to the parliament and asked Members to vote in support of his assumption of the Presidency, and really, that was as "safe" as it is now, right? As we look back on history, of course we must mention national anthems. Was there any country in history where legislation was enacted to govern the behaviours of the people when the national anthem was played and sung? Of course yes. In May 1933, a law was promulgated in Germany, specifying that both Die Fahne Hoch and Deutschlandlied were the national anthems. This law also stipulated that people shall have their right arms raised in Nazi salute when the first and fourth verses of Die Fahne Hoch, the Nazi Party anthem, was played and sung. In 1942 in Spain, under the dictatorship of Francisco FRANCO, the law required people to do the Roman salute and that is, the Nazi salute, when the national anthem was played and sung.

President, a song that represents the country and the nation should supposedly command profound respect from the people or nationals and even move them to tears. But why is it still necessary to make stipulations on the behaviours of the people when the national anthem is played and sung? The reason is simple. From the two aforesaid examples, we can see that actually it was because at that time, Germany and Spain already had their national anthems, just that Adolf HITLER and Francisco FRANCO, through enacting laws, forcibly replaced the national anthems by songs intended to propagate their political parties. But they were worried about the people not accepting it and so, in enacting the laws, they also forced the people to make certain gestures. President, what does it mean? It means that even if I cannot win your heart, I will make you do what I want you to do. When a national anthem cannot arouse LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 May 2020 7497 resonance and emotion from the people, laws are enacted to make the people show respect for and salute to the anthem. What does it mean? It means that they have a guilty conscience. They simply cannot be certain about whether they can command support from the people.

Let us take a look at the National Anthem Bill under our scrutiny now. Paragraph (2) of the Preamble provides that "all individuals and organizations should respect the national anthem, preserve the dignity of the national anthem". First of all, Hong Kong is a free society where "one country, two systems" is still implemented. Should a person not have the right to choose whether or not to show his respect towards a certain issue or a certain person? And if, at the very least, we must respect the national anthem, what does it mean by "respect"? What are the criteria for defining whether a person is respectful or disrespectful when the national anthem is played and sung? These are the real problems, and this is why we need to consider thoroughly whether this Bill should be passed as such at this meeting. This Bill is certainly going to be passed because they have so many votes. It could not be otherwise, right? But we really must ask why we still need to pass such a piece of legislation in 2020.

In fact, President, preserving the dignity of the national anthem is not the only thing that the people should do. Even for an organization or an object, it also takes people to give it dignity. Take the Legislative Council as an example. We often say that the Legislative Council must have dignity. But a most salient point is that we in the Legislative Council should not be subject to the influence exerted wantonly by the executive authorities or other forces outside this Council. Every Member should have the power and ability to defend the dignity of this Council. I am not talking about dignity in a tangible sense and President, unlike your comments that Members coming forth to make various acts or gestures to express their dissatisfaction are considered to have undermined the dignity of this Council, I am talking about a spiritual level, and this dignity as referred to by me is elevated to a spiritual level. But much to our regret, when Members do not cherish their powers and when they do not cherish the power of opposition that they should possess under the separation of powers among the executive, legislature and Judiciary, what dignity is there to speak of? When there is hardly any dignity to speak of, it is all the more incomprehensible to talk about preservation of dignity.

7498 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 May 2020

Under clause 3 of Part 2 of the National Anthem Bill, the heading of which is "Standard for playing and singing", the national anthem must be played and sung in a way that is in keeping with its dignity. President, I will not talk about some patriotic uncles who, on hearing March of the Volunteers on the street, cannot help whistling and singing along. What I am talking about is that on the point of how it can be considered as "in keeping with its dignity", why should there be so many rules and regulations? President, is this in keeping with the fundamentals that are inherent to a free society?

I think another point that I must mention is "love". In paragraph (3) of the Preamble, it is mentioned that legislation is enacted on the national anthem to enhance citizen awareness of the People's Republic of China and to promote patriotism. President, I wish to remind Members that a survey conducted in 2008 showed that patriotism was at its peak among Hongkongers. Was there a national anthem law back then? No. Were there other laws requiring the citizens to be patriotic, and were there so many problems concerning national security, and so on? No. Why is it that back then when none of these existed, the patriotic sentiments of Hongkongers were the highest in history but had regrettably dropped gradually afterwards? Can this national anthem law mend the problems? Of course not, because we all understand that when an organ, a state, a government has failed to do its part properly and when problems have arisen, it knows only to enact laws to demand the people to respect it, surely the crux of the problem will not be resolved.

I would like to mention in particular that regarding Die Fahne Hoch, the national anthem of the Nazis back then, sections 86 and 86a of the German Criminal Code have express provisions prohibiting the dissemination and use of symbols and propaganda materials of unconstitutional organizations. Everything relating to the Nazi Party is banned nowadays. But why has Germany enacted legislation to undermine the freedom of speech? It is most important to note that after many years of democratization and having truly achieved freedoms, Germany has learned to do one thing―soul-searching. They know that they have to face their past mistakes. They know that when they did something wrong in the past, they must make up for it today and through enacting laws, they hope that the Germans will understand and be conscious that this part of their history is most disgraceful and that it is necessary to positively face and rethink all their mistakes.

Lastly, President, let me cite the comments of a Mainland netizen I saw on a Mainland website, "Zhihu" (知乎). During the sessions of the National LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 May 2020 7499

People's Congress and the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference ("CPPCC") in 2018, 38 CPPCC members jointly signed a proposal calling on the enactment of a special law to protect national integrity and dignity in a bid to specifically punish people who worship Japan. However, this netizen opposed legislating for this purpose because he considered that thinking should not be subject to regulation. He made the following comments, (I quote), "If a law is really enacted to this end, forget about ruling the country according to the law, and forget about a rule-of-law society, because when laws can be enacted so casually, their enforcement would be all the more unimaginable. It is because so long as laws are enacted to govern thinking, it would be impossible to reach the standards of a rule-of-law society and this has been proven by countless historical facts." (End of quote). I hope that these comments can be put on record in the records of meetings of the Legislative Council and that they be given in-depth consideration by each and every pro-establishment Member in the Chamber.

I so submit.

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

(Ms Claudia MO indicated her wish to raise a point of order)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Claudia MO, what is your point of order?

MS CLAUDIA MO: Quorum, please.

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

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

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs, please speak.

7500 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 May 2020

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): President, for a start, my thanks go to the President and Members for their efforts in enabling the Second Reading of the National Anthem Bill ("the Bill") to be resumed in the Legislative Council eventually. During the debate in these two days, quite a number of Members have expressed their support in the hope that the scrutiny of the Bill can be completed for its passage at the earliest possible time. This would allow the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("HKSAR") to fulfil expeditiously its constitutional duty of implementing the Law of the People's Republic of China on National Anthem ("National Anthem Law"). I would like to express my gratitude here.

I also wish to thank Chairman Mr Martin LIAO and other members of the Bills Committee for their efforts. After 17 meetings and over 50 hours of deliberation during the 2018-2019 legislative session, the Bills Committee completed the scrutiny of the Bill on 24 May last year and reported to the House Committee on 28 June. I will now briefly introduce the background and content of the Bill, and then respond to Members' remarks made over the past two days.

The National Anthem Law was adopted on 1 September 2017, and has come into force nationwide since 1 October 2017. The Standing Committee of the 12th National People's Congress adopted the decision to add the National Anthem Law to Annex III to the Basic Law on 4 November 2017.

According to Article 18 of the Basic Law, the national laws listed in Annex III to the Basic Law shall be applied locally by way of promulgation or legislation by HKSAR. It is thus the constitutional duty of HKSAR to implement the National Anthem Law locally.

Having regard to the common law system practised in Hong Kong, as well as the actual circumstances in Hong Kong, the SAR Government decided to implement the National Anthem Law in Hong Kong by local legislation. This approach fully reflects the spirit of "one country, two systems". During the legislative process, the SAR Government has gauged and adopted the views of all sectors of society and members of the public at different stages through various channels.

The legislative principle of the Bill is very clear: To fully reflect the legislative purpose and intent of the National Anthem Law, which is to preserve the dignity of the national anthem and promote respect for the national anthem among the public; and at the same time to give due regard to the common law LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 May 2020 7501 system practised in Hong Kong, as well as the actual circumstances in Hong Kong.

The main focus of the Bill is two-pronged: Firstly, to state that the national anthem is the symbol and sign of the country, and to promote respect for the national anthem among the public by directional provisions; secondly, to impose penalties on people who publicly and intentionally insult the national anthem or misuse the national anthem.

Part 1 of the Bill is "Preliminary", which includes the short title and interpretation of the ordinance.

Part 2 of the Bill is "Playing and Singing of National Anthem", which provides the standard, etiquette and occasions for the playing and singing of the national anthem. All of these provisions are "directional" and do not carry any penalty. This part clarifies that the etiquette to be followed regarding the playing and singing of the national anthem only applies to persons who "take part in or attend" an occasion where the national anthem is played and sung, in order to dispel public concerns about questions such as "whether one should stand solemnly when the national anthem is broadcast on television". This part also specifies that on each occasion set out in Schedule 3 of the Bill where the national anthem must be played and sung …

(Dr KWOK Ka-ki indicated his wish to raise a point of order)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, what is your point of order?

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): The National People's Congress has promulgated the national security law today, which implies the death of "one country, two systems". I hereby ask Members to observe silence to mourn the death of "one country, two systems" here.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, this is not a point of order. Please sit down.

Secretary, please continue with your speech.

7502 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 May 2020

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): … These occasions include official occasions of the SAR Government, the oath-taking ceremonies of principal members of the executive authorities, legislature and judiciary when they assume office, national flag raising ceremonies, major sporting events held by the SAR Government …

(Ms Claudia MO and a number of Members chanted aloud the slogan: "'One country, two systems' is dead!")

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Claudia MO, please leave the Chamber immediately.

(Ms Claudia MO did not leave the Chamber as ordered by the President)

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): … and the Ceremonial Opening of the Legal Year.

Part 3 of the Bill is "Protection of National Anthem", which prohibits misuse of the national anthem or its lyrics or score, as well as public and intentional insulting behaviours in relation to the national anthem …

(Ms Claudia MO and a number of Members again chanted aloud the slogan: "'One country, two systems' is dead!")

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Claudia MO, I have ordered you to leave the Chamber, please leave the Chamber immediately.

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): … It also provides for the penalties for such behaviours. During the scrutiny over the past two years, members of the community have raised different scenarios in respect of the offence of insulting the national anthem provided in clause 7 of the Bill, in the hope of understanding whether individual scenario will contravene the law. We have made our best efforts to respond to all these queries. Some people hope that the Government can assess each and every scenario and comment if there is any contravention of the law. This is LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 May 2020 7503 impossible as the enforcement agency should, according to the actual circumstances and evidence collected in each case, make consideration in accordance with the law, and the court will hand down judgment in accordance with the usual standard of handling criminal cases in Hong Kong. Nevertheless, this does not imply that the legislation is unclear. On the contrary, our legislative intent is very clear, i.e. to prohibit public and intentional behaviours with an intent to insult the national anthem. Simply put, there is absolutely no need for members of the public to be worried if they have no intention to insult the national anthem.

(A number of Members repeatedly chanted aloud in their seats the slogan: "'One country, two systems' is dead!")

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): If any Members keep shouting in their seats, I will order them to leave the Chamber immediately.

Secretary, please continue with your speech.

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Part 4 of the Bill is "Promotion of National Anthem" …

(Dr KWOK Ka-ki and a number of Members chanted aloud the slogan repeatedly)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, please leave the Chamber immediately.

(Dr KWOK Ka-ki did not leave the Chamber as ordered by the President)

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): … which requires the Secretary for Education to give directions for the inclusion of the national anthem in primary and secondary education. The Bill also requires domestic television programme service licensees and sound broadcasting service licensees to broadcast the national anthem as announcements in the public interest ("API") or material in the public interest pursuant to the existing terms and conditions in their respective licences. These two 7504 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 May 2020 requirements are actually similar to what is currently being done, which have reflected the legislative intent of the National Anthem Law …

(Dr KWOK Ka-ki and a number of Members kept chanting aloud the slogan repeatedly)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, please leave the Chamber.

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): … and at the same time taken into account the actual circumstances of Hong Kong. It is groundless to criticize arbitrarily the relevant provisions as "brainwashing".

Part 5 of the Bill is "Supplementary Provisions", which provides that offences in relation to the national anthem in Hong Kong are investigated, and persons are prosecuted, according to the laws of Hong Kong.

(Mr SHIU Ka-chun and a number of Members chanted aloud the slogan repeatedly)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr SHIU Ka-chun, please leave the Chamber.

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Part 6 of the Bill is "Consequential Amendments", which contains consequential amendments to other ordinances, namely the Trade Marks Ordinance and the Legislation Publication Ordinance.

Overall speaking, the main spirit of the Bill is "respect", which I believe is easy to understand and not hard to follow by the general public. For those with an intent to insult the national anthem, and publicly and intentionally perform acts to insult the national anthem, there is a need to introduce punitive provisions in the Bill to deter such behaviours.

After two days of debate, I wish to respond in particular to several major viewpoints and queries raised by Members.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 May 2020 7505

In these two days, I have heard quite a number of Members put forward the viewpoint that the Bill seeks to force people to respect the country, respect the national anthem, and even force people to be patriotic.

First, we agree that we should not rely solely on imposing penalties to command respect from others. Instead, we should also start with education and publicity, etc. For this reason …

(Mr Jeremy TAM and a number of Members chanted aloud the slogan repeatedly)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Jeremy TAM, please leave the Chamber.

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): … the relevant provisions of the Bill also require the Secretary for Education to give directions for the inclusion of the national anthem in primary and secondary education, thereby enabling the students to learn to sing the national anthem, as well as to understand the history, spirit and meaning of the national anthem. Meanwhile, domestic television programme service licensees and sound broadcasting service licensees are also required to broadcast the national anthem as API or material in the public interest. In addition, we will further step up our publicity and promotional efforts on the national anthem to further enhance the sense of national identity among members of the public, so that they will show more respect for our country and the national anthem.

Apart from education and publicity, it is also necessary to set out some clear regulations and guidelines for members of the public to follow. Therefore, we have drawn up some directional provisions to let everyone know the standard, etiquette and occasions for the playing and singing of the national anthem. These provisions are "directional" rather than punitive.

Having said that, we still cannot rule out the possibility that a tiny handful of people might, for various reasons, insult the national anthem deliberately, intentionally and publicly.

(Mr WU Chi-wai and a number of Members chanted aloud the slogan repeatedly)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WU Chi-wai, please leave the Chamber.

7506 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 May 2020

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): As a matter of fact, such cases did have occurred in the past. Some people insulted the national anthem by booing the national anthem in football stadium. Hence, there is indeed a need to set out clear laws and penalties to prohibit these insulting behaviours.

Overall speaking, I think we should attach equal importance to education, regulation and punishment. On the one hand, we should make people understand that we belong to the same country, and all of us are citizens of the People's Republic of China. The Chinese nation has a long history with 5 000 years of civilization, making it great and impressive. We should respect our country, and also respect and protect the national anthem which is the symbol and sign of the country …

(Music came out from the Chamber)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Secretariat staff please check who has turned on a music device, and please remove the device immediately.

(Dr Fernando CHEUNG was found to have turned on a music device)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Fernando CHEUNG, please leave the Chamber immediately. Will Secretariat staff please execute my order immediately.

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): At the same time, appropriate criminal liability and penalties should be imposed on those who intend to insult the national anthem with ulterior motives, with a view to creating a deterrent effect.

(Music continued to come out from the Chamber)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Fernando CHEUNG, you have violated the Rules of Procedure by hindering the proceedings of the meeting, and you might have also breached the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance. Please leave the Chamber immediately.

(Dr Fernando CHEUNG still did not follow the President's order. Security personnel assisted him in leaving the Chamber)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 May 2020 7507

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, please continue with your speech.

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): The level of penalty is another issue which is often touched on by Members, some of them even described the Bill as draconian. In this connection, I must reiterate that the level of penalty proposed in the Bill is on par with that for the offence of insulting the national flag or the national emblem under the National Flag and National Emblem Ordinance. Given that the national anthem as well as the national flag and the national emblem are the symbol and sign of our country, we consider it appropriate to set the level of penalty for the offence of insulting the national anthem on par with that for the offence of insulting the national flag or the national emblem. Besides, the penalty stipulated in the Bill is the maximum penalty, and the court will impose sentences after taking into account the actual circumstances of each case.

The last point that I wish to respond to is about the relationship between the Bill and the freedom of speech. Some Members hold that the freedom of speech will be compromised upon implementation of the Bill. I believe everyone present in the Chamber, including those Members who oppose the Bill, would agree that whilst the freedom of expression is essential, it is not without limits.

The Bill restricts only one form of expression by prohibiting members of the public from expressing opinions by way of publicly and intentionally insulting the national anthem. Such restriction is a limited and reasonable one. When hearing the case of NG Kung-siu in 1999 involving desecration of the national flag, the Court of Final Appeal has clearly established that: The freedom of expression is protected by the Basic Law, but given that the national flag is the symbol of the country, the restriction on expressing opinions by way of insulting the national flag does not constitute a violation of the Basic Law. The SAR Government has cited this case law time and again over the past two years. I hope Members can be pragmatic, and they should not make use of the Bill to create unnecessary panic.

President, as I have mentioned earlier, the National Anthem Law has been added to Annex III to the Basic Law …

(Ms Tanya CHAN chanted aloud the slogan: "'One country, two systems' is dead!")

7508 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 28 May 2020

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Tanya CHAN, please leave the Chamber immediately.

(Ms Tanya CHAN and a number of Members kept chanting aloud the slogan while leaving the Chamber)

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): … HKSAR, including the Government and the legislature, has the constitutional duty to implement the National Anthem Law locally at the earliest possible time.

President, I move that the Second Reading of the Bill be resumed and hope Members will support its passage.

President, I so submit.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the National Anthem Bill be read the Second time. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

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

(No hands raised)

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

CLERK (in Cantonese): National Anthem Bill.

NEXT MEETING

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now adjourn the Council until 11:00 am on Wednesday, 3 June 2020.

Adjourned accordingly at 6:50 pm.