LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10307
OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Wednesday, 7 May 2014
The Council met at Eleven o'clock
MEMBERS PRESENT:
THE PRESIDENT THE HONOURABLE JASPER TSANG YOK-SING, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ALBERT HO CHUN-YAN
THE HONOURABLE LEE CHEUK-YAN
THE HONOURABLE JAMES TO KUN-SUN
THE HONOURABLE CHAN KAM-LAM, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE LEUNG YIU-CHUNG
DR THE HONOURABLE LAU WONG-FAT, G.B.M., G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE TAM YIU-CHUNG, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ABRAHAM SHEK LAI-HIM, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE TOMMY CHEUNG YU-YAN, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE FREDERICK FUNG KIN-KEE, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE VINCENT FANG KANG, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE WONG KWOK-HING, B.B.S., M.H.
10308 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014
PROF THE HONOURABLE JOSEPH LEE KOK-LONG, S.B.S., J.P., Ph.D., R.N.
THE HONOURABLE JEFFREY LAM KIN-FUNG, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ANDREW LEUNG KWAN-YUEN, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE WONG TING-KWONG, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE RONNY TONG KA-WAH, S.C.
THE HONOURABLE CYD HO SAU-LAN
THE HONOURABLE STARRY LEE WAI-KING, J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE LAM TAI-FAI, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHAN HAK-KAN, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHAN KIN-POR, B.B.S., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE PRISCILLA LEUNG MEI-FUN, S.B.S., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE LEUNG KA-LAU
THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG KWOK-CHE
THE HONOURABLE WONG KWOK-KIN, B.B.S.
THE HONOURABLE IP KWOK-HIM, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MRS REGINA IP LAU SUK-YEE, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ALAN LEONG KAH-KIT, S.C.
THE HONOURABLE LEUNG KWOK-HUNG
THE HONOURABLE ALBERT CHAN WAI-YIP
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10309
THE HONOURABLE WONG YUK-MAN
THE HONOURABLE CLAUDIA MO
THE HONOURABLE MICHAEL TIEN PUK-SUN, B.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE JAMES TIEN PEI-CHUN, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE NG LEUNG-SING, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE STEVEN HO CHUN-YIN
THE HONOURABLE FRANKIE YICK CHI-MING
THE HONOURABLE WU CHI-WAI, M.H.
THE HONOURABLE YIU SI-WING
THE HONOURABLE GARY FAN KWOK-WAI
THE HONOURABLE MA FUNG-KWOK, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHARLES PETER MOK
THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHI-CHUEN
THE HONOURABLE CHAN HAN-PAN
DR THE HONOURABLE KENNETH CHAN KA-LOK
THE HONOURABLE CHAN YUEN-HAN, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG, B.B.S., M.H., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE KENNETH LEUNG
THE HONOURABLE ALICE MAK MEI-KUEN, J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE KWOK KA-KI
10310 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014
THE HONOURABLE KWOK WAI-KEUNG
THE HONOURABLE DENNIS KWOK
THE HONOURABLE CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG WAH-FUNG, J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE FERNANDO CHEUNG CHIU-HUNG
THE HONOURABLE SIN CHUNG-KAI, S.B.S., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE HELENA WONG PIK-WAN
THE HONOURABLE IP KIN-YUEN
DR THE HONOURABLE ELIZABETH QUAT, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MARTIN LIAO CHEUNG-KONG, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE POON SIU-PING, B.B.S., M.H.
THE HONOURABLE TANG KA-PIU
DR THE HONOURABLE CHIANG LAI-WAN, J.P.
IR DR THE HONOURABLE LO WAI-KWOK, B.B.S., M.H., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHUNG KWOK-PAN
THE HONOURABLE CHRISTOPHER CHUNG SHU-KUN, B.B.S., M.H., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE TONY TSE WAI-CHUEN
MEMBERS ABSENT:
THE HONOURABLE EMILY LAU WAI-HING, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE PAUL TSE WAI-CHUN, J.P.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10311
PUBLIC OFFICERS ATTENDING:
THE HONOURABLE MRS CARRIE LAM CHENG YUET-NGOR, G.B.S., J.P. THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION
THE HONOURABLE JOHN TSANG CHUN-WAH, G.B.M., J.P. THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY
THE HONOURABLE TSANG TAK-SING, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS
PROF THE HONOURABLE K C CHAN, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY
MS FLORENCE HUI HIU-FAI, S.B.S., J.P. UNDER SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS
MR JAMES HENRY LAU JR., J.P. UNDER SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY
CLERKS IN ATTENDANCE:
MR KENNETH CHEN WEI-ON, S.B.S., SECRETARY GENERAL
MRS JUSTINA LAM CHENG BO-LING, DEPUTY SECRETARY GENERAL
MR ANDY LAU KWOK-CHEONG, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL
MISS FLORA TAI YIN-PING, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL
MISS ODELIA LEUNG HING-YEE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL
MRS PERCY MA, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL
10312 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members to the Chamber.
(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members entered the Chamber)
TABLING OF PAPERS
The following papers were laid on the table under Rule 21(2) of the Rules of Procedure:
No. 99 ─ Early Retirement Ex-gratia Payment Fund for Aided Secondary School Teachers Financial statements for the year ended 31 August 2013
Report No. 17/13-14 of the House Committee on Consideration of Subsidiary Legislation and Other Instruments
WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
Revitalization Project Implemented at Former Police Married Quarters on Hollywood Road
1. MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Chinese): President, PMQ is a revitalization project implemented at the former Police Married Quarters on Hollywood Road. The Musketeers Education and Culture Charitable Foundation Limited (Musketeers Foundation) and three co-organizers have been selected to preserve this heritage site and transform it into a creative industries landmark. PMQ has officially opened, and the PMQ Management Company Limited (the management company) is responsible for its operation. A number of budding entrepreneurs in creative industries who have moved into PMQ have complained to me that although PMQ is plagued with problems, for example, nine out of 10 shops at the site are vacant, a lot of renovation works are still in progress, most of the eateries which can attract visitors will not commence business until June this year, and there is also a lack of vending machines, the management company requests them to start operation and pay rents immediately. In addition, some members of the public who have visited PMQ have complained to me that apart from the poor environment due to the works LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10313 being carried out at the site, the directional signs are inadequate, the toilets are not opened yet, and there has been an accident in which members of the public were injured because of the works. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the nominal rent received from the Musketeers Foundation for the PMQ preservation project; whether it knows the annual management fee payable to the management company by the Musketeers Foundation;
(2) whether it knows the number of units available for lease at PMQ; of the average per-square-foot area and rent of such units;
(3) whether it knows the respective current numbers of units at PMQ which (i) have been leased out and started operation, (ii) have been leased out and have renovation works completed but not started operation yet, (iii) have been leased out and have renovation works being carried out; and (iv) have not been leased out, together with a breakdown by floor level (including the basement);
(4) whether it knows if the management company has required all the tenants at PMQ to pay rents and start operation from April this year; if it has, of the number of tenants involved;
(5) given that one of the terms in the authorities' invitation for proposals on the revitalization project was "[t]o charge nominal rent for the site to encourage a wide variety of activities …[which] may not be profitable", whether the authorities will request the management company to collect rents from the tenants only after the occupancy rate of PMQ has exceeded 80% and the ancillary facilities at the site are in place, so as to support and nurture local budding creative enterprises and achieve the original objectives of the revitalization project; if they will not, of the reasons for that, and whether they have assessed if this will cause the tenants at the site great difficulties;
(6) of the list of the government officials and composition of the advisory committee responsible for vetting, approving and monitoring the PMQ project; whether it knows if any of the persons-in-charge or 10314 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014
shareholders of PMQ's tenants have interests related to these officials, committee members, members of the Musketeers Foundation or the management company, or the relatives of these persons; if they have such interests, of the number of these tenants and their names;
(7) whether it knows if any of PMQ's tenants (including the persons-in-charge and shareholders) are personnel responsible for selecting tenants or have interests related to such personnel; if there are such tenants, of their number, and why the authorities allow such a situation;
(8) since it has been reported that a number of famous stores or renowned brands will move into PMQ, whether the authorities know the number of famous stores or renowned brands which have signed tenancy agreements with the management company;
(9) whether it has assessed if the admission of famous brand stores or renowned brands to PMQ violates the Government's policy objective of nurturing local budding entrepreneurs in creative industries and establishing local brands through the project, and whether this will indirectly lead to increase in the rents of retail shops in the district; whether the authorities will request the management company to immediately stop negotiating with the famous stores or renowned brands concerned on their tenancies; if no request will be made, of the reasons for that;
(10) whether it has assessed if issues such as the air quality, hygiene conditions and noise, and so on, during renovation of the shops at PMQ will affect the health of members of the public and tourists visiting PMQ or the staff of the shops; whether the Government will bear the legal liability for accidents that may be caused by such works;
(11) whether it has assessed if the directional signs at PMQ and the staff hired by the management company are sufficient; if the assessment result is in the affirmative, of the average number of directional signs on and staff members assigned for each floor at present; if it is in the negative, the reasons for that;
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10315
(12) whether it knows if the management company cleans the public toilets in PMQ regularly and opens them to members of the public and the shop tenants permanently; if the management company does not, of the reasons for that, and when the toilets will be opened to the public;
(13) whether it knows if there are eateries currently doing business in PMQ; if so, of the number of such eateries and their business hours; if not, the reasons for that; and
(14) whether it knows if vending machines have been installed on each floor in PMQ; if so, of the total number of such machines and the goods being sold; if not, the reasons for that?
SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Chinese): President, the Development Bureau and the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau jointly invited proposals in March 2010 from interested non-profit-making organizations (NPO) for the transformation of the Former Police Married Quarters on Hollywood Road into a creative industries landmark. The Musketeers Foundation, supported by three co-applicants including The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, the Hong Kong Design Centre and the Hong Kong Design Institute of the Vocational Training Council, has been selected in November 2010 to conserve and transform the Former Police Married Quarters on Hollywood Road into a creative industries landmark called PMQ.
Following the idea of sustainable implementation of revitalization projects for historic buildings, the PMQ project will be operated on a self-financing and self-sustainable basis in which the site and the premises will be managed, operated and maintained at the NPO's own expenses. The Musketeers Foundation has set up a special purpose company named the PMQ Management Company Limited (PMQ Ltd), which has acquired charitable status under section 88 of the Inland Revenue Ordinance (Cap. 112), to be responsible for the implementation of the project and the day-to-day operation of the site after revitalization, including the leasing of studio and other units. The Government has signed a tenancy agreement with the PMQ Ltd for its use of the Former Police Married Quarters on Hollywood Road and implementation of the PMQ project. The Government does not finance or subsidize the operating expenses of the revitalized facilities.
10316 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014
The works for the project to conserve and revitalize the Former Police Married Quarters on Hollywood Road and transform it into a creative industries landmark was carried out by the Architectural Services Department under the Public Works Programme. The PMQ Ltd is responsible for the other works including renovation and decoration of the interior parts, procurement of furniture and equipment, recruitment of pre-operation staff, as well as the future operating costs; whereas the co-applicants would provide advice to the PMQ Ltd in relation to the organization of various programmes/activities as well as liaison with the creative community.
As regards the questions raised by Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, the replies are as follow:
(1) The Government charges the PMQ Ltd a nominal rent of $1.00 per annum.
The PMQ Ltd is set up by the Musketeers Foundation and operates on a self-financing and self-sustainable basis. The Musketeers Foundation has pledged to contribute $110 million for funding the revitalization and operation of PMQ and for the purpose of nurturing creative talents. As the sum is a commitment undertaken by the Musketeers Foundation for the project, the sum will not be recovered in any way.
(2) There are about 130 studio units and eight commercial units in PMQ available for leasing.
Based on the information provided by the PMQ Ltd, the basic rental for studio units on 2/F or above is set by taking account of the average monthly rental for grade B offices in Central and Sheung Wan published by the Rating and Valuation Department in 2012. The rental of a standard studio unit (approx. 40 sq m) is set at $18,000 per month. Local emerging designers and create-preneurs will be entitled to 20% to 50% discount off the rent according to their needs for support. An additional 5% to 10% discount will be offered to tenants on higher floors and the actual discount will be determined on an individual basis. Apart from rental, the PMQ Ltd also subsidize the management fee and utilities fee (including water, electricity and air-conditioning, and so on). Tenants of the studio units and commercial units on G/F and 1/F are required to pay market rent, and are not entitled to any subsidies on management fee LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10317
and utilities fee (including water, electricity and air-conditioning, and so on).
(3) The PMQ Ltd advised that PMQ would provide about 130 studio units and eight commercial units after the completion of revitalization works. At present, about 10% of the studio units have not yet been leased out. As the dates of lease commencement, dates of taking over of studio units by tenants, fitting-out period and start-up time are different for individual studio units, each studio unit will commence operation at different times. This is in accordance with the normal practice in the market.
(4) Based on the information provided by the PMQ Ltd, all the leases signed with studio tenants provide for a two-month rent-free period. The rent-free period commences on the date of taking over of the units by the tenants. In view of the actual circumstances, the PMQ Ltd has decided that the commencement of rental period shall be revised to start from 1 May 2014.
(5) Based on the information provided by the PMQ Ltd, the PMQ Ltd has proactively launched a series of publicity events and promotional activities since the partial opening of PMQ. Various activities have also been organized to attract more visitors and increase the visitor flow. According to a survey conducted by the PMQ Ltd on site since the partial opening of PMQ in mid-April 2014, the number of visitors for the first 13 days is about 71 000. Some tenants reflected that the visitor flow and sales performance during the partial operation period are in accordance with their expectations. The PMQ Ltd will continue to communicate with the tenants and provide appropriate support to the tenants.
(6) The Advisory Committee on Revitalisation of Historic Buildings (AC), appointed by the Secretary for Development, was responsible for assessing the conservation and revitalization proposals received for the transformation of the Former Police Married Quarters on Hollywood Road into a creative industries landmark and making recommendations to the Secretary for Development. The AC, comprising members from the fields of historical research, architecture, surveying, social enterprise, finance, and so on, provided advice on the revitalization of historic buildings to the 10318 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014
Secretary for Development. In order to fully grasp the policy objectives of promoting the development of creative industries and heritage conservation, the AC had invited the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau to provide the latest analysis and information on the creative industries in Hong Kong in respect of their current position and way forward. Moreover, Secretary for Development had appointed four experts who have deep understanding of the creative industries as co-opted members of the AC to take part in the assessment of the proposals. The membership list of the AC and its co-opted members is at Annex.
The Development Bureau and the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau are responsible for monitoring the PMQ project. To monitor the business performance of the project during the operation phase, the PMQ Ltd shall submit to the Government mid-year progress report (including financial reports and cash-flow statements) and the year-end annual report (including the annual audited financial statements) and the final evaluation report (including the final audited accounts) upon expiry of the project tenancy agreement. Both the annual and final evaluation reports should include audited accounts and auditor's reports for the Government to examine the financial position of the project. If the PMQ Ltd fails to submit reports or if the submitted reports contain insufficient, incomplete or false information, the Government may terminate the project tenancy agreement. The Government shall also provide the latest information of the PMQ project to the AC and obtain the AC's views to ensure compliance of the requirements in the project tenancy agreement and meeting the objectives of the project.
The PMQ Ltd advised that they have set up two tenant selection committees to be responsible for the selection of commercial and studio tenants respectively. Members of the tenant selection committees have already made declaration on any conflict of interest with respect to tenant selection. It was noted that no conflict of interest was found during the tenant selection process. The Board of Directors of the PMQ Ltd were also required to declare any conflict of interest during the endorsement of selection results recommended by the tenant selection committees. According to records, one of the directors of the PMQ Ltd had made a declaration LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10319
on the relationship with one of the tenants and abstained from the selection process. If fact, according to records, the Board of Directors had never overturned any selection results recommended by the tenant selection committees.
(7) The PMQ Ltd advised that they have set up two tenant selection committees to be responsible for the selection of commercial and studio tenants respectively. Members of the tenant selection committees have already made declaration on any conflict of interest with respect to tenant selection. It was noted that no conflict of interest was found during the tenant selection process. During the tenant selection process for studio units, the PMQ Ltd invited 52 industry leaders in the creative industries to form an assessment panel. The application proposals were distributed to members of the assessment panel for assessment based on the results of a ballot. The assessment results were submitted to the tenant selection committee for making a decision. The marks awarded to each proposal were given by not less than five members of the assessment panel in two assessment stages. The assessment panel members have no right to make any decision on the tenant selection, and they also needed to declare any conflict of interest. According to records, there was no conflict of interest found during the assessment process.
(8) and (9)
The PMQ Ltd is responsible for the operation and lease management of the PMQ project. The PMQ project mainly provides studio units to local designers and start-up create-preneurs. To enhance mutual exchange and foster brand building, a couple of well-established creative enterprises and brand names can also be found at PMQ. Positioning itself as a new design and creative landmark of Hong Kong, PMQ needs to unify different types of design and creative elites including well-established designers. Besides, the PMQ Ltd has acquired charitable status under section 88 of the Inland Revenue Ordinance (Cap. 112) and operates on a self-financing and self-sustainable basis. In this connection, there is a need to generate income through commercial activities to meet the operating expenses and provide subsidies to the studio tenants including rent, management fees and utilities fees (water and electricity).
10320 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014
The PMQ Ltd advised that PMQ promotes innovation and "co-creation" and provides a sharing and inter-active platform for experienced and emerging designers. Local design talents, who would be the future pillars of Hong Kong's creative sector, are nurtured through the adoption of a mentoring strategy which brings together well-established designers and emerging designers. To suit the positioning and concept of PMQ, most of the commercial activities within PMQ will include design and create-prenuer elements. PMQ also encourages and facilitates collaboration between designers and the commercial sector, so as to help emerging designers to establish their own brand name for sustainable development.
(10) The PMQ Ltd advised that the relevant safety guidelines have been issued to the tenants. Small parts of the common area where required maintenance works have to be carried out have already been cordoned off to prevent visitors from entering the concerned areas. The property management company will also have regular patrol to those areas to minimize the impact of works to the tenants.
(11) The PMQ Ltd advised that PMQ is currently under partial opening stage. A questionnaire survey and an internal assessment have already been conducted to review the needs for directional signage. Further enhancements, such as increasing directional signage on the site and duty officers at the main entrances, have been made according to the survey findings.
(12) The PMQ Ltd advised that they have appointed a property management company to manage the public facilities inside the PMQ project site. The toilets within the site are open for use by PMQ tenants and visitors daily during the operating hours of the site from 7 am to 11 pm. The PMQ Ltd will monitor the work performance of the property management company.
(13) The PMQ Ltd advised that the PMQ project has two sole restaurant units provided with seating. There are some takeaway shops and also several concept stores with eatery facilities. Overall, the project has provided different options of catering services. The first restaurant in PMQ commenced operation at the end of April 2014. Other restaurant units will progressively commence operation after early May 2014.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10321
(14) The PMQ Ltd advised that PMQ is still under partial operation stage, and vending machines are yet to be provided. However, The PMQ Ltd will conduct regular reviews and enhance the project facilities.
Annex
Membership List of the Advisory Committee on Revitalisation of Historic Buildings
Chairman Mr Bernard CHAN
Non-official Members Mr Nelson CHENG Wai-hung Ms Susanna CHIU Lai-kuen Mr David FONG Man-hung Mr Raymond FUNG Wing-kee Mr Andrew LAM Siu-lo Dr LAU Chi-pang Ms Vivian LAU Ms Deborah WAN Lai-yau Dr Philip WU Po-him
Official Members Commissioner for Heritage, Development Bureau Assistant Director of Architectural Services (Property Services) Architectural Services Department Assistant Director of Leisure, Cultural and Services (Heritage and Museums) Leisure and Cultural Services Department
Co-opted Members for the Assessment of Proposals for the Former Police Married Quarters Project Professor Desmond HUI Cheuk-kuen Mr Herman LAM Heung-yeung Mr Maurice LEE Wai-man Deputy Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development (Communications and Technology)
10322 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014
Labour Supply in Construction Industry
2. MR KWOK WAI-KEUNG (in Chinese): President, in February this year, the Construction Industry Council (CIC) formulated a labour-supply list on 26 trades in the construction industry. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it knows (i) the mode of employment of workers (being employed or self-employed), (ii) the method of calculation of wages, and (iii) the average number of working hours per week of each worker, in respect of each of the 26 trades at present, and set out such information in Table 1;
Table 1 Trade (i) (ii) (iii) 1. Bar bender & fixer 2. Carpenter (Formwork) … 25. Trackworker 26. Shotfirer
(2) whether it knows (i) the number of people employed, (ii) the number of job seekers, (iii) the number of job vacancies, (iv) the vacancy rate, and (v) the number of industrial accidents, in respect of each of the 26 trades in each of the past five years, and set out such figures in tables of the same format as Table 2;
Table 2 Year: ______Trade (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) 1. Bar bender & fixer 2. Carpenter (Formwork) … 25. Trackworker 26. Shotfirer
(3) whether it knows the total number of training courses provided by the Vocational Training Council and the CIC (including the training bodies under them) for the 26 trades in the past five years, as well as LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10323
the (i) name, (ii) years in which the course was offered, (iii) number of training places, (iv) entry requirements, (v) training period, and (vi) employment rate of graduated trainees, in respect of each of the training courses, and set out such information by trade and training body in tables of the same format as Table 3; and
Table 3 Trade: ______Training body (i) (ii) (iii) (iv) (v) (vi)
(4) whether the authorities have formulated new measures to attract local people to join the construction industry to work in the 26 trades, and to reduce the manpower wastage in those trades; if they have, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Chinese): President, as the co-ordinating body of the construction industry, the CIC set up a Task Force on Short-term Labour Supply (the Task Force)(1) in January 2014. After thorough discussion, the Task Force has identified 26 trades with manpower shortage and their standard recruitment requirements (including close to market wage levels). CIC will regularly review the list of trades with manpower shortage to reflect the latest market situation. The information will be for reference of contractors, the Labour Department and the Labour Advisory Board. CIC may also make reference to the list in reviewing and adjusting its training programmes as appropriate to better meet the market needs. The list of the 26 trades with manpower shortage and their standard recruitment requirements are available at the following CIC webpage:
(1) The Task Force comprises representatives of the Hong Kong Construction Association, the Hong Kong Federation of Electrical and Mechanical Contractors Limited, the Hong Kong Construction Industry Employees General Union, the Federation of Hong Kong Electrical and Mechanical Industries Trade Unions, Construction Site Workers General Union of the Hong Kong Confederation of Trade Unions, MTR Corporation Limited, the Housing Authority and the Development Bureau. 10324 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014
My reply to the four parts of Mr KWOK's question is as follows:
(1) To our understanding, sub-contracting is a common practice adopted in most of the trades in the construction industry. Sub-contractors employ skilled workers to undertake the works of the relevant trades and some of them also participate in the works themselves. Thus, there are both employed and self-employed workers in the industry. The methods of calculation of wages are agreed between employers and employees. Generally speaking, the calculation can be made in terms of daily wages, monthly wages or on piece-rated basis. We do not have information on the modes of employment and methods of calculation of wages for individual trades.
Please refer to Annex 1 for the average number of working days per week of workers in the trades with manpower shortage. Given the physically demanding nature of the construction activities, workers in certain trades working more than four days a week are considered to be fully engaged.
(2) Regarding items (i) to (iv) in the question, CIC has no breakdown of employment figures for individual trades with manpower shortage. As at end 2013, there were about 322 000 registered construction workers in Hong Kong. According to the estimates of CIC, about 70 000 of them were not currently working in the construction industry. According to the General Household Survey of the Census and Statistics Department, there were more than 10 000 unemployed workers as at end 2013. In this connection, there were about 240 000 in-service registered workers (including underemployed workers) working in the industry in that period. Besides, CIC estimates that there is a shortage of about 10 000 workers in the industry, including both general and skilled workers in early 2014.
Over the years, the Government has taken various initiatives to enhance site safety. According to the Labour Department's information, the overall accident rate (per 1 000 workers) in the construction industry has dropped from 54.6 to 40.8 during the period from 2009 to 2013. Over the same period, the accident rate in the public works sector has also been decreased from 11.6 to 7.3. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10325
The Labour Department does not have the relevant accident statistics by trades.
(3) Regarding the 26 trades with manpower shortage, CIC and the Vocational Training Council have provided training for certain trades in the past five years. Please refer to Annex 2 for the details.
(4) To cope with the manpower challenges of the construction industry, we have implemented a series of measures, including obtaining a total of $320 million from the Legislative Council in 2010 and 2012 to support CIC to strengthen its role in training local construction personnel and to enhance promotion and publicity activities to attract more people to join the industry, especially young people.
CIC has implemented various training initiatives and conducted training courses to address the manpower demand. Amongst others, we collaborate with CIC to launch the "Enhanced Construction Manpower Training Scheme (ECMTS)" to train a target of 6 000 semi-skilled workers by end 2014 for trades with projected labour shortage, acute ageing or recruitment difficulties. To diversify the modes of training and provide more training places, CIC will continue to implement the "Contractors Cooperative Training Scheme", whereby contractors hire trainees and train them on-site for the relevant trades.
To advance the skill levels of the in-service workers and cope with the skills mismatch problem, we provide subsidies for specified training courses(2) to encourage workers possessing relevant experience to register as skilled workers. We also provide subsidies for trade tests and skills enhancement courses for trades with relatively lower passing rates of trade tests to facilitate in-service workers possessing relevant skills to register as semi-skilled or skilled workers. These measures also help in-service workers to join the trades with manpower shortage to address the manpower demand.
(2) The construction workers satisfying the requirement of possessing an aggregate of not less than six years' relevant working experience on a trade before 29 December 2005 are eligible for registration as registered skilled workers (provisional). They can be registered as skilled workers after attending specified training course and passing its assessment. 10326 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014
To attract more new blood to join the construction industry, we will continue to collaborate with CIC to implement the "Build Up Publicity Campaign" to uplift the image of industry. Major initiatives recently launched in early 2014 include the "Build Up Ambassadors" to promote the industry, and a new TV drama series on the industry ("Dreams Come True"), and trade and industry posters, and so on. Further, we have strived to improve the working conditions on construction sites and will continue to implement various initiatives to enhance the caring and safety culture in the industry. The measures include improving site tidiness, providing additional welfare facilities on site, stepping up safety training for workers, and enhancing promotion and publicity of site safety.
In addition to the above initiatives, CIC rolled out several new initiatives in mid-2013 to attract new entrants to join and continuously working in the construction industry. Such initiatives include providing subsidies to students who are committed to join the electrical and mechanical (E&M) apprenticeship after completing the basic craft certificate courses of the Vocational Training Council with a view to enhancing the manpower resource for E&M trade in the industry. In mid-2013, CIC rolled out the "On-The-Job Training Subsidy Scheme" to provide subsidies to contractors for nurturing semi-skilled workers who have completed the ECMTS to enhance their productivity.
Annex 1
Average Number of Working Days Per Week for Workers in Trades With Manpower Shortage
Average Number of Working Days Trade Posts Per Week* 1 Bar Bender & Fixer 4.7 days 2 Carpenter (Formwork) 4.7 days 3 Concretor 4.6 days 4 Riggers/Metal Formwork Erector 5.3 days 5 General Welder 5.3 days LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10327
Average Number of Working Days Trade Posts Per Week* 6 Leveler 5.8 days 7 Plasterer 4.5 days 8 Bricklayer 4.7 days 9 Metal Scaffolder 5.5 days 10 Metal Worker 5.4 days 11 Structural Steel Welder 5.6 days 12 Painter and Decorator 4.6 days 13 Curtain Wall Installer No information 14 Structural Steel Erector No information 15 Escalator Mechanic 5.0 days 16 Lift Mechanic 6.0 days 17 Plumber 5.2 days 18 Fire Service Mechanical Fitter 5.0 days 19 Fire Service Electrical Fitter 5.0 days 20 Refrigeration/Air-conditioning/ 5.1 days Ventilation Mechanic (Air System) 21 Refrigeration/Air-conditioning/ 5.1 days Ventilation Mechanic (Water System) 22 Tunnel Worker No information 23 Compressed Air Worker No information 24 Plant and Equipment Operator No information (Tunnelling) ― Tunnel Boring Machine 25 Trackworker No information 26 Shotfirer No information
Note:
* Reference was made to the employment situation survey for construction workers (covering some of the above trades) commissioned by the Construction Industry Council and conducted by the Construction Industry Employees General Union in 2013 and a telephone survey (covering some of the above trades) conducted by the Construction Workers Registration Board in 2013.
(Source: The Construction Industry Council)
10328 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014
Annex 2
Training Provided by the Construction Industry Council for Workers in Trades with Manpower Shortage (Source: Construction Industry Council)
Titles of Employment Rate of Training Training Places# (year) Entry Training Names of Trades Training Graduated Trainees Institution Requirement Period Courses 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 1. Carpenter 52 85 271 392 989 (Formwork) 2. Plumber 165 210 210 240 291 3. Leveler 135 135 305 478 738 4. Metal 40 40 85 123 157 Worker 5. Metal 100 150 160 130 170 Scaffolder 6. Bricklayer 175 220 220 265 368 7. Plasterer 8. Riggers/ 45 30 150 75 168 In addition to Metal the special Formwork requirements Erector for 9. Concretor individual Duration of 10. General 30 30 50 92 140 courses, all classroom Welder applicants training or 11. Structural 10 30 20 20 20 must meet courses Classroom Steel Welder basic under training 12. Bar Bender & 24 126 449 590 1 370 admission collaborative provided by Fixer requirements training CIC or 13. Painter and 235 280 295 385 403 as follows: (except basic Construction courses Decorator craft about ^ Industry provided about 90% (i)physically courses): 80%^ Council 14. Tunnel under the 12 20 60 fit; and about two to Worker Contractor six months 15. Curtain Wall Cooperative 30 (ii)being in general Installer Training lawful 16. Lift Scheme 63 Mechanic residents Duration of 17. Fire Service 10 of Hong basic craft Mechanical Kong and courses: one Fitter can be or two years 18. Refrigeration/ 18 lawfully Air- No No No No employed conditioning/ training training training training in Hong Ventilation courses courses courses courses Kong Mechanic (Air System) 19. Refrigeration/ 4 Air- conditioning/ Ventilation Mechanic (Water System) 20. Trackworker 10
Notes:
# Training places refer to those approved by the Construction Industry Council. The number of trainees depends on the actual intake.
^ The employment rate of graduated trainees represents the rate of graduates who have secured employment within three months after graduation. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10329
Training Provided by the Vocational Training Council to Workers in Trades with Manpower Shortage (Source: Vocational Training Council)
Training Places# (year) Employment Title of Training Names of Relevant Entry Training Rate of Training Institution Trades 2008- 2009- 2010- 2011- 2012- Requirement Period Graduated Courses 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Trainees Vocational 1. Fire Service Basic Craft 50 Secondary Basic Craft About 90% Training Certificate Three school Certificate or above^ 2. Refrigeration/ 230 Council Courses or 270 290 290 290 leavers courses: one Air-conditioning/ Diploma in to two years Ventilation Vocational 3. Lift/Escalator 130 230 390 330 280 Education Diploma in 4. Welding 40 80 120 190 210 programmes# Vocational Education programmes: three to four years
Notes:
* The year refers to the academic year of training, that is, from September of the first year to August of the following year.
# Training period for Diploma in Vocational Education programmes ranges from three to four years. Trainees who have obtained the Basic Craft Certificates upon completion of the first or second year of a programme may work in the relevant trades of the construction industry. Trainees completing the Diplomas in Vocational Education may also join the construction industry.
^ The employment rate of graduated trainees represents the rate of graduates who have secured employment within six months after graduation.
1. Relevant trades for courses on fire service ― Fire Service Mechanical Fitter and Fire Service Electrical Fitter
2. Relevant trades for courses on refrigeration/air-conditioning/ventilation ― Refrigeration/Air-conditioning/Ventilation Mechanic (Air System) and Refrigeration/Air-conditioning/Ventilation Mechanic (Water System)
3. Relevant trades for courses on lifts/escalators ― EscalatorMechanic and Lift Mechanic
4. Relevant trades for courses on welding ― General Welder
A Large Number of Public Works Contracts and Consultancy Study Contracts Awarded to Certain Companies
3. MR ALBERT CHAN (in Chinese): President, I have learnt that certain works contractors and consultancy firms were awarded a large number of public works contracts and consultancy study contracts for works projects in the past several years. Some members of the public have expressed the concern that the progress of a large number of public works and consultancy studies may be 10330 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 seriously affected in the event that such companies suddenly close down. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) in each of the past three years, regarding the top three companies which were awarded the highest total value of public works contracts, of (i) their names, (ii) the total value of the contracts awarded to each of them, and (iii) the number of contracts awarded to each of them (set out in table form);
(2) in each of the past three years, regarding the top three companies which were awarded the highest total value of consultancy study contracts for public works, of (i) their names, (ii) the total value of the contracts awarded to each of them, and (iii) the number of contracts awarded to each of them (set out in table form);
(3) whether it has analysed the main reasons for the aforesaid companies being awarded such a large number of public works contracts or consultancy study contracts for works projects; if so, of the findings; if not, the reasons for that; and
(4) whether it has measures to ensure that the progress of the public works or consultancy studies concerned will not be seriously affected in the event that the aforesaid companies suddenly close down; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Chinese): President, with regard to the Government's procurement system for public works projects, we adhere to the principles of "maintaining open and fair competition" and "achieving best value for money" in formulating the tendering and tender evaluation policy for works and consultancy contracts. The existing mechanisms for contractor management, consultant management as well as works and consultancy contract management have proved effective in monitoring the progress of various works and consultancy studies. A mechanism for monitoring the performance of contractors and consultants is also in place to ensure effective implementation and delivery of infrastructure projects.
My reply to the four parts of the question is as follows:
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10331
(1) and (2)
The names of the top three companies which were awarded works contracts of the highest total value and the total value and number of works contracts awarded to each of these companies in each of the years from 2011 to 2013 as well as the corresponding information on the consultancy contracts are set out in Table 1 and 2 of Annex 1 respectively.
(3) To ensure proper use of public money, tender evaluation for works and consultancy contracts has to comply with the principle of maintaining open and fair competition. Such evaluation is to be conducted in accordance with the various relevant procurement rules and the procedures as specified in the tender documents.
To ensure that the successful tenderer possesses adequate technical capability and resources to complete the project awarded, the tendering department will generally adopt a "two-envelope two-stage" approach in evaluating tenders for works and consultancy contracts. The department will require the contractor or the consultant to submit the tender, comprising a Technical Proposal and a Price/Fee Proposal in separate envelopes. The tender assessment panel established by the department will complete the first-stage assessment on the Technical Proposal based on the evaluation criteria specified in the tender documents before reviewing the Price/Fee Proposal, and then determine the overall score by combining the technical and price/fee scores obtained at the two stages. For simpler works contracts, the tendering department may adopt the formula approach as stipulated in the tender documents to determine the overall score based on the Contractors' Performance Rating(1) and the tender price. Generally, the tenderer with the highest overall score will be awarded the contract, subject to his meeting the relevant financial criteria upon financial vetting.
(1) The Contractors' Performance Rating of a contractor reflects his performance in public works contracts over the past three years. The Rating is updated by the Development Bureau quarterly. 10332 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014
(4) The progress of a project will inevitably be affected when a contractor or consultant closes down suddenly during the contract period. To minimize such a risk or the potential impact, we have taken the following preventive measures:
(i) During the execution of a works or consultancy contract, the works department responsible for the project will closely monitor the progress, workmanship/quality and cost, and regularly assess the performance of the contractor and the consultant concerned. This will enable the works department to detect any operational irregularities of the contractor or consultant as soon as possible and take appropriate follow-up actions.
(ii) There are provisions in works and consultancy contracts which stipulate that the Government may arrange for other companies (such as, an existing term contractor or the successful bidder from the re-tender exercise) to complete the outstanding works under specified circumstances, such as bankruptcy or liquidation of the contractor/consultant or failure of the contractor/consultant to complete the contract.
(iii) To ensure proper delivery of public projects, we take into account the requirements for different categories of works in devising and administering the lists of approved contractors for public works. In general, only approved contractors on the lists are invited to submit tenders. Contractors are required to meet the financial, technical and management criteria for admission to the lists. For the financial criteria in particular, listed contractors must comply with the requirements in the Contractor Management Handbook and regularly submit their accounts to the Development Bureau to demonstrate that their financial status fully meets the relevant criteria for the approved lists. In cases where the contractors fail to submit their accounts or meet the financial criteria within the prescribed time, the Development Bureau can take LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10333
appropriate regulatory actions as provided in the Contractor Management Handbook. Such actions may include suspension from tendering for public works, downgrading, demotion or even removal from the approved lists.
Annex 1
Table 1: Names of the top three companies which were awarded works contracts of the highest total value and the total value and number of works contracts awarded to each of these companies in each of the year from 2011 to 2013
Total value of Number of works contracts works Year Company name awarded contracts ($100 million) awarded 2011 China Harbour Engineering Company 71 2 Limited Chun Wo Construction and Engineering 40(1) 6(3) Company Limited Shui On Construction Company Limited 22 1 Total value/number of works contracts 407 685 awarded in the year: (A total of 238 contractors were awarded works contracts) 2012 China State Construction Engineering 117 2 (Hong Kong) Limited Dragages Hong Kong Limited 62(1) 1(2) China Harbour Engineering Company 61(1) 2(2) Limited Total value/number of works contracts 441 693 awarded in the year: (A total of 217 contractors were awarded works contracts) 10334 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014
Total value of Number of works contracts works Year Company name awarded contracts ($100 million) awarded 2013 Dragages Hong Kong Limited 196(1) 2(2) China State Construction Engineering 161(1) 5(4) (Hong Kong) Limited Gammon Construction Limited 90(1) 4(2) Total value/number of works contracts 909 936 awarded in the year: (A total of 232 contractors were awarded works contracts)
Notes:
(1) This contractor undertook one or more works contracts in the form of joint venture with other contractors. The total value tabulated only represents his share of works under the contract(s) concerned.
(2) Including one works contract undertaken in the form of joint venture with another/other contractor(s).
(3) Including two works contracts undertaken in the form of joint venture with other contractors.
(4) Including three works contracts undertaken in the form of joint venture with other contractors.
Table 2: Names of the top three companies which were awarded consultancy contracts of the highest total value and the total value and number of consultancy contracts awarded to each of these companies in each of the year from 2011 to 2013
Year Company name Total value of Number of consultancy consultancy contracts contracts awarded(1) awarded(1) ($10 million) 2011 AECOM Asia Company Limited 39 13 Ove Arup & Partners Hong Kong Limited 17(2) 11(2) Jacobs China Limited 5 2 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10335
Year Company name Total value of Number of consultancy consultancy contracts contracts awarded(1) awarded(1) ($10 million) Total value/number of consultancy 101 73 contracts awarded in the year: (A total of 32 consultants were awarded consultancy contracts) 2012 Ronald Lu & Partners (Hong Kong) 20 1 Limited PYPUN-KD & Associates Limited 18 1 Ove Arup & Partners Hong Kong Limited 16 12 Total value/number of consultancy 129 86 contracts awarded in the year: (A total of 33 consultants were awarded consultancy contracts) 2013 AECOM Asia Company Limited 23 19 Fugro (Hong Kong) Limited 7 3 Ove Arup & Partners Hong Kong Limited 6 6 Total value/number of consultancy 83 76 contracts awarded in the year: (A total of 32 consultants were awarded consultancy contracts)
Notes:
(1) Including only consultancy contracts with values exceeding the financial limit of $1.43 million.
(2) Including one contract valued at $99 million undertaken in the form of joint venture with another/other consultant(s).
Situation of Asylum Seekers and Torture Claimants in Hong Kong
4. MR TANG KA-PIU (in Chinese): President, it has been reported that there was a sharp upward trend in recent years in the number of cases in which persons who were seeking asylum and making torture claims (collectively referred to as "claims") committed criminal offences during their stay in Hong 10336 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014
Kong, and some of the offences were of serious nature. It has also been reported that most of the people interviewed consider that the policies on handling such claims in Hong Kong are too lenient and flawed with loopholes, and such claimants' stay in Hong Kong has created law and order problems. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the respective numbers of claims received and accepted by the authorities as at the end of April this year;
(2) regarding those cases the claims of which were rejected in the past five years, of the average time taken by the authorities to assess the claims and the average length of stay of the claimants in Hong Kong;
(3) regarding those cases the claims of which were rejected in the past five years, of the respective numbers of claimants who had been absent from screening interviews and those claimants who stayed in Hong Kong throughout the period of appeal or judicial review, with a breakdown by the number of years of their stay in Hong Kong;
(4) of the following information of the claimants in the past five years: (i) the number of claimants who registered their marriage in Hong Kong; (ii) the total number of Hong Kong-born children of the claimants and the average number of Hong Kong-born children of each claimant; (iii) the number of claimants arrested for alleged contravention of criminal offences (including those under the Immigration Ordinance (Cap. 115)) in Hong Kong before their claims were made, (iv) the number of claimants arrested for criminal offences after they had made the claims, and (v) the number of claimants arrested for illegally taking up employment while their claims were being assessed;
(5) whether it knows which Southeast Asian countries are States Parties to the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT); whether it has conducted any study on the policies of those countries on handling torture claims for its reference, and whether it knows the following information of those countries: (i) the number of claims accepted in the past five years, (ii) the coverage of the humanitarian aid LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10337
rendered to the claimants, and (iii) their related expenditures each year; and
(6) given that the Immigration Department (ImmD) implemented a unified mechanism in March this year to assess all non-refoulement claims, of the details of the mechanism and the expected completion time for processing claims which are pending screening?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Chinese): President, the CAT has been applied to Hong Kong since 1992. The ImmD introduced an enhanced administrative screening mechanism for torture claims in December 2009 to ensure the procedures meet with the high standards of fairness as required by the Court. Subsequently, the Legislative Council passed amendments to the Immigration Ordinance (Cap. 115) in July 2012 to provide for a statutory framework, which commenced operation in December 2012, to underpin the screening mechanism for torture claims.
Following the Court of Final Appeal (CFA)'s rulings in two relevant judicial review cases in December 2012 and March 2013, the Government commenced operating a unified screening mechanism (USM) on 3 March 2014 to screen, in addition to torture claims, non-refoulement claims lodged by any foreigners who do not have the right to enter and remain in Hong Kong (hereinafter referred as "illegal immigrants and overstayers") against their removal from Hong Kong to another country on other applicable grounds including risks of torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under article 3 of section 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance (Cap. 383) (BOR3 risk) and persecution (persecution risk) with reference to the non-refoulement principle under article 33 of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. Procedures of the USM follow those of the current statutory screening mechanism for torture claims to meet with the high standards of fairness required by law.
My reply to the various parts of the question is as follows：
(1) to (3) and (6)
The Administration introduced an enhanced administrative screening mechanism for torture claims in December 2009. At that time, 6 395 torture claims were outstanding. In addition, from December 10338 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014
2009 to February 2014, the ImmD received 4 969 new torture claims, making a total of 11 364 claims. During the same period, the ImmD determined 4 755 torture claims (22 substantiated and 4 733 rejected). Separately, 4 108 claims were withdrawn or cannot be further pursued. As at end of February 2014, there were 2 501 torture claims pending determination.
Among the 4 733 rejected torture claimants, 1 535 have left Hong Kong. The rest is remaining in Hong Kong for such various reasons as having made a non-refoulement claim on applicable grounds (other than torture) following the rulings by the CFA in December 2012 and March 2013, having applied for judicial review, being imprisoned, and so on. Counting from the date on which their torture claim was rejected by the ImmD, they have been staying in Hong Kong for an average of 13 months.
When the USM commenced operation on 3 March 2014, apart from the 2 501 torture claims pending determination then, there were 2 962 other non-refoulement claims lodged by persons whose torture claim was previously rejected or withdrawn, and another 1 236 non-refoulement claims lodged on applicable grounds (other than torture) by persons who have never made a torture claim before, making a total of 6 699 outstanding non-refoulement claims.
The ImmD must screen claims under procedures that meet the high standards of fairness required by the Court. Before commencement of the USM, most torture claims (nearly 70%) could be determined within five months under the statutory screening procedures, including submission of claim forms and supporting documents by the torture claimants, arranging and conducting screening interviews, and then determination by the ImmD's case officers. Nevertheless, more time may be needed for these screening procedures if the claimant did not co-operate (for example, claimant did not contact his assigned duty lawyer, failed to attend scheduled interviews without reasonable excuse, seeking extensions to produce further supporting documents and evidences but submitting no such information subsequently, and so on). Of the 4 056 interviews arranged by the ImmD from December 2012 to February 2014, 1 685 (around 42%) could not be completed as scheduled.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10339
Under the USM, the ImmD is required to take into account, in addition to torture, other applicable grounds including BOR3 and persecution risks in screening each non-refoulement claim in a manner that meets the high standards of fairness required by the Court. Generally speaking, as the ImmD will screen each non-refoulement claim on all applicable grounds in one go, the screening and removal process should become more effective as claimants can no longer lodge sequential claims on different grounds to protract their presence in Hong Kong. The ImmD estimates that more than 1 500 non-refoulement claims can be determined in 2014-2015.
(4) The ImmD does not maintain the relevant statistics. The Immigration (Amendment) Ordinance 2009 came into effect on 14 November 2009, adding a new section 38AA to the Immigration Ordinance to prohibit illegal immigrants or persons who are subject to removal or deportation orders from taking any employment or establishing/joining in any business. From the commencement of the Ordinance to end February 2014, 743 non-ethnic Chinese illegal immigrants (NECIIs) and overstayers released on recognizance (most of them being asylum seekers or torture claimants) were arrested by the ImmD for breach of section 38AA. Separately, in the past five years, 2 607 NECIIs and overstayers were arrested by the police for other criminal offences (mainly theft, common assault or drug related offences).
(5) When formulating the relevant mechanisms (including the enhanced administrative screening mechanism in 2009, the statutory mechanism in 2012 and the current USM), the HKSAR Government drew reference to the experience of neighbouring countries and other common law jurisdictions.
According to information on the United Nations website, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, the Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam, the East Timor, and so on, are signatories to the CAT. The Administration does not maintain relevant statistics and expenditures of these countries.
10340 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014
Lantau Development Advisory Committee
5. MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Chinese): President, the Government set up the Lantau Development Advisory Committee (LDAC) at the beginning of this year. Although LDAC adopted a system of declaration of interests at its first meeting held on 8 March, information on the interests declared by its members has not yet been made public to date. Some groups are concerned that there are problems of potential conflicts of interests as some members of LDAC are associated with developers that have lands on Lantau Island. Regarding the work of LDAC and declaration of interests by its members, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the progress of the declaration of interests by LDAC members; what other mechanisms, apart from the system of declaration of interests, that LDAC has in place to ensure that members with potential conflicts of interests will abstain from the discussions and voting on related agenda items;
(2) of the concepts and objectives of LDAC with regard to the development and conservation of Lantau Island, and whether it will continue to adopt the planning approach contained in the "Concept Plan for Lantau" published by the Government in 2007, that is, one which balances the development and conservation needs by focusing urban development and major economic infrastructure in North Lantau while protecting the natural environment of Lantau Island; and
(3) whether the Government will review the objectives, operation and composition of LDAC, and whether it will adopt a broad and neutral approach in collating public views on the development of Lantau Island, so that conservation and sustainable development of Lantau Island will be taken into consideration; if it will not, of the reasons for that?
SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Chinese): President, with the successive completion of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge (HZMB) and other major transport infrastructure projects in the years ahead, Lantau will become a key transport infrastructure hub linking Hong Kong, Macao and western Pearl River Delta (PRD), boosting its development potential and playing LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10341 a strategic role in the sustainable development of Hong Kong. Besides, given its abundant ecological resources and cultural heritage as well as various tourist attractions, Lantau is suitable for the integrated development in conservation, leisure and tourism. In this connection, the Chief Executive has established the Lantau Development Advisory Committee (LanDAC) to formulate the long-term development strategy of Lantau. In collaboration with the relevant bureaux, the Secretary for Development will solicit concrete proposals through the LanDAC to capitalize on the benefits brought by various major infrastructures and maximize the development potential of Lantau and adjacent areas while striking a balance between development and conservation, thereby contributing significantly to the sustainable development of Hong Kong in social, environmental and economic aspects.
The Committee established its house rules, including the system of declaration of interests, at its first meeting on 8 March. The discussion paper that set out the house rules has been uploaded onto the webpage of the Development Bureau.
My reply to the three parts of the question is as follows:
(1) The LanDAC established a system of declaration of interests for its members at the meeting on 8 March. The members agreed to adopt a system more stringent than those of similar advisory committees. The system covers two areas. In the first place, the members are required to complete the "Registration of Interests" form provided by the Secretariat, to declare any interests relating to Lantau or the adjacent islands/areas within the designated boundary. All members have completed and submitted the "Registration of Interests" forms. The checking of the forms is scheduled for completion this week and they will be available for public inspection by then. Secondly, if members have any pecuniary or personal interests in individual agenda items of the LanDAC, they are required to declare such interests for the chairman to decide whether it is appropriate for the members concerned to discuss the respective agenda items. All declarations of interests related to the individual agenda items, together with the names of the members concerned, will be recorded in the minutes of meetings, which will also be uploaded onto the webpage of the Development Bureau for public inspection.
10342 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014
(2) With various strategic major transport infrastructure projects (including HZMB and Tuen Mun-Chek Lap Kok Link) in Lantau starting implementation successively in recent years, it is anticipated that Lantau will become the regional transport-cum-economic hub connecting Hong Kong, Macao and the western PRD and bringing social and economic development opportunities for Hong Kong. In view of this, the LanDAC will assist in reviewing the overall development direction of Lantau including that "Revised Concept Plan for Lantau" published in 2007, and in preparing the economic and community development strategy for Lantau under the principle of balancing land development and nature conservation. The principle of sustainable development and conservation has been fully reflected in the terms of reference of the LanDAC
(3) The development of Lantau is a strategic project for Hong Kong. We need to solicit views from the community sectors, plan ahead with vision, and study and take forward the development and conservation of Lantau in scientific and objective manners. As such, composition of the LanDAC covers wide spectrum of the community and includes, other than representatives of bureaux and departments, relevant professionals, representatives of trade associations, academics, councillors and members from local areas. With their rich experience and comprehensive knowledge in the relevant professions/sectors and local communities, they can actively make contribution to the formulation of development strategy of Lantau under the principles of balancing sustainable development and conservation as well as meeting the needs of local community.
We are well aware of the keen public concerns about the work of the LanDAC and will upload the agendas, those discussion papers that can be made public and minutes of meetings and so on, of the LanDAC onto the webpage of the Development Bureau for public inspection. Members of public may also express their views on the development of Lantau and the work of the LanDAC to the Development Bureau. The Secretariat will forward them to the LanDAC for due consideration.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10343
Handling Security Loopholes of Data Encryption Technology
6. MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Chinese): President, it has been reported that OpenSSL, a data encryption technology widely used in electronic network systems, has recently been found, in its version 1.0.1 released on 14 March 2012, to have a security loophole known as Heartbleed. Hackers may make use of the loophole to steal encrypted information (including information protected by key encryption, usernames and passwords, personal financial information, contents of communications, and so on) in website servers, and they may even crack other network security measures such as firewalls. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the Government's (i) internal applications and (ii) the electronic public services, which are currently using the OpenSSL data encryption technology and, among them, those applications and services that previously used or are still using version 1.0.1 of the encryption technology;
(2) whether it has implemented network security measures in respect of the aforesaid programme loophole to reduce the risks of data leakage; if it has, of the details; whether it has suspended the use of OpenSSL data encryption technology and the electronic public services concerned, or switched to other encryption technologies; if it has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
(3) whether it has assessed the impacts of the aforesaid programme loophole on local network security, including (i) which industries other than the finance industry will be seriously affected, (ii) the extent to which those industries will be affected, (iii) whether the information technology (IT) personnel in those industries are aware of the impacts, and (iv) whether such personnel are equipped with the skills to remove the risks in question;
(4) whether it has assessed the impact of the aforesaid security loophole on electronic commerce (e-commerce); if it has, of the details; whether it will provide assistance to e-commerce platform users or subsidize the trade to enhance network security; and
10344 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014
(5) whether the authorities have received any request from private companies for assistance in respect of the aforesaid programme loophole so far; if they have, of the background of the companies requesting for assistance and the assistance offered by the authorities?
SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Chinese): President, the Government has adopted international standards on information security management as well as advanced information security technologies to protect government networks, application systems and e-government services. For network security, government application systems generally use the prevalent Secure Sockets Layer (SSL) network security protocol to encrypt network communications in order to protect the confidentiality and integrity of data during transmission. OpenSSL is one of the encryption technologies for the implementation of the SSL network security protocol. Regarding the five parts of the question, the Administration's reply is as follows:
(1) There were around 90 government application systems that had used OpenSSL version 1.0.1 encryption technology, of which 85 are government internal applications, including management consoles and virtual private networks. The remaining five are systems that provide electronic services to the general public, including portals and electronic systems for submitting applications. All affected systems have completed rectifications as detailed in part (2) below.
(2) The concerned departments have immediately taken appropriate security measures for the affected application systems after being informed of the Heartbleed vulnerability, including installing patches, arranging the renewal of digital certificates and cryptographic keys, and reminding users to change their passwords when necessary. All departments have already assessed the risks and impacts in relation to this security vulnerability. Since the vulnerability has been fixed within a short time, there is no need to suspend the relevant services or switch to use another encryption technology.
(3) Upon receiving the notification of the Heartbleed vulnerability, the Office of the Government Chief Information Officer (OGCIO) has LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10345
immediately requested all departments to conduct a risk assessment on the affected systems and take corresponding remedial actions. This security incident has not affected any government services. We have also published a security notice on the InfoSec website
Besides, the Hong Kong Computer Emergency Response Team Coordination Centre (HKCERT) and the Hong Kong Police Force (HKPF) have notified relevant stakeholders by emails on the Heartbleed vulnerability, its impacts and responsive measures. The Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) has also requested all banks to review their related services. According to the HKMA's findings, all local retail e-banking services have not been affected. Based on the information we received, this security incident has little impact on local network security.
Measures to avoid the risks in question include checking if there is any vulnerability in a system and installing patches provided by the system suppliers. IT personnel can refer to the procedures specified in the security notice and follow the steps to implement the solution. The related techniques are not difficult to master.
(4) Operators of e-commerce platforms have generally taken appropriate security measures to manage information security and maintain network security in order to provide a secure e-commerce environment. Information shows that this security incident has not caused serious impacts on the e-commerce platforms commonly used by businesses and the general public because the concerned operators have checked their systems for the vulnerability and implemented corresponding measures. For example, Taobao indicated that they had completed the appropriate remedial actions while Amazon, eBay, PayPal and Alipay said that their online shopping websites were not affected.
Public education is very important in enhancing network security. The OGCIO has been working closely with the HKCERT and other industry bodies to arrange security promotion activities to enhance 10346 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014
public awareness and knowledge on information security. In case citizens or businesses encounter security incidents or need support on network security, they may contact the HKCERT for assistance. At present, we have no plans to subsidize the industry to enhance network security.
(5) So far, the HKCERT and the HKPF have not received any reports or requests for assistance in respect of the Heartbleed security incident. We will continue to monitor the development of the incident. Upon receiving enquiries or incident reports, the HKCERT will provide advice and support on IT security matters to those in need of help, and assist them in fixing the vulnerability and protecting against computer security threats.
Management of Kai Tak Cruise Terminal
7. MR MICHAEL TIEN (in Chinese): President, the first berth of the Kai Tak Cruise Terminal (KTCT) was commissioned in June 2013, and the terminal was once described by Departures magazine, a United States lifestyle magazine, as "the Rolls-Royce of cruise terminals". According to the estimation of the Government, the cruise industry will bring economic benefits which range from $1.5 billion to $2.6 billion a year, and generate 5 300 to 8 900 additional jobs by 2023. The Government has also pointed out that the number of berthings of cruise vessels at KTCT will reach 26 this year, bringing some 130 000 cruise visitors. Yet, since its commissioning, KTCT has been showered with negative reports, including coaches being required to pay gate fees before they are allowed to enter the terminal to pick up visitors, inadequate ancillary transport facilities for travelling to other areas and mismanagement on the part of the terminal operator (the operator), and so on. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it knows the following information about the cruise vessels berthing at the Ocean Terminal in Tsim Sha Tsui in each of the past five years (set out in table form): (i) visitor arrivals; (ii) visitor departures; and (iii) the number of berthings;
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10347
(2) whether it knows the following information about KTCT from June 2013 to date (set out in table form): (i) visitor arrivals; (ii) visitor departures; (iii) the number of berthings of cruise vessels; (iv) average occupancy rate of retail shops; (v) attendance of the KTCT Park; and (vi) average monthly utilization rate of KTCT's carpark;
(3) as some members of the public have pointed out that the current means of public transport for commuting to and from KTCT are one green minibus route, one bus route (providing service only on holidays) and taxis only, and that the traffic signs within KTCT are unclear, whether it has found out the causes for these issues from the operator; whether the authorities will formulate measures to improve the ancillary transport facilities concerned;
(4) whether it knows the respective numbers of free and hourly parking spaces currently available in KTCT; whether the authorities will consider requiring the operator to provide free pick-up/drop-off points for coaches; if they will, of the number;
(5) given that various problems, such as water leakage in the terminal building and long queues of visitors embarking had occurred in the terminal building when the first berth was commissioned last year, water leakage in the terminal recurred last month, there are no eateries and Wi-Fi service inside the terminal building, and the construction works of some facilities in the roof garden of the terminal building have not been completed yet, of the authorities' measures in place to resolve such problems before the commissioning of the second berth in July this year; and
(6) whether it has any plan to develop hotels and large shopping malls in the vicinity of KTCT to divert Mainland visitors under the Individual Visit Scheme from the urban areas; if it has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
10348 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014
SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Chinese): President, my reply to the six parts of the question is as follows:
(1) (i) to (iii)
The relevant information on cruise vessels berthing at the Ocean Terminal in Tsim Sha Tsui in each of the past five years is set out in the table below:
Passenger Passenger Number of throughput at the throughput at the berthings of cruise Year terminals terminals vessels at the (arrivals)# (departures)# Ocean Terminal* 2009 72 000 65 000 63 2010 120 000 117 000 86 2011 136 000 129 000 76 2012 113 000 109 000 72 2013 75 000 84 000 61
Notes:
# The system of the Immigration Department captures relevant data on cruise vessels that berth at the Ocean Terminal in Tsim Sha Tsui, the Kwai Chung Container Terminals, the China Merchants Wharf in Kennedy Town and in Tseung Kwan O. However, the system is unable to filter only the data relevant to the Ocean Terminal. Given that a predominant majority of cruise vessels berthed at the Ocean Terminal, the figures in the above table are reasonable reference for the volume of visitors handled by the Ocean Terminal.
* Cruises without destination are excluded.
(2) (i) to (iii)
As at mid-April this year, there were a total of 21 ship calls at the KTCT since its commissioning in June last year. The total passenger throughput at the KTCT is 47 000 arrivals and 46 000 departures.
(iv) The ancillary commercial areas of the KTCT, measuring about 5 600 sq m, are mainly located at both ends of the second floor of the terminal building. There are also three shops on the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10349
rooftop park. These ancillary commercial areas are managed by the terminal operator. The commercial areas at both ends of the second floor have been fully leased out. A high-end retail shop with in-store counters for various brands will operate at one end of the commercial areas while a catering company will take over the other end to operate a Chinese restaurant and other eateries. The tenants are carrying out design and fitting out works, and they expect to commence business operation by phases from mid-2014 onwards. A wedding service company has taken up one of the shops at the rooftop park. Except for two remaining shops at the rooftop park, the ancillary commercial areas have been fully leased out.
(v) The Kai Tak Cruise Terminal Park (the Park) has gradually gained popularity since opening in mid-October last year, with more visitors going to the Park in the morning (around 9.30 am to noon) and in the afternoon (around 3 pm to 5 pm) on Saturdays and Sundays. The visitor volume peaks on Sundays, averaging an estimate of about 8 000 visitors on Sundays.
(vi) As for parking facilities, there are 40 coach bays for pick-up/drop-off on the ground floor of the terminal building. A fee-charging public carpark on the first floor of the terminal building provides 120 parking spaces for private cars. According to the statistics for April this year provided by the terminal operator, the average utilization rate of the carpark for private cars ranges from 20% to 40%.
(3) There are signages and traffic signs inside the KTCT. The terminal operator also deploys staff to give directions to visitors and drivers. During major events or berthing of cruise vessels with higher visitors flow, additional staff will be deployed by the terminal operator, cruise companies or event organizers to direct traffic and assist in crowd control to ensure the safe and smooth operation of the terminal and traffic arrangements. The terminal operator will also review the current provision of signages and add more signs as appropriate.
10350 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014
As regards public transport, a green minibus route (No. 86) operates a daily service between the KTCT and Kowloon Bay. Also, the Kowloon Motor Bus (KMB) operates a recreational route (No. 5R) running between the KTCT and Ngau Tau Kok/Kwun Tong MTR Stations during Sundays and public holidays. On days with special events (for example, the floating book fair of Logos Hope in April this year), the KMB and the green minibus will increase services as necessary. Individual event organizers will also make special traffic arrangements by providing shuttle bus services for participants. The actual patronage figures of the green minibus and the KMB recreational route indicate that the services can cope with the current demand. We will liaise with public transport service operators to step up public transport services having regard to the increase in visitor flow to the KTCT and its surrounding areas.
(4) As mentioned in part (2), the KTCT provides 40 coach bays for pick-up/drop-off. Coaches may use these bays at no charge for pick-up/drop-off on days when there is no cruise vessel berthing at the KTCT.
The primary consideration for the design of the KTCT is to facilitate cruise operation and passenger flow. It is the responsibility of the terminal operator to ensure the safe and smooth flow of traffic and visitors at the KTCT. In this connection, the terminal operator has implemented special traffic management measures during berthing days, including charging gate fees, to control the number of coaches entering the KTCT at the same time. This measure is not applicable on days when there is no cruise vessel berthing at the KTCT.
The terminal operator explained the abovementioned special traffic arrangements to the coach trade in the middle of last year, and will listen to the views of the parties concerned. The terminal operator will consider the current coach fee arrangement during berthing days as well as explore other measures in the light of actual circumstances.
(5) As is the case of other newly completed major infrastructures, the terminal operator and relevant parties need time to resolve initial LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10351 teething problems after commissioning. Generally speaking, international cruise companies are positive about the KTCT's facilities and services. The terminal operator will continue to enhance the services of the terminal and ancillary facilities to maintain safe and smooth operation after the second berth commences operation later this year. Regarding the areas for improvement raised in the question, my reply is set out below:
At present, the outstanding minor works at the terminal building and rooftop park are mainly minor beautification works for the waiting halls on the second floor; fitting-out works by the tenant of the ancillary commercial areas; waterproof and drainage improvement works at the rooftop park; and escalator improvement works to facilitate visitors to access the ancillary commercial areas. The shops and restaurants (retail shops and eateries) in the ancillary commercial areas are expected to be open in phases from the middle of this year onwards.
Due to a heavy rainstorm under the black rainstorm signal in May last year, water leakage occurred in some parts of the terminal building. The remedial works and water tightness tests are substantially completed. The remedial works have withstood the test of adverse weather in late March this year and proved satisfactory in general, and there remain only a few individual spots of leakage, which the Architectural Services Department is closely following up.
Free Wi-Fi service is available at the baggage halls on the ground floor, the waiting halls on the second floor and rooftop park of the terminal building under the Government Wi-Fi Programme (GovWiFi). Signals at certain parts of the park may be weaker as the Wi-Fi devices covering the park are installed at both ends. The relevant department has followed up the signal problem.
A relatively long queue of passengers appeared during the embarkation for a short time on 29 October 2013. It was because some Mainland tour groups that came to Hong Kong by batches reached the KTCT later than the agreed schedule. As a result, the cruise company had to process a large number of passengers within a short period of time. The cruise company had subsequently stepped 10352 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014
up liaison with travel agents to encourage cruise passengers to embark the vessel by batches according to the scheduled timetable. The embarkation arrangements have subsequently improved significantly.
(6) To attract more high value-added visitors to Hong Kong, the Government is identifying feasible ways to gradually release six sites within the "hotel belt" at the southern end of the former Kai Tak Airport runway to the market starting from end of next year (that is, 2015). Lying adjacent to the KTCT and facing the Victoria Harbour, these prime sites within the "hotel belt" have considerable potential for developing into a premier hotel cluster that offers five-star accommodation, gourmet food and entertainment facilities. In addition, the Development Bureau is pressing ahead with the Kai Tak Fantasy ― International Ideas Competition on Urban Planning and Design, with a view to developing a spectacular world-class tourism, entertainment and leisure hub to attract both local and overseas visitors.
Demand-led Redevelopment Project Pilot Scheme
8. MR ANDREW LEUNG (in Chinese): President, the Demand-led Redevelopment Project Pilot Scheme (the Scheme) launched by the Urban Renewal Authority (URA) in 2011 has so far received three rounds of applications involving 110 project proposals, but less than one tenth of such applications have been selected by URA. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) given that the Secretary for Development indicated earlier on that URA would conduct a review of the Scheme, whether it knows the latest progress of the review; and
(2) whether it knows if URA has already suspended the Scheme; if the Scheme has been suspended, of the reasons for that; if the Scheme has not been suspended, when URA will accept the fourth round of applications under the Scheme; if URA has no such timetable, of the reasons for that?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10353
SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Chinese): President, the Urban Renewal Strategy promulgated by the Government on 24 February 2011 proposes that a "people first, district-based, public participatory" approach should be adopted in carrying out urban renewal. Under the new strategy, the URA can forge ahead with urban renewal under diverse forms, including responding to a joint approach from building owners to initiate redevelopment of their lots, thus further expanding the role of URA in tackling the problem of urban decay in the old districts of Hong Kong.
In May 2011, the URA Board approved the implementation framework, principles of consideration and selection criteria of the Demand-led Redevelopment Project Pilot Scheme (Demand-led Scheme), which include the requirement that there have to be owners of not less than 67% of the undivided shares of the respective lots of a site under application jointly submitting the application; the site under application should not be smaller than 400 sq m; the condition of the buildings covered by the site are identified as "varied" or "poor"; and there are available resources from URA to commence and implement the project within a reasonably short period of time. Since the rollout of the Demand-led Scheme in July 2011, the URA has been selecting project applications based on the above principles and criteria.
My reply to the two-part question is as follows:
(1) The URA launched the first round of the Demand-led Scheme in July 2011. As of today, three rounds of invitation for applications for the Scheme have been launched. A total of 110 applications were received and nine projects commenced, including one which was terminated as it failed to meet the required conditions for continued implementation.
When the URA Board approved the implementation framework of the Demand-led Scheme, it was mindful that demand-led redevelopment was a new initiative and considered that its implementation framework should be refined and enhanced in the light of experience. As such, the URA plans to conduct a comprehensive review of the Scheme based on experience after the launch of the third round of the Demand-led Scheme.
10354 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014
In view of the fact that the financial commitment of the Demand-led Scheme and the sites covered by the applications are becoming larger and larger, and the factors that need to be considered are getting increasingly complex, the URA considers it necessary to conduct a comprehensive review of the Scheme. To ensure its sustainability, the URA must continue to operate under the principles of prudence and upholding a self-financing objective in the long run.
In late April this year, the URA has set up an ad hoc committee to oversee the review of the Demand-led Scheme. The ad hoc committee plans to consult the seven District Advisory Committees (DACs) of URA (the seven DACs are in the Central and Western, Wan Chai, Yau Tsim Mong, Sham Shui Po, Kowloon City, Kwun Tong and Tsuen Wan districts respectively), the membership of which comprises District Councillors, local dignitaries and professional experts. The URA also plans to meet the Panel on Development of the Legislative Council later this year to listen to members' views on the review.
(2) The URA has already commenced two of the selected projects in the third round of the Demand-led Scheme. The rest of the selected projects in the third round will be commenced in 2014-2015. The URA will decide on the way forward for the Demand-led Scheme after completion of the review.
Learning Putonghua in Schools
9. MS STARRY LEE (in Chinese): President, the goal of the language education policy of Hong Kong is to develop students to be "biliterate and trilingual". Some Putonghua teachers have pointed out that fostering a good language-learning environment in schools, including the facilitation of more speaking-and-listening occasions in Putonghua for students, is conducive to upgrading their Putonghua standard. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the respective current situation of Putonghua being used to teach the Chinese language and relevant subjects in primary and secondary schools; the percentage of the number of such schools in the total number of schools in Hong Kong; the number of schools LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10355
using Putonghua as the medium of daily communication in schools; the respective major reasons for some of the primary and secondary schools not using Putonghua to teach the Chinese language;
(2) of the measures in place to encourage schools to use Putonghua to teach the Chinese language; whether it will consider setting phased target percentages in respect of the number of schools using Putonghua to teach the Chinese language; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and
(3) whether it will take measures to encourage schools to organize more activities like drama, recitation and singing to be conducted in Putonghua, and whether it will consider incorporating such activities into the curriculum, so as to foster a good language-learning environment for developing students' interest in learning Putonghua, thereby upgrading their Putonghua standard; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION (in Chinese): President,
(1) The Chinese Language Education Key Learning Area (KLA) covers the Chinese Language, Chinese Literature and Putonghua subjects. With the exception of the Putonghua subject which is taught in Putonghua, schools may flexibly use Cantonese or Putonghua as the medium of instruction for teaching other subjects within this KLA having regard to their own circumstances, such as the readiness of teachers, the standards of students, curriculum planning as well as learning and teaching support. Since the number of schools that use Putonghua to teach the Chinese Language subject may vary every year, we do not have the updated information in this respect.
The medium of day-to-day communication in school refers to the language commonly used by teachers and students for everyday communication beyond the classroom. Currently, schools may, in the light of their education philosophy, key development emphasis and students' needs, create an enabling environment for the development of biliteracy and trilingualism in school. They may make school-based decisions on the medium of day-to-day communication to be used in school to raise students' abilities to 10356 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014
communicate in Chinese, English and Putonghua. Hence, we do not have concrete data on the number of schools which adopt Putonghua as their medium of day-to-day communication.
(2) At present, scholars and schools hold different views on whether Putonghua should be used as the medium of instruction for teaching the Chinese Language subject. There is no consensus mainly because there are many variables affecting the efficacy of Putonghua as the medium of instruction for teaching the Chinese Language subject. Such variables include, for example, teachers' ability to use Putonghua fluently, the language environment of the schools and the social circles of the students concerned. With a view to promoting biliteracy and trilingualism, the Education Bureau encourages primary and secondary schools to nurture students' Putonghua proficiency. Having regard to their own circumstances, schools are given the flexibility to use Cantonese and/or Putonghua as the medium of instruction for teaching the Chinese Language subject.
(3) Putonghua lessons stress the use of flexible and diversified teaching strategies to engage students in classroom activities, such as reading aloud, recitations, tongue-twisters, storytelling, role-playing, discussions and presentations, thereby enabling them to learn through interaction and boosting their interest and proficiency in Putonghua.
Apart from classroom teaching, the Education Bureau encourages schools to organize a wide range of Putonghua extra-curricular activities to extend teaching beyond the classroom, and to cultivate a language-rich environment in school to increase students' exposure to Putonghua. Nowadays, most schools hold Putonghua day or Putonghua week, during which students are enlisted as Putonghua ambassadors and multifarious activities, such as Putonghua game booths, speech competitions, concerts/film shows, talent shows and drama shows, are organized. Schools in general are making good use of multi-media resources, such as campus TV/radio station, to create a Putonghua environment for students to apply what they have learned.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10357
Persons Seeking Exemptions from Buyer's Stamp Duty Being Requested to Submit Statutory Declarations
10. MR RONNY TONG (in Chinese): President, the Stamp Duty (Amendment) Ordinance 2014 (the Ordinance), enacted by this Council at the end of February this year, has introduced a Buyer's Stamp Duty (BSD) under which all companies and non-Hong Kong permanent residents (non-HKPRs) acquiring residential properties are required to pay a tax of an amount equivalent to 15% of the prices of the properties, subject to certain exceptions. The commencement date of the Ordinance has been set retrospectively at 27 October 2012. In enforcing the Ordinance, the Inland Revenue Department (IRD) writes to the lawyers handling the conveyancing transactions concerned, requesting them to inform those qualified persons who have acquired residential properties after the commencement date that in order to be granted the exemption, such persons are required to submit statutory declarations (SDs) to declare that they are Hong Kong Permanent Residents (HKPRs)(if they apply for BSD exemption on the ground that they are HKPRs) and they are acting on their own behalf. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the number of residential property buyers who have submitted the aforesaid SDs so far;
(2) given that it is the duty of the IRD to trace and investigate criminal offences such as tax evasion and tax-related frauds, of the justifications for the IRD to require HKPRs to make the aforesaid SDs, and thus to bear the legal liability and the expenditure concerned;
(3) whether it has reviewed if the aforesaid requirement for submission of SDs has caused nuisance to the persons concerned and infringed on their right of silence when facing criminal prosecutions;
(4) given that non-HKPRs acting on their own behalf can be exempted from BSD under certain circumstances, of the ways adopted by the IRD, other than requiring the persons concerned to submit SDs, to verify that they have acted on their own behalf; and
(5) given that the deadline for submission of SDs by buyers who acquired residential properties before the day of gazettal of the 10358 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014
Ordinance was 30 April this year, whether those buyers who failed to submit SDs by that date will bear other consequences, in addition to their being subject to BSD; if so, of the details?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Chinese): President, to address the exuberant property market and to accord priority to the home ownership needs of HKPRs in the midst of the tight housing supply situation, the Government announced on 26 October 2012 the introduction of the BSD and the enhancement to the Special Stamp Duty in respect of residential property transactions. The Stamp Duty (Amendment) Bill 2012, which implemented the relevant measures, was passed by the Legislative Council on 22 February 2014. The relevant Stamp Duty (Amendment) Ordinance 2014 (the Amendment Ordinance) was gazetted on 28 February 2014.
The Amendment Ordinance stipulates that a chargeable agreement for sale or a conveyance on sale is not chargeable with the BSD if it is shown to the satisfaction of the Collector of Stamp Revenue that the purchaser or transferee under the instrument is "a HKPR acting on his/her own behalf" in the transaction. This exemption condition aims to avoid the situation where a non-HKPR circumvents the BSD by purchasing a residential property through a HKPR. This ensures that the BSD is effective in achieving its policy objective to accord priority to the home ownership needs of HKPRs. It is not possible to determine if a purchaser or a transferee is "a HKPR acting on his/her own behalf" or is acting on behalf of any other person in the transaction merely by making reference to identity documents. As the Government has previously explained at the meetings of the relevant Bills Committee of the Legislative Council, in order to effectively enforce the exemption arrangement, for the relevant purchaser or transferee to claim the BSD exemption in question, the Stamp Office will require the purchaser or transferee to make a statutory declaration to declare that he/she is "a HKPR acting on his/her own behalf" in the relevant transaction and is not acting on behalf of any other person. The Government has also explained that the reason for requiring the purchaser or transferee to make the statutory declaration is that the purchaser or transferee should have full cognizance of the relevant facts and circumstances surrounding the transaction and should be able to declare whether he/she is acting on his/her own behalf in the transaction, having regard to the actual situation.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10359
The abovementioned statutory declaration has to comply with the requirements under the Oaths and Declarations Ordinance (Cap. 11). The relevant purchasers or transferees may make the declaration at the Public Enquiry Service Centres of the Home Affairs Department (HAD) in various districts or at the IRD. The HAD and the IRD will not charge any fee for the service. Purchasers or transferees may also make the declaration through their lawyers. According to section 36 of the Crimes Ordinance (Cap. 200), any person who knowingly and wilfully makes (otherwise than on oath) a statement false in a material particular in a statutory declaration shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction upon indictment to imprisonment for two years and to a fine. To verify whether a purchaser or transferee is acting on his/her own behalf, the IRD may request for further evidence, such as the source of funding, to substantiate that he/she is acting on his/her own behalf.
The requirement for the purchaser or transferee to make the declaration in question aims to prevent the BSD exemption for HKPRs from being abused, which is a legitimate purpose. The Government does not consider that this requirement will have any impact on the right of the purchaser or the transferee to remain silent. In fact, even if the relevant party is prosecuted for wilfully making a false declaration, the BSD regime will not affect their right to remain silent, and so on, in the prosecution. We consider that the requirement for the purchaser or transferee to make the declaration in question strikes an appropriate balance between safeguarding the effectiveness of the BSD and providing convenience to the public.
After the passage of the Stamp Duty (Amendment) Bill 2012 by the Legislative Council on 22 February 2014, the IRD had written to law firms representing the purchasers or transferees who may be subject to the BSD to inform them of the stamping arrangement and the procedures to claim exemption, including the arrangement in relation to the abovementioned statutory declaration, with a view to ensuring a smooth implementation of the measure. The IRD has also uploaded onto its website the "frequently asked questions" in relation to the procedures for applying for exemptions from the BSD and the making of the relevant statutory declaration, in order to facilitate members of the public to understand the arrangements. As at 25 April 2014, the purchasers or transferees of around 51 000 residential properties transactions have submitted the relevant declarations to the IRD.
10360 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014
Apart from the exemption for "HKPRs acting on their own behalf", under the BSD regime, purchasers or transferees who are not HKPRs may also be exempted from the BSD under specified scenarios. They include transactions involving acquisitions or transfers between close relatives; acquisitions of residential properties for redevelopment purpose; acquisitions of replacement properties as a result of specified ordinances, and so on. The relevant purchasers or transferees have to submit to the IRD the documentary proof when they apply for the exemption (such as a birth certificate or a marriage certificate, and so on), and the IRD will determine whether such cases are eligible for the exemption in accordance with the Amendment Ordinance and the actual situations.
If purchasers or transferees cannot complete the procedures to claim exemption within the specified time frame for any special reason, they may apply in writing to the IRD for extension. The IRD may consider exercising its discretion on the basis of the actual circumstances.
Photography Service Stalls at Major Tourist Spots
11. MR YIU SI-WING (in Chinese): President, it is learnt that there are quite a number of stalls providing photography services to tourists at the famous tourist spots in Hong Kong, such as the Avenue of Stars (AOS), Golden Bauhinia Square (GBS) and the Peak. Yet, the service standards of these stalls vary a lot. Some of the stalls are unlicensed and some stall operators' touting activities have caused nuisance to tourists. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether the authorities have demarcated at various major tourist spots fixed locations for photography service stalls; if so, of the details, including the number of designated photography service stalls at each tourist spot; if not, the reasons for that; whether they have assessed the respective numbers of unlicensed photography service stalls at various major tourist spots; if so, of such numbers; if not, the reasons for that;
(2) how the authorities currently regulate designated photography service stalls; whether they will consider stepping up the regulation in this regard, such as requiring operators to display clearly at LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10361
conspicuous places their fee scales and complaint hotlines as well as requiring them to wear uniform, so as to further enhance the image of Hong Kong's tourism services and protect the rights of tourists; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and
(3) whether the authorities have put in place measures to step up their efforts in combating unlicensed photography services at major tourist spots; if so, of the details, including the number of prosecutions instituted last year; if not, the reasons for that?
SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Chinese): President, with the increasing popularity of digital equipment such as digital cameras and mobile phones, more and more visitors prefer to take photographs by their own means during their journeys. Nevertheless, there are still visitors who prefer to use photography services. Provision of photography services by legal photography service operators can bring visitors convenience so long as it is carried out within the existing legal framework and does not cause inconvenience to visitors and the public.
Our reply to the three parts of the question is as follows:
In accordance with the relevant legislation, no person shall erect booth and carry out any form of trading activities without permission in the venues of the Leisure and Cultural Services Department (LCSD). At present, there are 17 authorized photography service stalls operating at the Hong Kong Cultural Centre Piazza (adjacent to the waterfront near the Hong Kong Museum of Art) managed by the LCSD. The LCSD openly invites applications for operating these stalls each year. Applicants are required to go through photography skills test and selection by a vetting panel. Successful applicants have to sign an agreement with the LCSD before they can operate the stalls. The agreement specifies the mode of operation and related arrangements, including the requirements for the operators to display "Registration Passes" issued by the LCSD and their fees, and so on. The Avenue of Stars Management Limited (AoSML) is responsible for the day-to-day management of the AoS under the purview of the LCSD. According to the management agreement signed between the LCSD and AoSML, the AoSML may provide art-related services in the AoS. At present, the AoSML provides one photography service stall in the AoS.
10362 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014
The LCSD deploys staff to conduct frequent inspection at their venues. In case any illegal hawking or trading activities including commercial photography activities are spotted, the LCSD's staff will take appropriate action to advise the person involved to stop such activities, or take prosecution action against the alleged offender. In the past year, the LCSD has not taken any prosecution action against illegal commercial photography activities in their venues.
As regards other tourist attractions such as the GBS and the Peak, the relevant venue managements will arrange staff to conduct inspection at their venues. If public complaints are received, or any activities causing nuisance to visitors including commercial photography activities are spotted, they may seek assistance from the Hong Kong Police Force (HKPF) or other relevant government departments. After receiving a complaint, the HKPF will deploy officers to the scene to conduct investigation. If the complaint constitutes a contravention of law, they will advise or warn the person involved or initiate prosecution as appropriate in accordance with the relevant legislation. In the past year, the HKPF received three complaints against photography stall activities at the GBS. The complaints have been classified as "dispute" subsequently.
The Tourism Commission will continue to communicate, discuss and review with the tourism sector, the LCSD, the HKPF and other relevant departments, as well as the venue managements of relevant attractions from time to time over the tourist facilities provided at the attractions and related matters. Where necessary, we will co-ordinate with other government departments for taking suitable improvement measures and follow-up actions, in order that the facilities and services provided at tourist attractions would best meet the needs and expectations of our visitors.
Impacts of Protests in Taiwan on Hong Kong's Economic and Trade Co-operation with Taiwan
12. MR TAM YIU-CHUNG (in Chinese): President, earlier on, a large number of students and people in Taiwan have objected to the implementation of the Cross-Strait Agreement on Trade in Services (TiSA) signed by the cross-strait authorities, and TiSA has also caused huge controversies in Taiwan. There are comments that as Hong Kong is a Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China, such controversies may hamper the further development of economic and trade co-operation between Hong Kong and Taiwan. In addition, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10363 some anti-TiSA groups in Taiwan have disseminated in their publicity materials a lot of inaccurate or even misleading remarks and information which attribute the various problems currently faced by the Hong Kong society to the Mainland and Hong Kong Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement (CEPA) signed by the Hong Kong Government with the Mainland authorities, while deliberately making no mention of the benefits brought about by CEPA to Hong Kong, thereby misleading the people in Taiwan and seriously tarnishing the image of Hong Kong. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether the authorities are currently discussing or have plans to discuss with Taiwan's authorities the signing of any co-operation agreement to further promote the economic and trade co-operation between Hong Kong and Taiwan; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; whether they have studied if the aforesaid controversies will have any negative impact on the promotion of economic and trade co-operation between Hong Kong and Taiwan as well as the related discussions; if they have studied and the outcome is in the affirmative, whether the authorities have discussed with Taiwan's authorities the corresponding measures to minimize such negative impact; if they have not studied, of the reasons for that; and
(2) whether the Hong Kong-Taiwan Economic and Cultural Cooperation and Promotion Council (ECCPC) established through the Government's efforts and the Hong Kong Economic, Trade and Cultural Office set up by the Government in Taipei have taken the initiative to refute, through the Internet, social networks, media in Taiwan and placement of advertisements in Taiwan, the aforesaid misleading publicity about Hong Kong; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Chinese): President,
(1) Over the years, Hong Kong and Taiwan have established close trade relations. For merchandise trade, Hong Kong and Taiwan were each other's fourth largest trading partner in 2013, with total bilateral merchandise trade amounting to around HK$339.3 billion. For 10364 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014
trade in services, Taiwan was Hong Kong's fifth largest trading partner in 2012, with the total value of trade in services reaching HK$55.9 billion.
The HKSAR Government has all along been actively promoting economic co-operation between Hong Kong and Taiwan in the areas of trade, investment and tourism, and so on, and will continue to do so in future. In the coming year, the Hong Kong Trade Development Council Taipei Office will continue to promote trade ties between Hong Kong and Taiwan through different activities such as trade fairs, outbound missions, seminars, as well as to promote Hong Kong's services industries, and encourage Taiwan brands to co-operate with Hong Kong companies so as to leverage on Hong Kong's services platform to jointly tap the overseas and Mainland markets. Invest Hong Kong will continue to step up its promotional efforts in Taiwan and organize various activities to encourage and assist Taiwan companies to set up or expand their business in Hong Kong. On tourism, Taiwan is currently Hong Kong's second largest visitor source market. The Hong Kong Tourism Board (HKTB) and its Taipei office will continue to strive to attract vacation visitors from Taiwan, and increase resources for promotion in second-tier cities in Taiwan (including Taichung, Kaohsiung and Tainan) having regard to the increase in the number of direct flights to Hong Kong from these cities. The HKTB will also continue to strengthen co-operation with Taiwan to promote the development of cruise tourism in both places. For example, the HKTB, together with the Taiwan tourism promotion authorities, launched the Asia Cruise Fund in April 2014, which will, in the coming three years, provide financial incentive to international cruise lines for supporting part of their costs in marketing and product development, thereby assisting these cruise lines to better promote their cruise products featuring the two ports. This is conducive to encouraging international cruise lines to include Hong Kong and Taiwan in their Asian cruise itineraries, and increasing the number of ship calls covering the two ports. The HKTB also plans to organize talks with online travel agencies in Tainan and Kaohsiung between June and July 2014, with a view to attracting more visitors from Taiwan to Hong Kong.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10365
With close economic and trade relations and complementary economic structures, there is huge potential for further development of economic and trade ties between Hong Kong and Taiwan. A comprehensive and institutionalized economic and trade co-operation arrangement could provide certainty in policies and strengthen confidence of investors. The business sectors of both sides have indicated support for Hong Kong and Taiwan to actively explore the establishment of a comprehensive framework for economic and trade co-operation. The HKSAR Government has expressed our wish to the Taiwan side, through the platform of the ECCPC and the Taiwan-Hong Kong Economic and Cultural Co-operation Council (THEC), to forge with them a closer economic and trade co-operation arrangement, and has exchanged views and discussed with the Taiwan side at the working level. We would continue to follow-up with the Taiwan side through the ECCPC ― THEC platform with a view to starting substantive discussions as early as possible.
(2) One of the functions of the Hong Kong Economic, Trade and Cultural Office in Taiwan (HKETCO) is to maintain close liaison with various sectors in Taiwan (including the local media), and to publicize Hong Kong's latest developments on economic and trade, cultural and social fronts to the Taiwan community through multiple channels. These channels include arranging media interviews and reports, holding meetings or talks with the Taiwan political, business, social and academic sectors, organizing fora and seminars on specific topics, producing publications promoting Hong Kong's strengths and opportunities for co-operation with Taiwan, and disseminating information about Hong Kong on its website, and so on. The HKETCO will, where necessary, formulate relevant publicity messages that address the sporadic biased or even untrue reports in certain Taiwan media, to enable the Taiwan community to have a full and accurate understanding of the actual situation in Hong Kong.
As the platform for Hong Kong to discuss co-operation on public policy matters with Taiwan, the ECCPC is committed to promoting multi-faceted and multi-level exchanges between the two places. Besides continuing to facilitate the relevant authorities of both sides 10366 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014
to take forward various co-operation initiatives, the ECCPC will continue to participate in different types of exchange activities, so as to promote the advantages of Hong Kong on many fronts and further exchanges between the two places.
Restriction on Alienation and Sale of New Territories Small Houses
13. MS CYD HO (in Chinese): President, regarding the restriction on alienation (RoA) and the sale of New Territories small houses (small houses), will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the number of cases since 1997 in which small house building licences were revoked due to the licensees' breach of the building licence conditions and, among such cases, the number of those involving the licensees having entered into an agreement with a developer on transfer of small house concessionary rights before applying for the licence;
(2) of the respective numbers of certificates of compliance (CCs) issued by the authorities for small houses and approved cases of removal of RoA, as well as the total amount of premium collected, in each year since 2002-2003 (set out in the table below); and
Number of Total premium Financial Number of CCs approved cases of collected year issued removal of RoA ($ million)
(3) in respect of each year since 2002-2003, (i) of the average time elapsed since the issuance of CCs for small houses when applications for removal of RoA of them were received in the year, and (ii) in respect of the small houses for which removal of RoA was approved in the year, of the average time elapsed since the approval when the first sale of the flatted units therein took place (together with a breakdown by the rural committee which covers the village in which the small house is situated)?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10367
SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Chinese): President, the Small House Policy was introduced in 1972. Under the Policy, a male indigenous villager at least 18 years old who is descended through the male line from a resident in 1898 of a recognized village in the New Territories may apply to the authority for permission to erect for himself during his lifetime a small house on a suitable site within his own village.
The present Small House Policy does not allow an eligible person to transfer his small house rights before he makes an application. Moreover, after approval of an application, small houses on private land granted by way of Building Licences (BLs) are normally subject to a five-year alienation restriction, that is, the holder of the licence shall not alienate his property within five years after the issue of the Certificate of Compliance. Such restriction is perpetual for small houses on Government land granted by way of Private Treaty Grants (PTGs). The registered owner of a small house shall apply to the Lands Department (LandsD) for removal of the relevant alienation restriction clause and pay an additional premium and an administrative fee if he wishes to transfer ownership of his small house during the abovementioned alienation restriction period. Payment of an additional premium is not required if the transfer of ownership is to another indigenous villager who is eligible to apply for building a small house and has not exercised his right, but the relevant alienation restriction will remain in force after the transfer of ownership of the relevant small house. At the same time, the BLs and PTGs contain other conditions such as a warranty clause that the applicant has not previously exercised his right to build a small house; and a building covenant clause (that is, the owner shall complete development within a specified time frame after execution of the BL/PTG). The LandsD will take lease enforcement action against the relevant owners in case of a breach of conditions.
I reply to the various parts of the question as follows:
(1) There has been a total of 28 cases of the respective cancellation of BL or re-entry of private land due to breach of BL/PTG conditions by licencees/grantees since 1997, amongst which 15 cases are in breach of building covenant clause; six in breach of development clause (that is, the permissible scale of the relevant building for example, building height); four in breach of alienation restriction clause; and three in breach of the warranty clause that the applicant has not previously exercised his right to build a small house. None 10368 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014
of the cases involves the licencees' signing of agreements with developers on transfer of rights to build small house before submission of small house applications.
The LandsD had on different occasions reiterated and reminded indigenous villagers and other relevant persons of the prohibition on transfer of rights to build small house before submission of small house applications under the Small House Policy. The LandsD will take it seriously and follow up if there is sufficient evidence pointing at the aforementioned breach concerning individual cases. The department also welcomes members of the public to file reports and provide specific information to facilitate investigation.
(2) The numbers of CCs issued by the authority for small houses and approved cases of removal of RoA, as well as the total amount of additional premium collected since the 2002-2003 financial year is tabulated at Annex.
(3) The LandsD does not keep readily available yearly statistics (i) of the average time elapsed since the issuance of CCs for small houses when applications for removal of RoA of them were received; and (ii) in respect of the small houses for which removal of RoA was approved, of the average time elapsed since the approval when the first sale of the flatted units therein took place.
Annex
Numbers of CCs for small houses and approved cases of removal of RoA by the LandsD and the total amount of additional premium collected (2002-2003 to 2013-2014 financial years)
Total amount of additional Number of approved Financial Year Number of premium collected in cases of removal of CCs respect of removal of RoA RoA ($ million) 2002-2003 871 356 214 2003-2004 787 339 198 2004-2005 721 394 248 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10369
Total amount of additional Number of approved Financial Year Number of premium collected in cases of removal of CCs respect of removal of RoA RoA ($ million) 2005-2006 834 436 325 2006-2007 949 422 375 2007-2008 964 473 437 2008-2009 892 476 369 2009-2010 879 453 370 2010-2011 944 470 426 2011-2012 863 453 503 2012-2013 1 136 411 524 2013-2014 1 048 498 651 Total 10 888 5 181 4,640
Note:
The "approved cases of removal of RoA" in a particular year does not necessarily imply that the relevant CCs were issued in the same year. The CCs for some cases might be issued in earlier years. The "total amount of additional premium collected in respect of removal of RoA" in a particular year corresponds to the "approved cases of removal of RoA" in the same year.
Prevention of Conflicts of Interests of Politically Appointed Officials and Members of Executive Council
14. MS EMILY LAU (in Chinese): President, it has been reported that the spouses and relatives of some politically appointed officials (PAOs) hold assets through overseas companies. For example, the wife of the Director of the Chief Executive's Office has invested in equities and bonds through a British Virgin Island (BVI) company, whilst another BVI company which has a close relationship with the family members of the wife of the Secretary for Development has made joint investments with a Taiwanese businessman in the real estate market in the United States. Regarding the prevention of conflicts of interests of PAOs and Members of the Executive Council (ExCo), will the executive authorities inform this Council:
(1) whether they will amend the system of declaration of interests by ExCo Members and the Code for Officials under the Political 10370 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014
Appointment System (the Code) to require PAOs to declare, to the best of their knowledge, information on the assets and liabilities of their immediate family members; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
(2) when they will implement the recommendations made in the Report of the Independent Review Committee for the Prevention and Handling of Potential Conflicts of Interests, so as to formulate a mechanism for imposing sanctions on PAOs who are proved to have breached the requirements on the prevention of conflicts of interests stipulated in the Code;
(3) whether the discussions by ExCo on the necessity of its Members withdrawing from ExCo meetings due to conflicts of interests during the consideration of individual items and the decisions so made by the Chief Executive will be recorded in the relevant minutes of meetings; if they will not be recorded, whether such an arrangement will be made; if such an arrangement will be made, when it will be implemented; if not, of the reasons for that; and
(4) whether they will release regularly the statistics on the withdrawals from ExCo meetings by ExCo Members due to conflicts of interests and upload them onto the relevant webpages for public monitoring; if so, when such an arrangement will be implemented; if not, of the reasons for that?
CHIEF SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION (in Chinese): President,
(1) The system of declaration of interests applicable to the PAOs and Members of the ExCo is rigorous and effective. The Government has no plan at present to amend the current declaration system.
The current declaration system requires PAOs of all ranks to declare their investment, shareholding, direct or indirect interest in any company; their directorships, proprietorships or partnerships in any company; and, if any, the specific details concerning their participation in any private company's affairs. They are also required to declare any investment and interest held by themselves or in the name of their spouses, children or other persons, agents or LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10371
companies, but are actually acquired on their account or in which they have a beneficial interest. The names and occupations of the spouses of PAOs of all ranks are mandatory items to declare.
Each ExCo Member is required to declare his/her personal interests including the following: (i) remunerated directorships in any public or private company; (ii) remunerated employments, offices, trades, profession, and so on; (iii) if the interests in the above two items include provision to clients of personal services which arise out of or relate in any manner to Members' position as ExCo Members, the names of clients; (iv) land and property owned by Members in or outside Hong Kong, including those which are held in the names of Members' spouses, children or other persons or companies but are actually owned by Members; or those which are not owned by Members but in which Members have a beneficial interest; (v) names of companies or bodies in which Members have, either themselves or with or on behalf of their spouses or children, a beneficial interest in shareholdings of a nominal value greater than 1% of the issued share capital; and (vi) membership of boards, committees or other organizations. In addition, ExCo Members should declare to the Chief Executive on a confidential basis and in greater detail their financial interests, including shareholdings (irrespective of the amount) in companies as well as futures and options contracts, held by themselves or jointly with their spouses, children or other close relatives. Apart from the above declarations, it is the personal responsibility of ExCo Members to examine whether they have an interest in any item discussed by the ExCo and declare it before the ExCo discussion.
(2) The HKSAR Government has revised the Code for Officials under the Code in accordance with the recommendation by the Independent Review Committee for the Prevention and Handling of Potential Conflicts of Interests. The Code states that in the event of any allegation of breach of duty or the provisions set out in the Code by PAOs, the Chief Executive would decide, after due process, whether the alleged breach is established and, if so, the applicable sanctions, including warning, public reprimand, suspension or dismissal, or in the case of Principal Officials, recommendation to the Central People's Government for their suspension or dismissal.
10372 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014
(3) According to the existing arrangement, the ExCo Secretariat keeps minutes of every ExCo meeting, which record, among other things, Members' withdrawals from discussions.
(4) According to the existing arrangement, we have been releasing on an annual basis the statistics on withdrawal of Members from discussions at ExCo meetings due to conflict of interest on the ExCo website.
Supply of and Demand for Veterinary Surgeons and Development of Veterinary Education
15. DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Chinese): President, regarding the supply of and demand for veterinary surgeons and the development of veterinary education in Hong Kong, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) in each of the past five years, of the number of veterinary surgeons registered in Hong Kong under the Veterinary Surgeons Registration Ordinance (Cap. 529) and, among them, the number of those who were registered for the first time, together with a breakdown by the jurisdiction in which the institutions awarding the educational qualifications are situated;
(2) of the general duties, staff establishment, number of vacancies and turnover rate of various ranks of Veterinary Officers employed by the Government in the past five years;
(3) whether it has any plan to introduce measures to enhance the contributions of local veterinary surgeons in respect of safeguarding the public health system, supporting the development of local agriculture and fisheries, monitoring the health of local livestock, and strengthening researches on the relation between animal genes and viruses, and so on, if it has, of the details and whether the relevant measures will raise the demand for veterinary surgeons; if not, the reasons for that;
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10373
(4) notwithstanding the reply of the Food and Health Bureau to a question of a Member of this Council on 21 April 2010 that "[s]ince the establishment of the CFS [Centre for Food Safety] in 2006, we have handled food safety issues well and effectively controlled the prevention of diseases in animals … Further recruitment of additional Veterinary Officers is not required at this stage", there are views that given the sporadic outbreaks of avian influenza epidemic in recent years which have posed serious threats to the lives and health of the public and the temporary ban, recently imposed by the authorities in response to the avian influenza risk, on the importation of live poultry from the Mainland which have affected people's livelihood, whether the Government will consider afresh recruiting additional Veterinary Officers to reinforce food safety as well as its work on prevention, control and study of diseases in animals; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
(5) how the authorities will follow up the recommendations put forward by the Veterinary School Task Force of the University Grants Committee (UGC) in its report released last December, which proposed that a fit-for-purpose veterinary school (that is, one with a small professional veterinary medicine training programme but a top-heavy research and postgraduate programme) should be established in Hong Kong as such a veterinary school is conducive to further strengthening Hong Kong's infectious disease control capacity and addressing the identified gaps in food safety, aquaculture and the shortage of specialized veterinary surgeons, and that the Government should provide policy and resource support in this regard; and
(6) as it has been reported that the City University of Hong Kong (CityU) will offer postgraduate degree programmes in Veterinary Medicine jointly with the Cornell University in the United States, whether the Government can provide policy and resource support to CityU in the short and long term, with a view to promoting local veterinary education and training and enhancing the research on and prevention of zoonotic diseases in Hong Kong, the Mainland and the neighbouring countries?
10374 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014
SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Chinese): President,
(1) In each of the past five years, the number of registered veterinary surgeons newly registered in Hong Kong under the Veterinary Surgeons Registration Ordinance (Cap. 529) and the total number of persons listed on the register of registered veterinary surgeons are set out as follows.
Number of persons listed on Number of newly registered the register of registered Year veterinary surgeons in the year veterinary surgeons as at the end of the year 2009 53 532 2010 48 565 2011 71 611 2012 68 662 2013 58 695
By jurisdiction, the bodies which award the qualifications held by veterinary surgeons newly registered in Hong Kong over the past five years are shown below:
Number Bodies awarding qualifications (by jurisdiction) of newly registered Year United Australia United veterinary Taiwan Canada Others(1) Kingdom States surgeons in the year 2009 53 4 27 13 4 0 5 2010 48 4 23 10 2 0 9 2011 71 12 32 12 4 1 10 2012 68 13 30 18 1 2 4 2013 58 9 28 10 3 0 8
Note:
(1) They include France, Germany, Ireland, New Zealand, South Africa, and so on.
(2) The Veterinary Officer (VO) grade is a professional grade, comprising VO rank at the entry level and the promotion ranks of Senior Veterinary Officer (SVO) and Principal Veterinary Officer (PVO). Grade members are posted to three departments, namely LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10375 the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD), the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD) and the Leisure and Cultural Services Department.
VOs are mainly responsible for investigation, diagnosis, prevention and control of animal and zoonotic diseases, monitoring and enhancement of animal welfare, inspection of animals and animal products for import and export, and licensing and enforcement of relevant legislation. SVOs are mainly responsible for providing professional services and advice on animal diseases, prevention of cruelty to animals, control of import of livestock, protection of wild birds and mammals, food safety and animal management in parks. The PVO serves to provide high-level steer and directorate input from both the management and veterinary angle, and is responsible for overseeing animal management/welfare and animal/public health measures, formulating improvement measures needed to cope with the potential threat of existing and emerging zoonotic and animal diseases for sustainable implementation, as well as overseeing the development and professional regulation of veterinary service in Hong Kong.
In the past five years, the staff establishment, number of vacancies and turnover rate of VO grade in the Government are set out below.
Turnover Staff Number of Year figure(2) and establishment vacancies rate(3) 2009-2010 30 2 1 (3.6%) 2010-2011 30 2 1 (3.6%) 2011-2012 32 5 2 (7.4%) 2012-2013 32 7 2 (8.0%) 2013-2014 33 2 2 (6.5%)
Notes:
(2) The turnover figure includes the number of officers who have retired or resigned.
(3) The turnover rate refers to the percentage of the turnover figure over the number of serving staff.
10376 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014
(3) and (4)
The AFCD is committed to preventing and controlling the introduction and spreading of animal diseases, including animal diseases which may infect humans. Specifically, the AFCD is closely involved in monitoring and controlling avian influenza and other zoonotic and animal diseases, developing and implementing farm hygiene and biosecurity protocols, evaluating the monitoring work on the use of veterinary drugs in food animals, providing recommendations on the use and registration of vaccines and veterinary drugs, developing strategies for diagnostic and surveillance testing for livestock and other animals, and ensuring that laboratory testing protocols and procedures meet international standards.
The AFCD also provides quarantine services, inspects animals and plants imported into Hong Kong, inspects local food animal farms on a regular basis and monitors diseases in food animals. At present, there are about 1 008 marine fish culture farms, 43 pig farms and 30 chicken farms in Hong Kong. VOs in the Government and the AFCD officers have been providing free technical advice and guidelines to stakeholders in the local agricultural and fisheries industries, including monitoring and testing of animal diseases, such as avian influenza, as well as advice and support on treatments.
The AFCD reviews the effectiveness of its work and measures in these areas from time to time and makes adjustment as appropriate.
On prevention and controlling of infectious diseases and the relevant research work, the Public Health Laboratory Services Branch under the Centre for Health Protection (CHP) of the Department of Health has been carrying out laboratory surveillance of novel infectious diseases (including zoonotic diseases) found in Hong Kong as part of its core duties. Since 2008, the CHP has been engaging consultancy services to maintain surveillance of novel/emerging pathogens (including zoonotic diseases that are liable to have great impact on public health). In addition, the major research areas of the Research Fund for the Control of Infectious Diseases (RFCID) LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10377 set up by the Food and Health Bureau in 2003 also include the impact of emerging and zoonotic diseases on population health. These major research items have been retained after the RFCID has merged with the Health and Medical Research Fund (HMRF) since December 2011. For many years, the research fund of the Food and Health Bureau has been providing financial support for various researches on the impact of zoonotic diseases. In 2012-2013, HMRF offered a total of about $6.25 million to seven new research projects related to zoonotic diseases. The Government also provides financial support through different channels (for example, the UGC and the Innovation and Technology Fund) for educational institutions to conduct researches related to zoonotic diseases and public health.
On safeguarding food safety, the Centre for Food Safety (CFS) of the FEHD has set up the Veterinary Public Health Section and the Slaughterhouse (Veterinary) Section, comprising a total of two SVOs and nine VOs. The Veterinary Public Health Section is responsible for the inspection of live food animals imported from the Mainland at the boundary control point, inspection of farms supplying food animals to Hong Kong, and providing professional advice in the areas of import requirements for food of animal origin and related food safety issues. The Slaughterhouse (Veterinary) Section is responsible for the surveillance of animal diseases in slaughterhouses, ante-mortem inspection and management of veterinary drug residues, and so on. In 2008 and 2009, the CFS created four posts of VOs, tasked with inspecting Mainland farms supplying live food animals to Hong Kong from the Mainland, enhancing communication with Mainland animal health authorities in regard to reporting the disease situation of food animals supplied to Hong Kong, and the ante-mortem inspection of live food animals in slaughterhouses, and so on. In addition, the CFS created a VO post on contract basis in 2013 and is going to create an additional SVO post this year to provide enhanced risk assessment of food of animal origin. Currently, the veterinary manpower in the CFS is adequate to handle food safety issues, prevent and control diseases in animals, and provide professional advice on food safety issues in relation to zoonotic diseases in food animals.
10378 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014
The Administration is keeping in view the vacancies and turnover of the VO grade in the Government. The Standing Commission on Civil Service Salaries and Conditions of Service (SCCS) conducted a Grade Structure Review for the VO grade in 2008. To follow up the recommendations of SCCS, the AFCD conducted a grade review in 2009. In response to a recommendation of SCCS, the AFCD created the rank of PVO and a PVO post in 2011-2012. The post is tasked with overseeing the development of relevant polices to enhance government veterinary services as regards the surveillance and control of animal diseases and food safety. The AFCD conducted recruitment exercises for the VO grade in 2009, 2010 and 2013. It encountered no major difficulties in recruiting VOs. The Administration will review from time to time the manpower situation of the VO grade having regard to work progress and demand in various areas, and where necessary, seek additional resources for recruiting more veterinary surgeons in accordance with the established mechanism.
Regarding the overall supply of veterinary surgeons in Hong Kong, the number of registered veterinary surgeons has grown from around 150 to around 720 since the enactment of the Veterinary Surgeons Registration Ordinance in 1997. According to our assessment, the number of veterinary surgeons and their service provided in Hong Kong in the coming few years should be sufficient to cope with the additional demand.
(5) and (6)
Further to its first attempt in 2009, the CityU submitted a proposal to UGC again in December 2012, proposing the establishment of a veterinary school to provide publicly-funded veterinary programmes. The UGC set up a Task Force in March 2013, comprising local and overseas public health and veterinary science experts, as well as those who are familiar with the local higher education sector. The Task Force took an evidence-led investigation approach and met with stakeholders to collect information, examining every aspect of the second proposal submitted by CityU with an independent and professional perspective. The Task Force submitted a report to UGC in late 2013, making four recommendations.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10379
In January 2014, the UGC considered the Task Force's report and unanimously resolved to accept the first recommendation of the Task Force, namely that CityU's proposal had not provided a persuasive case for the establishment of a publicly-funded veterinary school in Hong Kong. The resolution of the UGC was based on an analysis of factors such as societal needs, professional qualifications and career prospects of the graduates, programme arrangements and accreditation, research support, sustainability, budget estimates and funding support. The UGC also considered that in the foreseeable future, unless there were material changes in circumstances in the veterinary sector as stated in the report, the UGC would not find it necessary to examine any more proposal submitted by any institution seeking funding to provide a veterinary programme.
Recommendations 2 to 4 in the Task Force's report involved public health (such as strengthening infectious disease research and food safety support) and other challenges. Although these recommendations were not included in the resolution of UGC, UGC considered that these issues could be further discussed in the community.
The resolution of the UGC and the Task Force's report were submitted to the Administration on 13 January 2014. In view of the social, policy and resources implications of the observations and Recommendations 2 to 4 mentioned in the Task Force's report, the Administration is carefully studying the details and justifications involved before deciding on the way forward.
For the proposed postgraduate programme in veterinary science to be offered by CityU, the UGC pointed out that in reaching a view about such a major self-financing commitment, the senior management and council of a UGC-funded institution should have rigorously assessed the plan, satisfied themselves as to the underlying financial strength and undertaken a thorough risk analysis, and ensured that it would neither affect the provision of other UGC-funded programmes nor distract from the core mission and agreed role of the institution. There should be no presumption that UGC funding would be forthcoming to assist the institution in case any financial needs arise from such a venture.
10380 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014
Services of Psychiatric Wards in Public Hospitals
16. MR JAMES TO (in Chinese): President, some members of the public have relayed to me that the Pamela Youde Nethersole Eastern Hospital (PYNEH) under the Hospital Authority (HA) has implemented certain rules for in-patients of its psychiatric wards (including no entering or leaving the wards freely, a ban on the use of communications devices, and no discharge from the hospitals without the consent of their attending doctors) (in-patient rules). However, when PYNEH provides the "Application for reception as a voluntary patient" (the application form) for completion by patients being admitted, no leaflet stating such rules is attached to it. These rules are only posted in an inconspicuous place inside the wards. Regarding the services of the psychiatric wards in public hospitals (psychiatric wards), will the Government inform this Council if it knows:
(1) the general admission procedures of the psychiatric wards;
(2) the number of admissions to the psychiatric wards in the past five years and, among them, the respective numbers of cases in which the patients were admitted under the following circumstances: (i) the application forms were completed and lodged by the patients themselves, (ii) the application forms were completed and lodged by the patients' guardians, and (iii) the patients were detained for observation by the hospitals under the Mental Health Ordinance (Cap. 136), together with a tabulated breakdown by name of public hospital;
(3) whether the psychiatric wards of other hospitals have implemented in-patient rules and admission arrangements (including the arrangement for patients to sign the application forms in the general wards and the relevant in-patient rules to be posted inside the psychiatric wards only) similar to those of PYNEH; if they have, of the details, with a tabulated breakdown of such information by name of public hospital;
(4) whether the HA has put in place measures to ensure that its hospitals will clearly explain the in-patient rules to the patients who are voluntarily admitted to the psychiatric wards, and to ensure that the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10381
patients understand the contents; if it has, of the details and the procedures;
(5) the longest and the shortest periods for which patients stayed in the psychiatric wards for observation in the past five years; among these patients, the respective numbers of them who were subsequently (i) discharged directly, (ii) referred to the Castle Peak Hospital or other psychiatric specialist hospitals, and (iii) referred to the psychiatric wards of other hospitals for continuous treatment, together with a tabulated breakdown by name of public hospital;
(6) among the patients admitted to the psychiatric wards for treatment in the past five years, the respective numbers of those who (i) had applied for discharge by themselves and were approved for discharge, and (ii) had applied for discharge by themselves but were considered by the hospitals concerned after assessment that continuous observation in the hospital was required, together with a tabulated breakdown by name of public hospital;
(7) whether the HA received in the past five years any complaint about members of the public being misled into consenting to be admitted to the psychiatric wards; if it did, of the number of such complaints and how the HA followed up such complaints, with a tabulated breakdown by name of public hospital;
(8) whether the HA currently has any mechanism for handling complaints lodged by patients of the psychiatric wards about the treatments used, or the assessments of their mental condition made, by the attending doctors; if the HA does, of the details; and
(9) whether the HA has issued guidelines for its hospitals on the admission of patients to the psychiatric wards; if the HA has, of the date on which such guidelines were last revised; whether the HA has put in place measures to monitor the implementation of such guidelines by its hospitals; if the HA does not have such guidelines, the reasons for that and whether the HA will consider issuing such guidelines, so as to enhance the management of the administrative work of admitting patients to the psychiatric wards?
10382 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014
SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Chinese): President, generally speaking, patients in need of psychiatric in-patient services of the HA will be sent to designated mental hospitals under the HA. The designated mental hospitals under the Mental Health Ordinance (Cap. 136B) are Castle Peak Hospital, Kwai Chung Psychiatric Observation Unit, Pamela Youde Nethersole Eastern Psychiatric Observation Unit, New Territories East Psychiatric Observation Unit and Kowloon Psychiatric Observation Unit.
For any patient who has been assessed by doctors of the HA to be in need of psychiatric in-patient services and has indicated his consent for hospitalization, the HA will ask him or his parent/guardian (if the patient is under the age of 16) to sign the "Application for reception as a voluntary patient" (the application form) in accordance with section 30 of the Mental Health Ordinance (Cap. 136). Upon receipt of the application form, the medical superintendent of the respective mental hospital may admit such patient as a voluntary patient.
According to section 31 of the Mental Health Ordinance (Cap. 136), an application may be made by the HA to a District Judge or magistrate for detention of a patient who is suffering from mental disorder of a nature or degree which warrants his detention in a mental hospital for at least a limited period for observation in the interests of the patient's own health or safety or with a view to the protection of other persons. Patients detained in a mental hospital under section 31 of the Mental Health Ordinance (Cap. 136) may make an application to the Mental Health Review Tribunal for review of their cases according to section 59B of the Mental Health Ordinance (Cap. 136).
The number of admissions to psychiatric wards of the HA through the aforesaid means in the past five years are set out in Table 1.
Table 1: Number of admissions to psychiatric wards of the HA through various means
2013-2014 Year 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 (Provisional figures) Number of 8 960 9 250 9 300 9 920 10 330 admissions for which the application forms were completed and lodged by the patients themselves LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10383
2013-2014 Year 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 (Provisional figures) Number of 130 120 110 140 120 admissions for which the application forms were completed and lodged by the patients' guardians Number of 2 600 2 400 2 360 2 510 2 590 admissions for observation under section 31 of the Mental Health Ordinance (Cap. 136)
Note:
Figures are rounded to the nearest 10
The length of stay of patients admitted to psychiatric wards varies from a few days to more than a year depending on their conditions. Doctors will assess the patients' conditions from time to time and arrange services such as community rehabilitation for patients who are suitable for discharge. In the past five years, the number of patients discharged each year remained at around 16 000 to 17 000.
For patients who need to be admitted to psychiatric wards, the healthcare personnel will explain to them and their family members the contents of the application form and the operation of the psychiatric wards, including rules that patients must comply with and the procedures and arrangements for discharge, and so on. The healthcare staff of respective psychiatric ward will also explain the details to patients upon their admission and provide them with information such as hospitalization notes and Patients' Charter, so as to ensure that the patients and their family members understand the relevant in-patient arrangements.
Members of the public who are dissatisfied with the services of the HA, including those who believe that they have been misled into signing the "Application for reception as a voluntary patient" or those who are not satisfied with the treatments or mental assessments by the attending doctors during their stay in the hospital, may lodge their complaints with the HA.
The HA has put in place a two-tier complaint mechanism for handling public complaints against its hospitals. At first tier, all complaints will first be handled by the respective public hospitals. Upon receipt of a complaint case, 10384 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 the Patients Relations Officer will pass it to the department concerned for follow-up and investigation. The patient will be informed of the results after investigation. If the complainant is not satisfied with the investigation results or reply of the hospital, he may file an appeal to the HA's Public Complaints Committee (PCC) (that is, the second tier of the complaint mechanism). The PCC, being a committee under the HA and comprising members from different sectors of the community, is tasked to handle and consider all appeals for the HA in an independent, fair and impartial manner.
The number of complaints from members of the public regarding being misled into giving consent for admission to psychiatric wards received by different hospital clusters of the HA in the past five years is as follows:
Table 2: The number of complaints about being misled into giving consent for admission to psychiatric wards
Cluster/Year 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 Hong Kong East and Hong Kong West - 1 2 3 2 Clusters* Kowloon East and Kowloon Central - - - - # 2 Clusters Kowloon West Cluster - 5 2 3 5 New Territories East Cluster 3 3 3 3 7 New Territories West Cluster - 2 - - - Total 3 11 7 9 16 (Number of appeals lodged to the PCC)@ (0) (3) (3) (1) (2)
Notes:
* Most of the in-patient psychiatric services of the Hong Kong West Cluster are supported by the Hong Kong East Cluster.
# Most of the in-patient psychiatric services of the Kowloon East Cluster are supported by the Kowloon Central Cluster.
@ The appeals may not be lodged in the same year.
The HA issues guidelines on the operation and administration of wards (including psychiatric wards) from time to time so as to improve the management of hospital wards. The HA will continue to pay close attention to the operation and arrangement of in-patient psychiatric services, and make appropriate improvement as and when necessary.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10385
BILLS
First Reading of Bills
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Bills: First Reading.
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL 2014
PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SERVICES BILL
INLAND REVENUE (AMENDMENT) BILL 2014
CLERK (in Cantonese): Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2014 Property Management Services Bill Inland Revenue (Amendment) Bill 2014.
Bills read the First time and ordered to be set down for Second Reading pursuant to Rule 53(3) of the Rules of Procedure.
Second Reading of Bills
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Bills: Second Reading.
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL 2014
CHIEF SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION (in Cantonese): President, I move the Second Reading of the Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provision) Bill 2014 (the Bill).
After review, the Judiciary has concluded that it is necessary to improve court operations in six areas and implement the relevant proposed improvements 10386 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 through the Bill. The Government recognizes the need to make the improvements and is fully supportive of the proposals put forward by the Judiciary. Now, I am going to briefly introduce the proposed improvements in the six areas.
First of all, the Judiciary proposes repealing the relevant provision of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance so that appeals in civil matters where the matter in dispute amounts to or is of the value of $1 million or more will no longer lie to the Court of Final Appeal (CFA) as of right. Also, all civil appeals to the CFA will become subject to discretionary leave of the Court of Appeal (CA) or the CFA.
The Judiciary considers the present system, which allows appeals to be lodged to the CFA as of right, objectionable as a matter of principle. Linking a right of appeal to an arbitrary financial limit means that litigants involved in litigation beyond the threshold limit in effect have more right than other litigants with smaller claims. This leads to uncertainty, delay, additional legal costs and worst of all, justice being denied (or delayed) to the party who has the merits in a case. Also, such provision is not in line with the systems in other comparable common law jurisdictions.
The Judiciary highlights that the CFA is the final appellate court in Hong Kong. It does not operate as a second court of appeal operating on the same basis as the CA. With the amendment, appeals should be heard by the CFA only if the question involved in the appeal is one which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the CFA for decision.
Secondly, the Judiciary proposes the amendment of the definition of "live television link" in the Criminal Procedure Ordinance in the context of evidence-taking for criminal proceedings so that, subject to the passage of the proposed amendment, other suitable audio-visual facilities such as video conferencing facilities may be adopted.
Thirdly, the Judiciary recommends the amendment of the District Court Ordinance to dispense with the existing requirement for a District Judge to orally deliver the reasons for a verdict, thereby giving the District Judge flexibility to hand down the reasons in writing direct in appropriate cases. The Judiciary LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10387 considers that such existing requirement may be unnecessary and represents a waste of legal costs and court resources in many cases.
Fourthly, the Judiciary proposes that the Magistrates Ordinance be amended to allow a person's period(s) of experience as a Special Magistrate to be combined with period(s) of other types of legal practice or service to fulfil the requisite minimum five-year period eligibility requirement to be appointed as Permanent Magistrate. The proposed amendment is in line with the policy intent of the Judiciary.
Fifthly, the Judiciary puts forward the amendment of the Labour Tribunal Ordinance and its subsidiary legislation to improve the operations of the Labour Tribunal in a few areas, including clarifying the Labour Tribunal's jurisdiction, enhancing its case management powers and aligning the time limit for enforcing its awards or orders with other civil claims.
Sixthly, the Judiciary proposes amending a few court-related ordinances, mainly to ensure that all levels of courts are provided with specific rule-making powers concerning suitors' funds.
The Judiciary has consulted various stakeholders including the Hong Kong Bar Association, The Law Society of Hong Kong and the Labour Advisory Board. The stakeholders are generally supportive of the proposed legislative amendments.
President, I hope Members will support the Bill so that different measures improving court operations can be expeditiously implemented and benefit court users and the community at large.
Thank you, President.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the Administration of Justice (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill 2014 be read the Second time.
In accordance with the Rules of Procedure, the debate is now adjourned and the Bill is referred to the House Committee.
10388 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014
PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SERVICES BILL
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): President, I move that the Property Management Services Bill (the Bill) be read the Second time.
The main purposes of the Bill are to introduce a legislative framework for establishing a regulatory regime for the property management industry; establish a Property Management Services Authority (PMSA) to administer a mandatory licensing regime for property management companies (PMCs) and property management practitioners (PMPs), as well as promote the development of the property management industry.
PMCs and PMPs play an important role in helping property owners to maintain proper management of their buildings. Engaging a good PMC will relieve property owners from a lot of building management work. On the contrary, if PMCs and PMPs cannot effectively assist property owners in carrying out building management duties, the quality of building management and the living environment will be directly affected and building safety will even be jeopardized.
Currently, there are no industry-wide basic qualification requirements for PMCs and PMPs. The Administration launched a three-month public consultation exercise in December 2010 to gauge public views on the proposal to regulate the property management industry. From the views received, the public generally support that a mandatory licensing system should be introduced for the property management industry so as to set a basic benchmark of qualifications for PMCs and PMPs, to raise public awareness of the professionalism of PMCs and to promote the concept of proper building management. In 2011, the Advisory Committee on the Regulation of Property Management Industry, which comprised members from the related professions, representatives of the industry, stakeholders and Members of the Legislative Council, was established to advise on how the regulatory regime was to be drawn up.
We believe that the implementation of the mandatory licensing regime will help promote professionalism in the industry and protect the rights of property owners. To achieve these objectives, the Bill empowers the PMSA to enforce the relevant legislation and issue a code of conduct and to take disciplinary actions against non-compliant PMCs and PMPs.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10389
The legislative proposals of the Bill consist of three main parts, namely, a licensing regime for PMCs, a licensing regime for PMPs and the establishment of a PMSA.
Regarding a licensing regime for PMCs, the Bill provides for a single-tier licensing regime to avoid having a labelling effect and affecting the room for survival for small and medium PMCs.
Meanwhile, to facilitate consumers in making informed choices on PMCs under a single-tier licensing regime, licensed PMCs will be required to provide certain essential information (for example, their management portfolio, the number of licensed PMPs employed by the company, and so on) to the PMSA for uploading onto its website for public access.
Except for companies providing only stand-alone services, such as those providing only cleansing or security services, all PMCs providing property management services relating to a property will be required to obtain licences.
During the public consultation, a number of owners' corporations have expressed concern that the buildings which they are managing are old single blocks consisting of a small number of residential units. They have not engaged PMCs because of limited funding and the simple nature of the building management work. If these owners' organizations managing their own properties are required to obtain licenses, it will discourage owners from participating in the building management of their buildings. Therefore, the Administration proposes that owners' corporations or other forms of owners' organizations managing their own properties will not be required to obtain PMC licences. Similarly, the provision of property management services by the owners of the properties themselves will not be subject to the licensing regime provided that they are individuals and do not provide any property management services to another property for profit.
To obtain a license, a PMC has to fulfil all the licensing criteria including the minimum number of directors and employees holding PMP licences, the suitability of the company in holding PMC licence, for example, whether the company is in liquidation or subject to a winding-up order, whether there is past conviction record on relevant offences, the suitability of the directors, and so on.
10390 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014
Breach of the requirements in the legislation or the code of conduct may result in disciplinary actions to be taken by the PMSA such as revocation or suspension of licences and other sanctions such as reprimands, warnings, imposition of fine, and so on. As disputes between PMCs and owners are often related to financial management matters, specific requirements in relation to the preparation of budget, keeping of financial statements for clients, and so on will be specified in the subsidiary legislation and the code of conduct to be drawn up.
As far as PMPs are concerned, only those PMPs who take up a supervisory or managerial role in the provision of property management services will be subject to licensing. Front-line staff will not be required to obtain PMP licences. This is in line with the purpose of the licensing system, which is to require those making decisions for the provision of services to ensure service quality.
The licensing regime of PMPs will consist of two tiers, namely, "registered professional property manager" and "licensed property management officer". The qualification requirements for the first tier will be higher than that for the second tier. The PMP licensing criteria will be set in terms of academic qualifications, professional qualifications, years of working experience and the suitability of the person in holding PMP licence (for example, whether the individual has a past conviction record on relevant offences).
We believe this two-tier system would help encourage PMPs to pursue professional development and upgrade to the upper tier, while continuing to allow PMPs with a lower level of qualifications to have access to the job market.
All licensed PMPs will be required to comply with the requirements stipulated in the legislation and the code of conduct to be issued by the PMSA. Breach of the requirements may result in disciplinary actions to be taken by the PMSA, and revocation or suspension of licences in serious cases.
The PMSA will assume the dual functions of a licensing body and an industry promoter. It consists of the Chairperson, the Vice-chairperson and not more than 18 members to be appointed by the Chief Executive. In order to balance the interests of the industry, property owners and the public, members of the PMSA will consist of three categories of individuals, namely, individuals who are engaged in property management services; individuals who have experience in the relevant fields related to property management, general administration or consumer affairs; and other individuals who appear to the Chief Executive to be suitable to be appointed as members.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10391
The Bill provides for checks and balances to monitor the operation of the PMSA. The PMSA will be required to furnish to the Secretary for Home Affairs annually its statement of accounts, auditor's report and annual report. The Secretary for Home Affairs shall cause the documents to be tabled at the Legislative Council. An appeal panel will be established to deal with appeals lodged by persons who are aggrieved by the decisions of the PMSA. In addition, the PMSA will be subject to regulation under the Prevention of Bribery Ordinance and the Ombudsman Ordinance.
The PMSA will be a self-financing statutory body supported by income generated from both licence fees and a very small amount of fixed levy to be imposed on each conveyance on sale chargeable with stamp duty under head 1(1) in the First Schedule to the Stamp Duty Ordinance. The amount of fixed levy will be stipulated in the subsidiary legislation to be drawn up. According to our preliminary estimation, it will be in the range of $200 to $350.
In general, the transferee under a leviable instrument is liable to pay the levy payable for the instrument. The arrangement for the collection of levy will be very similar to that for stamp duty, whereby the Inland Revenue Department will collect the levy on behalf of the PMSA.
After the passage of the Bill, we will propose subsidiary legislation which will cover the detailed licensing criteria for PMCs and PMPs, the information and documents required in an application for a licence, the level of licence fees and levy, and so on.
We propose to allow a three-year transitional period after the enactment of the principal ordinance and subsidiary legislation. Unlicensed PMCs and PMPs will not be allowed to practise in the industry after the end of the transitional period.
In order to facilitate those experienced PMPs with lower level of formal qualifications to adapt to the new licensing system, experienced PMPs meeting certain basic requirements will be granted provisional licences during the transitional period. They will be allowed three years after they have obtained the provisional licences to complete continuing professional development courses so that they can be granted formal licences by the PMSA upon expiry of the provisional licences.
10392 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014
Introducing legislation to regulate the property management industry will raise professional standards in the industry on the one hand, and protect the interests of property owners on the other, resulting in a win-win situation.
During the process of drawing up the proposed regulatory regime for the property management industry, the Government has engaged the participation of members of the industry and other stakeholders. The Government has also reported the progress of its work to the Panel on Home Affairs of the Legislative Council on a number of occasions. The Bill has already taken into account a wide array of views and has struck a balance among them. I hope Members will support the Bill, thereby enabling its early passage. Thank you, President.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the Property Management Services Bill be read the Second time.
In accordance with the Rules of Procedure, the debate is now adjourned and the Bill is referred to the House Committee.
INLAND REVENUE (AMENDMENT) BILL 2014
SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): President, I move the Second Reading of the Inland Revenue (Amendment) Bill 2014.
The Bill seeks to amend the Inland Revenue Ordinance to implement the concessionary revenue measures proposed in the 2014-2015 Budget.
Firstly, to alleviate taxpayers' burden in maintaining dependent parents and grandparents, the Bill proposes to increase the dependent parent and grandparent allowances under salaries tax and tax under personal assessment and the additional allowances granted to taxpayers residing with these parents or grandparents continuously throughout the year with effect from the year of assessment 2014-2015. Specifically, the dependent parent or grandparent allowance and the additional dependent parent or grandparent allowance for each eligible parent or grandparent (aged 60 or above) will both be increased from $38,000 to $40,000, whereas the allowance and additional allowance for each LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10393 eligible parent or grandparent (aged 55 or above but below 60) will be increased from $19,000 to $20,000.
For taxpayers whose parents or grandparents are admitted to residential care homes, the Bill proposes to raise the deduction ceiling for elderly residential care expenses from the current level of $76,000 to $80,000 for each parent or grandparent.
About 550 000 taxpayers will benefit from the above proposal of increasing the dependent parent and grandparent allowances and raising the deduction ceiling for elderly residential care expenses. The government revenue forgone is about $300 million a year.
In addition, the Government has proposed a number of counter-cyclical, one-off relief measures in the 2014-2015 Budget. These include the proposal of reducing salaries tax, tax under personal assessment and profits tax for the year of assessment 2013-2014 by 75%, subject to a ceiling of $10,000 per case. The reduction will be reflected in the taxpayers' final tax payable for the year of assessment 2013-2014. The proposed tax reduction will benefit about 1.74 million taxpayers and 126 000 tax-paying companies and unincorporated businesses. The government revenue forgone is about $10.2 billion.
Details of the proposed amendments have been set out in the Legislative Council Brief issued on 23 April.
President, I hope Members will support and expeditiously pass the Bill so that we can implement the tax reduction measures early.
I so submit. Thank you, President.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the Inland Revenue (Amendment) Bill 2014 be read the Second time.
In accordance with the Rules of Procedure, the debate is now adjourned and the Bill is referred to the House Committee.
Council went into Committee.
10394 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014
Committee Stage
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): The Council went into Committee and continued to examine the Schedule to the Appropriation Bill 2014. Committee now continues with the first joint debate which covers 14 heads to which no amendment has been proposed.
APPROPRIATION BILL 2014
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to speak?
MR WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese): Chairman, this is the second day of the filibuster. As Members may be aware, $2.55 million will be wasted for an additional day of filibuster. If we again spend another whole day filibustering, it will cost us $5.1 million of public money, which, if interpreted in terms of canned luncheon meat to be given to low-income families through the food banks, would mean an additional wastage from 164 516 cans to 329 032 cans. Chairman, on the first day of the filibuster held on 30 April, the first joint debate involves 14 heads to which no amendment has been proposed. As the Chairman has said, if LEUNG Kwok-hung had not left the Chamber after requesting a headcount, thereby leading to the cancellation of the meeting, Members should have more than 10 hours to speak on the first joint debate. Members taking part in the filibuster could have spoken during those 10 hours. But regrettably, the time had been wasted. Chairman, in that case, is it worthwhile to waste further time on the first joint debate? I therefore sincerely request the Chairman to expeditiously cut off the filibuster.
Furthermore, Chairman, during the first joint debate …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr WONG, if you are raising a point of order, please point out which rule of the Rules of Procedure is involved. If you are speaking on this joint debate, then according to Rule 68(3) of the Rules of Procedure, your speech should be confined to the policy of the service for which the money is to be provided. Please do not spend too much time making comments on the debate itself, but focus on the relevant heads.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10395
MR WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese): Chairman, we have already spent a lot of time on this debate and the filibuster has indeed wasted too much time. I therefore hope that the Chairman will expeditiously cut off the filibuster.
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, we now continue with the first joint debate to discuss the 14 heads to which no amendment has been proposed. Chairman, I have prepared a 15-minute speech to refute what Mr WONG Kwok-hing said last Wednesday, but given that the Chairman has undertaken to exercise his discretion and allow Members to respond to other Members' speeches, I have decided to save time by cutting down on the time spend on refuting Mr WONG Kwok-hing. However, since he has brought up an old subject again, I will first deal with his misleading or false representations before actually speaking on the heads to which no amendment has been proposed.
Chairman, when it came to my turn to speak last Wednesday, the meeting had already started for two and a half hours. After this Council went into Committee last week, the meeting ended in less than four hours, during which I only spoke twice. Why? In fact, I originally intended to rise and tell the Chairman that the progress was very good as I have already spoken on the 14 heads concerning the Auxiliary Medical Service, the Audit Commission and the Treasury. I was confident that the meeting would soon proceed to the second joint debate on the 69 heads to which amendments have been proposed. Unfortunately, the meeting was aborted. There is no need to discuss who should be blamed for the cancellation of the meeting, and I just want to make a few responses to Mr WONG Kwok-hing. Firstly, I welcome and am grateful and delighted to hear him speak. This is the major principle. Regardless of how unreasonable, deceitful and misleading his speeches are, I welcome him to speak, and the more the better. The Legislative Council has now become a venue for speech contest. Members have their own tales to tell and are no longer debating in any way. Referring to the system, in particular, after a Member has spoken for seven minutes, he cannot speak again regardless of how wrong or unreasonable the subsequent speeches are. The system is much better after entering the Committee stage because Members are allowed to speak for 15 minutes for unlimited times.
Mr WONG Kwok-hing, you previously highlighted the number of canned mud carp and canned luncheon meat that could otherwise be given to the elderly. Let me tell you, we also care about the elderly and hope that the Government 10396 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 would conserve rather than waste the resources. The fact is, however, the Government is not lacking in money. Mr WONG Kwok-hing, last week, you mentioned the waiting time of the elderly for out-patient services, and suggested that the money could actually be saved for shortening the waiting time. The problem is not that the Government lacks in money, but that it takes no action. An example is the medical service which I am going to discuss later on. Mr WONG also supports the enhancement of dental services for the elderly, but the Government has refused to do anything. We asked the Government if this was attributable to a lack in money or manpower, or an absence of plans or data, but no answer has been given. Therefore, it is not a matter of money, but governance of the Government.
Chairman, as the first joint debate involves a total of 14 heads, it is perfectly reasonable for Members to speak on each head once. And yet, I do not intend to do so, nor do other Members. I hope I can finish my speech on the five to six selected heads which I consider to be relatively more important. If the meeting had not been aborted, we should have started the second joint debate by now and should be discussing the heads to which amendments have been proposed. I was asked by Members last Wednesday and today, "When will be my turn to speak on my proposed amendments?" Sorry, I have no idea at all. A total of 14 Members have proposed amendments, but since we are not sure if other Members or Members from the pro-establishment camp will speak …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, please expeditiously speak on the question of the first joint debate.
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Okay, Chairman. Now I am going to formally speak on the 14 heads to which no amendment has been proposed as covered in the first joint debate. I have already finished talking about the Auxiliary Medical Service, the Audit Commission and the Treasury, so I hope that the Chairman would give me ample time to finish my deliberation about the Government Flying Service (GFS), the Registration and Electoral Office as well as the Census and Statistics Department.
Last week, a number of Members have spoken a lot on the Auxiliary Medical Service. I want to tell Members, apart from the Auxiliary Medical Service, we have also attached great importance to the GFS, the head to which no LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10397 amendment has been proposed. We will explain to Members why no reduction of funding has been sought for the GFS despite its numerous problems. If Members read through the two Estimates of Expenditure, they may notice that the part on the GFS covers 10 pages, showing that this is a key department to which the Government has attached great importance.
The GFS, formerly known as the Royal Hong Kong Auxiliary Air Force, discharges its functions and provides flying services round the clock subject to the civil aviation regulations. I must give a brief description of the structure of the GFS before expressing my views. With a fleet of four fixed-wing aircrafts and seven helicopters, the GFS provides search and rescue services in areas covering the majority part of the South China Sea, extending 1 300 km to the south of Hong Kong. In as early as 1998, subsequent to the transfer of sovereignty, the GFS introduced two fixed-wing Jetstream 41 aircrafts as rescue vanguards, and procured three modified Super Puma helicopters in 2001. In addition to the general search and rescue installations, the Super Puma helicopters were specially equipped with the automatic hover system and the Belly Mounted Fire Tank for the provision of round-the-clock search and rescue (including fire-fighting) services. With an expected service lifespan of 15 years, they will reach the end of their lifespan in around 2016.
However, it was reported earlier that the aircrafts of the GFS are ageing and the engine of a Super Puma helicopter had allegedly shut down automatically due to the free turbine overspeed, and was forced to ditch into the Shing Mun Reservoir. Is this very scaring? This is indeed very uncommon. During a regular flying training from the Chek Lap Kok Headquarters to Sok Kwu Wan, the pilot of a Super Puma helicopter suspected that there was failure in the main rotor gearbox and thus landed on the helipad in Tai A Chau beside the closed detention centre for Vietnamese migrants. The helicopter was then left on the island for one week, during which the main rotor was detached for replacement. Compared with overseas aircrafts which are purely used for transportation, the Super Puma helicopters of the GFS do have serious wear and tear, and maintenance is necessary after flying for 600 hours on average.
GFS staff are particularly busy during typhoons or in the midst or aftermath of natural disasters. Apart from carrying out search and rescue operations, they are also responsible for carrying government officials to the stricken areas for site inspection. And yet, it seems to me that news reports of this kind have become 10398 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 rare in recent years. Also, GFS staff have to assess the loss of properties or agricultural products, provide air transport for supplies and carry the injured to hospitals. Therefore, ageing and natural wear and tear of aircrafts is a matter of life and death. Therefore, when I drafted my amendments, I have given a gentle reminder to colleagues that the amount of funding for the GFS should not be reduced for its service is a matter of life and death.
At the meeting of the Legislative Council Panel on Security held in May 2013, the GFS proposed to replace all existing helicopters and planned to use a single model helicopter fleet to replace the existing helicopter fleet of two models. In the same year, the Legislative Council Finance Committee approved the $2.2 billion funding sought by the GFS for the procurement of seven helicopters and the relevant facilities, for the purpose of enhancing the effectiveness of the GFS, as well as the speed and efficiency of the search and rescue operations. I think if the GFS comes to this Council to seek funding for the procurement of new and safer aircrafts, no Member will raise objection. However, it does not mean that we will sign for approval upon the production of the relevant receipts without making the GFS accountable or expressing our observations.
According to my observation, over the past two years in 2012 and 2013, GFS helicopters had failed to meet the 40-minute target on-scene time for inshore call-outs between 2200 and 0659 where additional crew or specialized equipment are not required. The yardstick was laid down by the GFS, which is 90% of the cases should arrive at the scene within 40 minutes from 2200 to before 0700. How about the cases of non-compliance? The compliance rate is only 79% in 2012 and 78% in 2013. Not only improvements have not been made, the rate of compliance has even dropped slightly.
Furthermore, for fixed-wing aircrafts, the GFS had also failed to meet the 65-minute on-scene time target for call-outs between 0700 and 2159 no more than 100 nm from GFS Headquarters. Although the 90% target rate was laid down by the GFS, the rates of compliance were only 86% and 80% in 2012 and 2013 respectively, representing a drop of 6%. As Members may be aware, not only had these two rates failed to meet the target, they had even shown a declining trend, especially during the normal hours from 0700 to before 2200, a drop from 86% to 80%.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10399
Of course, we should listen to the response of the GFS for I am sure that no government official will give a reply for the GFS later on. So, let me recap the response made by the GFS. The non-compliance may be attributable to the inclement weather, additional time required for pre-flight planning, aircraft unserviceability or crew deployment having regard to the actual situation of individual cases that the on-scene time of the GFS exceeded the target time for search and rescue call-outs. I really find these unacceptable. Despite the fact that the GFS usually discharges its rescue function under inclement weather, it has used the inclement weather as an excuse for non-compliance. I have not turned to the Hong Kong Observatory for a comparison of the weather between 2012 and 2013. Was the weather of Hong Kong poorer in 2013 than 2012 so that the rate of compliance has dropped from 86% to 80%? This is indeed unacceptable to Members and the general public.
Not only are the three Super Puma helicopters reaching the end of their lifespan, four Dauphin helicopters are also ageing after 11 years of service. This explains why they have failed to arrive at the scene to discharge rescue function within reasonable time in some cases. Chairman, this is a matter of life and death and persistent mechanical failure will certainly undermine its services. Originally, there were a total of five Dauphin helicopters, but one of them crashed and killed two crew members during an operation. From this, we can see the importance of aircraft safety. Although we have no intention to cancel the estimated budget of the GFS, we would like to highlight, during this joint debate on the 14 heads to which no amendments have been proposed, that the GFS has failed to meet its service target. How should it report to the public? Should we revise the 90% target accordingly? This 90% is an international standard of rescue, what if we revise it to 80%? If the new standard is 80%, exceedance and compliance will be recorded given that the rates of compliance were 80% and 86% for 2013 and 2012 respectively.
We certainly cannot do so. I hope that while the GFS rescue people, the safety of crew members should not be compromised. Therefore, additional expenses should be allowed for the repair and maintenance of mechanical problems, ageing or failure, which should not be compromised. Neither should the target be arbitrarily set. We consider it necessary for the GFS to procure more new aircrafts to replace the old and depleted ones to avoid affecting the rescue operation and enhancing the safety in flying.
10400 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014
I have given a very comprehensive account of the 14 heads and have not sought to reduce the funding for the GFS, but this does not mean that I am satisfied with its services. The underlying reason is loud and clear. I so submit.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Before calling upon Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung to speak again, I wish to remind Members again that according to Rule 68(3) of the Rules of Procedure, when Members speak during the debate on the heads to which no amendments were proposed, their speeches should be confined to the policy of the service for which the money is to be provided.
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, you have spoken a number of times on the same head. If I notice that the content of your speech is repetitious or irrelevant, I will direct you to discontinue your speech according to Rule 45(1) of the Rules of Procedure.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, "every injustice has its perpetrator and every debt its debtor". Why would last week's meeting be aborted? Because you have allowed Mr WONG Kwok-hing to chide me for 15 minutes. I must stress that it is 15 minutes. I watched the relevant video clip time and again and I saw that a Chairman has permitted a Member to arbitrarily chide another Member.
I am going to respond to him and do not think that I have forgotten after a week. I have not heard …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, I wish to remind you again that if your speech is found to be repetitious or irrelevant, I will discontinue your speech.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Alright. I am going to respond to Mr WONG Kwok-hing's slander against me.
Mr WONG Kwok-hing said that we are waging a filibuster in this Chamber on the pretext of fighting for universal retirement protection for the elderly. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10401
Chairman, there is no way to prove if I am fighting for universal retirement protection for the elderly, I can only tell the community at large, the Chairman and Members present that universal retirement protection should be implemented. Or, I will exercise the right to deliberate to continue with the discussion so that the Budget would not be passed so smoothly as in the past.
Regarding the accusation that I have wasted money and time, this is indeed a humiliation to all Members, not only to me. Why do Members not rise to speak? Whenever we come to this Chamber, we are actually exercising the power vested in us by the Basic Law.
The power and function of the Legislative Council are set out in Article 73(2) of the Basic Law, which provides that we have to "examine and approve budgets introduced by the government". This is precisely what we are uprightly doing for the time being. If the Budget fails to get passed, the Government will naturally resort to other procedures. Hence, we should not hastily vote in support or against the Budget. I now call on Members to oppose the Budget.
Chairman, I am discharging the function of deliberation and doing my best to call on all Members not to endorse the Budget, in order to force the Government to re-consider the need to provide $50 billion to implement universal retirement protection. Can you tell me if I am wasting time? No.
Chairman, I trust that you may also notice that I have been subject to frantic attack lately. Mr WONG Kwok-hing just parrots other people's words …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, Committee is now in a joint debate on the 14 heads to which no amendment has been proposed, so please expeditiously speak on the question.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I get it. After spending 15 minutes to chide me, has he spoken on those 14 heads? If you do not believe …
10402 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, as I told you last time, I would allow Members to respond to the views expressed by Members who have spoken. I heard that Mr WONG Kwok-hing did respond to the speeches made by a number of Members, and I have allowed you to respond to Mr WONG Kwok-hing's speech. But since you have spoken for four times and this is the fifth time you speak, please expeditiously speak on the question of this joint debate.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I am not going to argue with you. Last time, "MONG Kwok-hing" spent 15 minutes to respond to the speech made by me before you cut off the filibuster one year ago. Do I have the right or obligation to respond to his speech now?
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, let me remind you again that you are speaking for the fifth time in this joint debate. Please expeditiously speak on the question, or else I will discontinue your speech.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I get it. Which one of my four speeches did Mr WONG Kwok-hing respond to? Instead of responding to any one of my previous four speeches, he has targeted at me and chided me, and has not pointed out if any part of my speech concerning the 14 heads is right or wrong …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, I have reminded you of the provisions of the Rules of Procedure, and urged you time and again to expeditiously speak on the question.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Honestly, as John TSANG said, you argued with me simply to fix me, knowing that I cannot fight back. Am I right? You know that I will not be able to continue with my deliberation once I leave this Chamber. Hence, you are standing so firm, but still there is nothing I can do.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10403
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Please expeditiously speak on the question of the joint debate.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): No wonder Mr WONG Kwok-hing is so unbridled; he is like a dog running around, snapping at people. It turns out that someone would come and help if the dog is being beaten up for biting people.
(Mr WONG Kwok-hing stood up)
MR WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese): Chairman, I hope you will ask Mr LEUNG Kwok-hing to withdraw his offensive remark made against me just now.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, your earlier remark is offensive.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I was just drawing an analogy. Chairman, sorry, no one in this world believes that Mr WONG Kwok-hing is a dog, it is therefore not offensive at all.
(Mr IP Kwok-him stood up)
MR IP KWOK-HIM (in Cantonese): Chairman, a point of order.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I said he was like a dog running around, snapping at people. Did I say he is a dog?
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, sit down first. A Member has raised a point of order.
10404 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Okay, let him raise a point of order. I also want to raise a point of order.
MR IP KWOK-HIM (in Cantonese): A point of order. I hope the Chairman will rule on his earlier remark, otherwise Members will be offended.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr IP, you have not listened clearly as a ruling has already been made. I ruled that Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung's earlier remark is offensive. Whether his remark is offensive or not does not relate to whether people believes it. Offensive is offensive. Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, I order you to withdraw your earlier remark.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I withdraw the remark that "Mr WONG Kwok-hing is like a dog running around, snapping at people", so as not to insult dogs.
Chairman, having said that, I also wish to hear other Members' comment. I request a headcount as I think a quorum is lacking.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.
(While the summoning bell was ringing, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung was talking loudly in his seat)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, let me remind you again that although we are waiting for Members to return to the Chamber, no one should talk loudly in their seats as this is the Legislative Council Chamber after all.
(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10405
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, please continue.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, Mr WONG Kwok-hing has not gone for milk tea.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, if you continue to stray from the question, I will stop you from speaking.
(Mr WONG Kwok-hing stood up)
MR WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese): Chairman, can I make an elucidation?
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr WONG, what is your point?
MR WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese): Chairman, regarding the cancellation of last week's meeting, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung has distracted and misled members of the public by making false accusations against other people. At that time, I was preparing a letter to the Secretary in my capacity as Chairman of the Panel on Housing, asking the authorities to attend this week's meeting. I did not go for milk tea. What is more, I have a little secret. After I was elected to this Council, I have not drunk any milk products, let alone milk tea. This is Mr LEUNG's groundless accusation against other people …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr WONG, please stop speaking at once.
MR WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese): … he has misled members of the public, Chairman.
10406 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Honourable Members, the Committee is now dealing with the first joint debate. Will Members please do not raise any issue that is irrelevant to this debate, including the making of elucidation. If necessary, Members should make elucidation on other occasions outside the meeting. Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, please speak on this joint debate.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I am not going to dwell on the tea issue. I will now discuss head 163 concerning the Registration and Electoral Office (REO). Honestly, REO staff like drinking milk tea very much because whenever I visit them, they would serve me a cup of milk tea. Hence, drinking milk tea is not necessarily wrong.
Why should I highlight the problems of the REO? As we all know, the REO is a department with huge expenditure growth. Provision for 2014-2015 is $1,859 … it should be $185.9 million higher than the revised estimate for 2013-2014. What is the increase rate then? More than double. Why is that so? Certainly, the provision will not be increased for no reason. The additional sum will be used to prepare for the 2015 District Council election, which is understandable.
Given that the increase is not significant at all, what is the problem then? It seems that the REO has not used the increased funding to address the obvious omissions previously highlighted by this Council and members of the public. No marked improvements have been made. Apart from seeking additional funding to hold the upcoming District Council election, the REO has not considered applying for extra funding to tackle problems that have attracted strong criticisms. For example, this Council has discussed time and again the problem of "vote-rigging" as described by the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau. This "vote-rigging" problem cannot be interpreted by the conventional meaning of "vote-rigging", meaning that a group of people has registered an address where they did not live. This is not a scientific interpretation because as we all know, home moving is pretty common in Hong Kong, and it would be generally excusable if a person forgets or is too busy to update his address and change to another constituency. The problem in question is how to regularize such inadvertent mistakes.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10407
In fact, an issue that has been discussed time and again in this Council is the automatic migration system, meaning that when people move homes, they will empower the REO, not to help them move, but to update their relevant constituencies afterwards. This certainly requires the support of a gigantic computer system, but I fail to see in REO's estimates of expenditure that the much-criticized problem will be dealt with by either the REO or the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau. Nor a technical feasibility study will be conducted to explore the relevant proposal.
For this reason, the problem will definitely lead to serious disputes. The failure to resolve this problem will give rise to another problem. Instead of obtaining electors' consent to automatically update their constituencies using a computer system after they move, the REO will have to rely on updating manually. Guess how many people has the REO deployed to tackle the "vote-rigging" problem? A total of 86 civil servants and 46 non-civil service contract staff. The expenditure has been increasing and given the need to prepare for the 2015 District Council election, the number of staff has further increased to 92 civil servants and 200 non-civil service contract staff, incurring $69 million.
On this issue, as I have just said, I fail to see any solution if the problem of authorization has not been handled properly. Under the existing budgeting system, we cannot provide more funding to the REO, and we cannot say to the Government, "Can you provide additional funding for the REO to take up this task as it does not have enough funds?" No, this is not possible. Not to mention the introduction of a fundamental structural reform to plug the loopholes using modern technologies.
As a result, I am in a dilemma. While the REO cannot do the job without additional funding, there is no way we can secure extra funding for it in the absence of power. This is why many people have asked me the same question as Mr WONG Kwok-hing, that is, why did I not move an amendment. Chairman, as you may be aware, proposed amendments seeking additional funding do not fall into the question, and we are not allowed to do so unless with the permission of the Government. Therefore, we can only discuss it here. Perhaps he is not clever enough to understand that proposals may not necessarily bear fruits. Since under the existing regulations, the provisions can neither be increased nor decreased, we can do nothing except to hold discussion. What I 10408 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 am trying to say is that the REO should actually work with other relevant computer departments, such as the Innovation and Technology Bureau to be established by the Chief Executive, and explore the development of new products to prevent "vote-rigging".
Chairman, that is all I have to say because you may think that I have spoken too long. So, I will say no more. I just want to tell you a secret. On that day, I saw Mr WONG Kwok-hing drinking tea ― I have no idea if it was milk tea or ordinary tea ― it was just an impromptu guess. It could be lemon tea. I wonder if he likes lemon … I just want to restore Mr WONG Kwok-hing's reputation. He drank some tea-like liquid on that day, and that is all. Has he never had tea? Have Members ever met such a nice man?
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, as I have said, if you no longer speak on the joint debate, please stop speaking and sit down.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Alright. He drank tea anyway. Thank you, Chairman.
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I will not dwell on the naive and misleading comments made by Mr WONG Kwok-hing, but to put the record straight, I must correct some untrue comments he made last week about Members who proposed the amendments and spoke at the meeting.
He not only criticized Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, but also made some slanderous and untrue comments against me and "Slow Beat". First of all, I had not made any repetitive remarks when I spoke last week. Instead, I spoke on the performance of and my concern about the relevant departments under the expenditure items to which no amendment has been proposed. I also pointed out that the funding provision for certain departments is on the low side, especially the estimated expenditure for some departments has only increased by 0.5%, whereas the increase rate for two offices under the Secretaries for Departments and Directors of Bureaux is as high as 18%. This is a case of "fattening the top and thinning the bottom". These comments made last week have already been put on record. Hence, the accusations made by Mr WONG Kwok-hing once LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10409 again proved that he had not listened to our speeches on that day at all. As such, I must condemn him for his dirty tricks of smearing and suppression.
Chairman, I would like to educate some Members that they should learn humbly when they do not understand or know about something. Many Members especially the likes of Mr WONG Kwok-hing are always pre-occupied with their own idea, thinking that when we speak, we are only wasting public money and cannot bring any benefits to the elderly and the poor. But as illustrated by the study conducted by the Research Office of the Legislative Council on the budgets, over the past decade or so, especially after John TSANG became the Financial Secretary, the livelihood of the grassroots and the poor in Hong Kong has been worsening with the passage of each budget. In particular, problems such as widening income gap and escalating housing problem have arisen. In this regard, the Administration can actually improve people's livelihood by re-allocating public financial resources through the workings of the budget. But as the budgets have failed to achieve the said purpose, the problems have kept worsening over the years.
Regarding the funding provision for the 10-odd departments or Policy Bureaux to which no amendment has been proposed, I have already discussed some of them at the last meeting. Today I would like to talk about the problems of the Trade and Industry Department (TID). As stated under Programme (3) of Head 181 ― TID, the programme is to support small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and industries. One of the matters requiring special attention in 2014-2015 is to continue to closely monitor the global and domestic economic environment and the impact of any changes in the environment on Hong Kong enterprises, in particular SMEs. I will not read out the other matters as Members can look up the relevant information themselves.
I only want to point out that industrial development in Hong Kong is undeniably on the decline, and the reason is attributed to the TID's blatant dereliction of duties over the years. One of the self-claimed major tasks of the TID is to manage the SME Loan Guarantee Scheme (SGS). But as shown by the relevant figures, the number of SME beneficiaries under the SGS only stood at 1 070 in 2014, or a drop of 400 as compared with 1 500 in 2011. In my view, this obviously reflects the problems in respect of the TID's work in assisting SMEs. While the Policy Bureau concerned is certainly to be blamed, the poor performance of the TID has attributed to the continuous decrease in the relevant figures.
10410 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014
Such a decline would adversely affect Hong Kong society as a whole, as well as the general public, in particular, many SMEs. While Members of many political parties and groupings often claim to support the development of SMEs when speaking in the Council, it is evident from the relevant figures as well as the poor performance of the relevant departments (especially the TID) that SMEs in Hong Kong have been shrinking, with a decreasing number of employees in the relevant industries. The problem indeed warrants our attention.
As shown by the relevant figures, it is envisaged that only 40 SMEs will benefit from the SME Development Fund in 2014, and the amount involved is only $24 million. But as shown by the figures of another fund ― we must read these data carefully, or else we would not have known that so much has been done in Hong Kong in this regard; yet the effectiveness of such work is still doubtful ― it is estimated that the SME Export Marketing Fund will benefit 3 100 SMEs in 2014, and the amount involved is $280 million. On average, each SME will only receive a subsidy of about $90,000 a year.
When compared with the extravagant grant provided under the Mega Events Fund, we can find that millions of public money had been spent on the Dragon and Lion Dance Extravaganza mobilized by the great Honourable CHAN Kam-lam. By comparing the amount of subsidies provided to SMEs with the funds for organizing the so-called mega events advocated by the rich and powerful councillors, we cannot help but ask: Is there any position left for Hong Kong's industries? The Government has spent millions of dollars to subsidize a Member's bid to seek fame and glory, yet Mr WONG Kwok-hing has not criticized such events for wasting public funds. In the 1970s and 1980s, many ordinary citizens relied on SMEs for earning a living, building their families, as well as raising and educating their next generation. It is the same for my family. However, the declining development in this regard and the Government's biased policy are infuriating and unsatisfactory. I am not sure if the relevant figure is absolutely correct, but there are still some 300 000-odd SMEs in Hong Kong, and the Government must face squarely the issues of supporting SMEs and countering their declining development.
Hence, while it is beyond our capability and power to increase the TID's expenditure, we still hope that by highlighting the above figures, the TID can learn from the painful experience, strive for industrial development in Hong Kong with vigour and help local industries regain the momentum of growth. It is indeed shocking to note the constant decline of the industrial sector in the share of Hong Kong's GDP. According to the latest statistics, the percentage has already LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10411 dropped to 1.6%, representing a slight decrease further from 1.8% two years ago. It is even more disheartening if we compare this to the peak level of over 20% some 10 to 20 years ago.
Chairman, regarding the expenditure of the Registration and Electoral Office (REO) mentioned by Members just now, I only want to point out that on the last occasion when the five geographical constituencies referendum was held, many young people had complained to me that they could not register as voters due to time constraint. This is of course directly related to the estimated expenditure of the REO because the REO must draw up its budget whenever a voter registration exercise is to be conducted. As pointed out by Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung just now, given that District Council elections will be held next year, the REO has already planned for conducting a voter registration exercise. But I can say in advance ― as we have been saying repeatedly over the past few months ― we do not preclude the possibility of conducting another five geographical constituencies referendum in the near future. In this regard, if the Government has made no budget for the conduct of a voter registration exercise in case a sudden election is to be held, it will deprive the young generation, especially youths at the voting age, as well as many ordinary citizens, of the opportunity to vote in the election. Hence, I urge the REO to deal with this problem squarely as the right of certain members of the public to participate in democratic elections should not be taken away due to financial pressures or budget imbalance.
MR WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese): Chairman, please allow me to respond to the allegations just made by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung and Mr Albert CHAN against me.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr WONG, I will allow you to respond. However, I would like to remind Members that when responding to the speeches made by other Members, please be as concise as possible if the contents are unrelated to the 14 heads covered in this joint debate. Mr WONG, as I allow you to respond, I must also allow other Members to respond to the contents of your speech. But I do not want Members to get excessively entangled over these issues to the extent of encroaching the debate time available for these 14 heads. Hence, please be as concise as possible.
10412 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014
MR WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese): Chairman, I will be as concise as possible, and I have no intention to speak at length. When those Members spoke just now, they mentioned two things about me. First of all, I must elucidate on the facts. Last week, that is, on 30 April, when Mr LEUNG made his final request for a headcount, he alleged that I was drinking milk tea or any kind of tea for that matter. Chairman, the truth is that as Chairman of the Panel on Housing, I had to liaise with the Secretariat for issuing a letter to the Transport and Housing Bureau by the close of play that day to invite the attendance of public officials at the Panel's meeting this Monday to discuss the agenda item on the rental increase by the Hong Kong Housing Society. As the Administration did not intend to send any public officials to attend the meeting, I must issue the letter within the said time limit. Hence, I was handling this matter in the Ante-Chamber that day, and I was not drinking any beverage.
Besides, my privacy is also involved in this matter for I am allergic to milk products. Hence, throughout the 10-odd years serving as a Member of the Legislative Council, I have never drunk any milk beverages in the Council, let alone milk tea as he alleged. Therefore, he has simply fabricated the whole story in order to divert attention. I do not want the public to be misled by him and hence, I must clarify the facts. Regarding the allegation made by those three Members that I had criticized their speeches last week, I think the truth is plain for all to see, and I do not want to repeat anything here. Although I pointed out that their discussion on the 14 heads to which no amendment has been proposed had been protracted and verbose, I also said that they could actually proceed according to the procedures and suggested 10 alternatives. But they still turned a deaf ear and preferred to continue wasting the taxpayers' money and the Council's time.
On 1 May, that is, the day after the Council meeting was aborted for a lack of quorum, the matter was discussed in the editorials of eight Chinese newspapers in the territory. Chairman, I hope you can also take a look. Those commentaries are objective, independent and fair in their criticism that Members who filibuster have wasted public money as well as the Council's time. I will not go into any details here. Thank you, Chairman.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10413
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, originally I did not intend to get entangled with Mr WONG Kwok-hing over what he said last week, and I did not intend to present my arguments to refute him. But, Chairman, as he has now dug up the dirt, I also hope that you can give me three or five minutes to deliver the rebuttal I have prepared.
First, Mr WONG Kwok-hing is always trying to mislead and confuse the public. When he spoke on that day, the Council had gone into the Committee stage for less than two and a half hours. But what did Mr WONG Kwok-hing say at that time? He said Members had already spoken for more or less over three hours. What is meant by "more or less over three hours"? That is a case of misleading and confusing the public, and I have just given one example.
The second point actually requires some in-depth discussion. Mr WONG Kwok-hing had raised one point ― his observation is very keen ― he said that if Members of the Legislative Council wanted to express their views and dissatisfaction concerning the Government's finances and policies, there were at least 10 channels, namely, channels A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I and J, to do so. Then he questioned why we must choose this channel to express our views. First of all, I would like to tell Mr WONG Kwok-hing that Members should optimize the use of all these 10 channels, and if he prefers channel A and I prefer channel J, it does not matter at all. Second, I think the public can make a fair judgment. Members have also optimized different channels, such as raising questions at the special meetings of the Finance Committee. On 17 April … or the 16th, I cannot remember correctly … it should be on 16 April, when giving her reply, Chief Secretary Mrs Carrie LAM hinted that some Members had raised too many questions, and it had given government officials such a hard time that even the normal operation of the Government was disrupted. She was on the verge of suggesting that "the system had to be reviewed in future so that Members would not be allowed to ask so many questions".
I know Mr WONG Kwok-hing is one of those Members who have asked too many questions. But regarding our questions, has the Government really provided us with useful answers? Chairman, no matter how many questions have been asked, or how many times a Member has spoken, it does not necessarily have any effect at all. A Member may have spoken numerous times, but still to no avail. The crux is: Notwithstanding the existence of these 10 channels from A to J, we are still at our wits' end, and we are given no replies at all. Let me illustrate further with an example. The special meetings of the 10414 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014
Finance Committee were held in 20 sessions; Mr WONG Kwok-hing had attended them all, and so had I. As each Member was given four minutes for questions and answers, they would ask three or four questions. Yet the Government would only pick the most simple question, not to give a bona fide reply, but merely going around in circles, while the remaining three questions would be left unanswered. Let me give a real example …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, this is the fourth time you speak in this joint debate, please refrain, as far as possible, from speaking on matters not directly related to the question under discussion.
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I understand, but it is all because Mr WONG Kwok-hing has raised that matter again. I am all set to speak on the question under discussion, but I only want to spend three, five or seven minutes to explain the matter clearly. You have no reason to allow Mr WONG Kwok-hing dig up the dirt just now. What he said has nothing to do with the question under discussion or the Budget at all, but you still let him go on. You might as well let me finish what I have to say, or else I will request a headcount …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Please be as concise as possible.
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): … I will only speak for two more minutes and then return to the main subject.
Regarding the 20 sessions in the special meetings of the Finance Committee, may I invite Members of the pro-establishment camp to ask themselves whether the Government had really answered our questions? The Administration had been evading our questions and giving us sloppy replies. Yet, interestingly enough, so long as they had asked questions and the Administration had replied, they would be satisfied regardless of the substance of the replies. As such, some statistics can be created, and the Chief Secretary can then use such statistics to illustrate how many questions government officials had replied and how many sessions of meeting they had attended. There is a very simple question which I can still recall most vividly. I asked about the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10415 attendance rate of Members of the Executive Council? We have raised both written and oral questions on this issue, and the Government's reply is that the attendance of Members of the Executive Council has been recorded in the minutes of meetings and no separate statistics is kept. What kind of government is that?
We should be ashamed that notwithstanding the existence of these 10 channels from A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I to J, the answer to such a simple question is still unforthcoming. Nonetheless, the Government finally conceded and provided the information on another occasion, instead of giving Members a direct, honest and frank response within our institutional framework. I believe that all government officials, from top to bottom, should seriously reflect on this incident. However, the Administration is now saying that it may reduce or limit the number of written questions to be asked by Members at the special meetings of the Finance Committee next year. Does Mr WONG Kwok-hing consider it appropriate for the Government to do so? Does he consider that he has optimized the use of all tools and channels in order to get satisfactory answers from the Government and be accountable to his voters? Despite the various channels, albeit the Panels or the special meetings of the Finance Committee, we still fail to put pressure on the Government and get the information we require, and precisely for this reason, we must go to great lengths to make use of the Committee stage to express our views, caution the Government or even put the strongest pressure on the Government.
Okay, that is all I have to say. Let me return to the main subject. I will now speak on Head 163 ― Registration and Electoral Office (REO). Just now, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung and Mr Albert CHAN have talked about their observations. I would like to tell Members that this year, I have specifically studied the expenditure pattern of the REO. I would also call on Members to pay special attention to this head of expenditure concerning the REO from now on. We cannot just focus on its estimated expenditure for one year because the cycle of constitutional reform has already begun. As we all know, District Council elections will be held in 2015, Legislative Council elections in 2016 and finally, the Chief Executive election in 2017.
During the public consultation on the constitutional reform, I have heard the view raised in many forums on constitutional development that the number of candidates for the Chief Executive election must be limited, and that there should 10416 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 not be a second round of voting. What is their reason? The reason is to avoid squandering. Money is invariably wasted in holding elections, and appointment is the best way to save money. Hence, I have asked the Government through many channels, including the Panel on Constitutional Affairs and the special meetings of the Finance Committee, to give an account, so that the public can have a clear understanding of the relevant expenditure. The Government is duty-bound to tell us what is meant by squandering and what is meant by "spending where necessary".
Let me give a simple example. Comparing the cases of having three and four candidates, how much additional funding in respect of election expenses will be incurred on the Government's account? We must have this figure before we can assess whether public funds or the people's money will be wasted if no cap is imposed on the number of candidates. There may be as many as 10 candidates if the approach of civil nomination is adopted. I think the rationale of wasting money is invalid so long as we do not have such a figure. If the Government agrees that money would be wasted if there are three or more candidates in the election, it must give us a clear account of the amount or financial projections involved in order to show that if a particular constitutional reform proposal without any limit on the number of candidates is adopted … Some people have distorted the picture by saying that there may by several hundred candidates if the mode of civil nomination is adopted. Of course, such a scenario will never occur. But I do not want to start a debate on this matter as we are now discussing the REO's expenditure. Nonetheless, I think the Government is duty-bound to give us the figure … In fact, I have told the Under Secretary, Mr LAU Kong-wah, that the Administration must give the public a clear idea of the amount involved. Of course, the best way to save money is that the new constitutional reform package will not be passed. In that case, the existing model of electing the Chief Executive by the 1 200-strong Election Committee will continue, and there is no need for any large-scale publicity. If a genuine direct election is to be held, money will invariably be wasted, but the Government …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, you are talking about the 2017 election, but is that related to this Budget?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10417
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Those are just my introductory remarks in order to draw Members' attention to the problems related to the REO's expenditure. Okay, let me return to the main subject and speak specifically about the current duties of the REO in this financial year. But I still want to say a few more words. The REO's expenditure will vary substantially should the constitutional development remain unchanged or should the constitutional development has substantial changes. The REO should have a figure or an estimation in mind and make it known to the public.
In 2014-2015, the REO will continue its work on voter registration, including updating the information of the registers of electors and conducting the relevant publicity, so as to encourage eligible persons to register as electors. By the way, voter registration for this year will close on 16 May, and members of the public should act quickly.
I note that the number of new registered electors has increased over the past year, from 58 839 in 2013 to 71 200 in 2014. Although the figure is lower than the 187 062 new registered electors in 2012 (which was an election year), the number of new registered electors has increased by about 10 000 if compared to the number for a non-election year.
Regarding the voter registration exercises launched by the REO over the years with public funds, I think the measures adopted are mundane, such as the production of publicity videos and the holding of kick-off events year after year. Afterwards, staff would be recruited to conduct voter registration on street, at flyovers or outside MTR stations. All these arrangements are nothing new, and no pressure has been exerted on the REO at all because no performance indicator has been set in this regard, say, the number of new registered electors must be increased by a certain percentage each year. Instead, the annual target is set more or less on a par with its capability, so that it is seemingly quite achievable.
As I once said, if the objective is to save money, the best way is to abolish the voter registration system such that all citizens will automatically become electors. Of course, this proposal involves a lot of discussion policy-wise because geographical constituency elections are held for the Legislative Council. Moreover, as District Council elections are held on a district basis, it is necessary to ascertain the address of electors and hence, people cannot become electors automatically. But in the case of electing the Chief Executive through territory-wide direct elections, it is actually possible for all citizens to become 10418 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 electors automatically because the district in which an elector resides is not a critical factor having an impact on the elections. I hope the Government can consider allowing all citizens aged 18 or above to become electors automatically, in order to save the administrative costs incurred for voter registration. Of course, the Government may worry that if all citizens become electors automatically, the turnout rate would be on the low side. If the electorate base has increased without any change in the number of people who have actually voted, the turnout rate will become lower and hence, the mandate of the elected Chief Executive would be even lower.
My gentle reminder to the Government is that if it should accept this view in order to save costs, that is, to allow members of the public become electors automatically, it should never impose any "compulsory voting" mechanism. If "compulsory voting" is implemented ― of course, we at the Legislative Council will not pass such a mechanism easily ― even if the Government gives us rotten oranges or apples, we are mandatorily required to vote under the "compulsory voting" mechanism. In that case, the Government must give us the option of "None of the above". Nonetheless, I do not intend to go into details of these policy issues here.
On the contrary, I want to know more about the indicator concerning "the number of elector records updated", which has dropped from 120 307 in 2013 to the estimated number of 115 100 in 2014. Why would the figure drop? Is it because the Government predicts that Hong Kong people will move less in the coming year, such that there are fewer number of elector records requiring updating? Perhaps the Government may consider the figure acceptable as it has only dropped by one third when compared with the 311 569 updated records in the 2012 election year. But if the figure is compared with the figure for a non-election year, the estimated number of updated elector records has also dropped. Is that not suspicious? Given the cast resources allocated by the Government to prevent and combat vote planting by encouraging electors to update their particulars as soon as possible, or even suggesting that electors should produce the water bills issued by the Government to the REO, why would the estimated number of updated records drop? I am gravely concerned about this situation. Is it because the Government does not practise what it preaches, such that a more stringent indicator has not been set? Or is it because the Government predicts that Hong Kong people will not move house and hence, there will be no change to their particulars that their elector records need not be updated?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10419
I also note that the provision for 2014-2015 is $185.9 million higher than the revised estimate for 2013-2014, which is mainly due to increased funding required to make preparations for the 2015 District Council elections, as well as the creation of a total of 75 posts in 2014-2015 for undertaking election-related duties. In this regard, the REO's establishment will increase to 214 posts in 2014-2015, as compared with 160 posts two years ago and 139 posts last year. Such a growth in establishment is the largest over the years and exceeds the corresponding increases in the two election years of 2011 and 2012. In those years, the REO's establishment was 184 and 186 posts respectively. It is clear that the REO's establishment will be the strongest in 2014-2015, which is also related to what I said just now about the need for the REO to make preparations for the elections in 2015, 2016 and 2017 as we enter the cycle of constitutional reform.
Like the growth in establishment, the provision for election expenses has also increased from that in 2013 (The buzzer sounded) …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, the problems of the Registration and Electoral Office (REO) are certainly too numerous to record, and I would like to provide some more information. Firstly, from past experience over the years, the REO fails to provide barrier free access for all polling stations. Last time when I protested to LEUNG Chun-ying, the place was not barrier free. This is ridiculous that the venue where the Chief Executive meets the public is not barrier free. I had to be lifted up by others before I could meet the Chief Executive.
The REO is incompetent in this regard because barrier free access is an indispensable factor in identifying polling stations. Persons with impaired mobility should not be deprived of their right to vote or be discouraged to vote due to inconvenience. This is the first point.
The second point is the ballot papers. Some visually impaired persons indicate that braille ballot papers are currently unavailable and they ask whether braille ballot papers or publicity leaflets can be provided for them. Is this impossible? The REO is not unable to do so, just that it is unwilling to do so 10420 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 and it has turned a deaf ear to the demand. There are in fact some 90 000 people with visual impairment. Should they be treated like this? Chairman, you may again say that I am repeating the arguments. But frankly speaking, the problems are really too numerous to be listed out. I am not sure whether Mr WONG Kwok-hing has asked these questions. Chairman, please let me ask him.
Chairman, I would like to summon Mr WONG Kwok-hing back as a quorum is not present in the Chamber. I believe he is not having milk tea at the moment, he should be having soy drink instead.
CHAIRMAN (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)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, please continue.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, we still cannot summon Mr WONG Kwok-hing back. But never mind. I do not want to waste time talking about the countless problems of the REO; otherwise you will again say that I am being repetitive. Therefore, I would like to switch to "Head 24 ― Audit Commission".
Chairman, the question of "who shaves the barber" is interesting and philosophical. As the saying goes, people who shave other people will be shaved by others. The Audit Commission is responsible for checking whether various departments have spent public money appropriately. However, views regarding value for money vary. As a government department, should the Audit Commission keep abreast of the times? Can its audits meet the standards of the modern society? This is of course a conceptual question depending on our views on auditing work. We have been talking about marginal benefits, the relationship between input and output, that is, how much input is made and how much output is produced, or whether spending $1 can produce an output worth $2. But these audit standards are already outdated.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10421
Let me cite a simple example. The audit performed by the Audit Commission on the Film Development Fund (FDF) is obviously not in order. Originally I intended not to talk about the Dragon and Lion Dance Extravaganza funded through the Mega Events Fund as I am not sure whether this event is audited by the Audit Commission. But I cannot help talking about this dirty incident. Money had been allocated but had not been given out; those who should have received the money said they did not receive any money. Shouldn't the Audit Commission report this to the Independent Commission Against Corruption? Or should I report this incident? If the Audit Commission fails to identify the problem, let the community extends a helping hand. It is found that money had been given to those primary students, but the students had never received the money. But still the Audit Commission has not taken heed of this situation. What kind of auditing work does it perform?
Such common problems are in fact examples of "government offices are like iron and officials are like running water". We have injected a lot of money into various funds. For example, the "Future Fund" to be set up by John TSANG has already caused a lot of troubles. He wants to allocate $220 billion to set up the Future Fund and more money will later be injected into the Fund. These issues are of course out of the purview of the Audit Commission. But currently there are many funds in Hong Kong which can hardly be regulated. The FDF I am discussing now is a case in point. Chairman, what is the FDF? It is administered by the Hong Kong Film Development Council. What are the objectives of the FDF? The FDF "aims to fund projects and activities which contribute towards the development of the Hong Kong film industry, including: part-financing small-to-medium budget film productions". What does it mean by "part-financing"? Is this a large part or a small part? There is no specification. The FDF also aims at "enhancing efforts to promote Hong Kong films in the Mainland and overseas; enhancing initiatives to train talents in various aspects of film production and distribution". I am not going to read them all out. What is the problem involved? The problem is, in sponsoring film development, the box office takings should not be the prime concern. In sponsoring film production, we should first target films of low to medium production level. What is low to medium productions level? We should listen to the views of the film industry. For example, the film Echoes of the Rainbow … Chairman, have you watched that film? Echoes of the Rainbow …
10422 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, which head are you discussing now?
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Head 24.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): The contents of your speech have deviated too far from the policy of the Audit Commission on service provision. Please focus your speech on the question.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): What? I am giving some examples because the Audit Commission is responsible for auditing the FDF.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, there is no doubt that the Audit Commission performs audits on various government departments. In discussing head 24, you should focus directly on the policy of the Audit Commission on service provision.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Right. What I am talking is the policy.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): If you are to comment on various government work that the Audit Commission is involved, you have strayed away from the question.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Do you understand that this is the best example? We should not simply lay emphasis on box office takings. For example … maybe I fail to explain clearly. Give me 30 more seconds and you will understand.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, you should expeditiously speak on the question. Do not waste too much time.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10423
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): In order to assess whether something is worth the money, that is not … it is really hard to present one's argument without giving examples. That is why I take the FDF as an example. The criteria of the FDF should not be based on the box office takings but on whether the film can make contribution to the film industry of Hong Kong. Otherwise, we should set up the Film Profits Fund instead of the FDF. As such, the fact that the Audit Commission still adopts the old auditing criteria in handling these questions is unacceptable. This is not my personal view, but the view of many industry players. Moreover, I have not finished reading aloud the objectives of the FDF. If the Director of Audit is to perform audits, he should no longer adopt the old criteria of comparing the output with the input. There must be some outcomes, that is, policy objectives. At present, there are four main objectives of the FDF … I have missed one … no wonder you do not understand. "Enhancing the interest and appreciation of Hong Kong films by the local audience" …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, may I remind you again that this is the sixth time you speak. Please do not talk about something that is not related to the policy of the service for which the money is to be provided under the head on which you are now commenting.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): How come you still cannot understand? I am mainly criticizing the criteria adopted by the Audit Commission in auditing the FDF. I must point out that the criteria adopted by the Audit Commission regarding certain government departments should not apply to some newly established funds, such as the FDF or the Mega Events Fund. Take the Mega Events Fund as an example. What are the input and output for this Fund? We cannot expect that an input of $1 must generate an output worth $1.5. There must be some outcomes, that is, policy objectives. Just now I have read out the objectives, that is, enhancing the interest and appreciation of Hong Kong films by the local audience, and enhancing initiatives to train talents in various aspects of film production and distribution. These objectives can hardly be evaluated by the box office takings.
Chairman, do you understand? The work of Federico FELLINI or some foreign films, to put it more harshly, often have very poor box office and make no 10424 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 profits at all. But some talents in the film industry have been trained up, like Akira KUROSAWA, a Japanese director. In the beginning, no one approached him for film production but Shochiku, a film production company, had recognized his talents and approached him for film production. Therefore, with respect to the FDF, it is not feasible to adopt a shopkeeper's mentality. When we inject 10 cents, we should not ask whether an equivalent value of output will be generated. This is not the correct attitude. As said in the preface of the treatise Elements, "not to use means to use; it is the base of different uses". For the production of a film, we should not simply focus on the immediate benefits or whether the cost can be recovered because very often a film will just incur losses. One of the four main objectives is to part-finance film productions. If our only concern is whether losses will be incurred after part-financing the production, I can say that the FDF can hardly operate because no single government in the world can ensure that a film will definitely make profit except during the Cultural Revolution …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, the contents of your speech have strayed away from the question and are repetitive. If you do not take my advice, I will discontinue your speech.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I have really made a lot of preparations. The industry players ask me to say all those words. It is Ms Mabel CHEUNG Yuen-ting …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, although your opinions on the development of the film industry may be very sensible, you should bring them up on other occasions.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): It is alright if you do not allow me to say any more. Alright, I will not cite the film industry as an example. What a pity. The industry insists that I have to say such words. Now it is you who do not allow me to give such views. I will not be held accountable because I have already brought them up.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10425
The Audit Commission … excuse me, it is head 24. Let us return to the question of entertainment expenses … in fact the Audit Commission is independent of the Government. In other words, it should remain impartial. However, when the incumbent Director of Audit was appointed, it was found that Ernst & Young, the company he previously worked in, had some problems. But I know that you will be upset if I continue to talk about this issue. I will stop for the time being because Mr Albert CHAN has indicated that he will talk about this issue. As Mr CHAN is such a brilliant speaker, it would be a waste if there are no audience. I hope the Chairman will summon Mr WONG Kwok-hing back so that we will not waste money.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG requests a headcount. 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)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN, please speak.
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, from the remarks made by Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung just now, it seems he does not understand very well the established duties of the Audit Commission. Value for money is the primary principle of the Commission. The Government may respond to the criticism of Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung later if it has the chance. I have read a number of reports issued by the Audit Commission and most of them are substantive and well justified.
Chairman, I would like to give my views on two other heads, heads 106 and 184. As Head 106 ― Miscellaneous Services involves various subheads and is technically complicated, deletion cannot be made easily. As a result, not many people dare to propose amendments to this head. The total estimate for Miscellaneous Services is $11.9 billion, representing a substantial decrease when compared with the $57.2 billion in last year's estimate. If we make a calculation, we will find that the amount is only one fifth of last year's. But it seems that no one raises any question to such a drastic decrease.
10426 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014
The estimate for 2013 is $57.2 billion while the actual expenditure is only $0.3 billion. In terms of the ratio of estimate expenditure to actual expenditure, I believe this item is very peculiar among others. There is a cause for this. As head 106 often involves compensations, the amount may spread over a long period of time, and hence, the estimate for last year may likely be spent gradually and used fully after some years.
However, given the complexity of this head, it is difficult for the institute responsible for overseeing government expenditures to review annually whether the expenditure under this head is properly spent. Members may not have a clear idea unless they have persistently and patiently studied this head in a systematic way and try to understand all the items by following up every year. Then they may have some idea about this head.
In 2013, the estimate for compensation reached $1.8 billion but the actual expenditure was only $230 million. This is one of the phenomena which I would like to point out and I will illustrate this with an example later. I have tried to trace the actual expenditure by other channels but the Government is so sloppy and irresponsible that we can hardly trace or monitor the expenditure in this area. Given such discrepancies, Members encounter problems when they monitor the expenditure. As there are a number of subheads under this head, we can only identify the problems more clearly if we look carefully at the subheads, the areas covered under the subheads as well as the notes for the subheads.
There is a provision of $9 billion under subhead 789 Additional Commitments, which represents a substantial decrease compared with last year. Expenditures under subhead 789 mostly involve the setting up and funding of certain funds. It is difficult to monitor if such funds are effectively used by simply looking at figures of this subhead and the relevant reports. We may be more familiar about some of the figures under this subhead, such as the extension of the public housing rental waiver and the additional expenditures for the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA). However, as this subhead covers many other areas, we may only see certain parts while some other parts may only be identified by careful follow-up. As what I said just now, we may not easily know the actual situation by looking at the figures of the items in the Budget.
Other subheads such as 822 and 824 involve the contribution to the ninth and tenth replenishment of the Asian Development Fund. Therefore, under this LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10427 head, some subheads involve the public housing rental waiver as I mentioned just now, while some are expenditures for the additional one-month or two-month CSSA payments. But when the item is mixed with the Asian Development Fund, a lot of uses are involved. That is why I said at the very beginning that the complexity of this head is not easily understood by ordinary people.
In addition, I would like to point out that this head involves poverty alleviation in Asia because development funds of Asian banks often involve the development of poor regions. Through these development funds, funding and assistance are provided to facilitate the economic development and poverty alleviation of certain poor regions.
On the other hand, Chairman, I would like to talk about head 184 which involves the expenditures for major works reserve funds. Head 184 involves transfers to funds. Chairman, the figure is astonishing. The estimate for head 184 in 2014-2015 is $7,519 million. The head involves a number of subheads and funds. One of the major funds is the Payment to the Capital Works Reserve Fund under subhead 984. In the coming year, the estimate for this Fund reaches $5,000 million which accounts for almost 75% of the $7,000 million plus. The payment is for Public Works Programme, land acquisition, capital subventions and major systems and equipment and computerization.
Regarding this subhead, Chairman, I would like to point out that from the information on the Budget over the past three years, this subhead did not exist. Please take a look at the information provided by the Government. Subhead 984 did not exist over the past three years. This year, the new subhead "Payment to the Capital Works Reserve Fund" which involves $5,000 million emerges all of a sudden.
Maybe I have not noticed such a change earlier and so I did not make any follow-up enquiry. Of course after today, I will continue to follow up the issue in question. But I would like to point out that this newly added subhead has aroused a lot of queries: given that a number of work projects have a cost overrun, is the newly added subhead, with an astonishing amount of $5,000 million, designed to compensate for the overrun?
There is also substantial increase for subhead 988 "Payment to the Loan Fund" which triples from $700 million last year to $2,500 million this year. The 10428 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014
Government advises that one of the main reasons for the substantial increase of the Payment to the Loan Fund is for granting loans or advances for education. Does the Government triple the provision because it expects an increasing number of applicants or it expects that many people will be unable to repay their loans and hence advances have to be made? $2,500 million is a very huge sum. We will follow up this question in the Panel on Education and on other occasions in due course. With this sum, it can help a lot of elderly to buy a lot of canned food and rice. However, Members of the royalist camp are never concerned about the issue.
Let us take a look at subhead 990 under the Capital Account of Head 184 ― Transfers to Funds, which is the Payment to the Disaster Relief Fund. Many members of the public criticize the payments to the Disaster Relief Fund, particularly because most of these payments are donated to the Mainland. According to some recent media reports, many disaster relief materials donated to the Mainland in earlier years, though not necessarily from Hong Kong, are now left to rot while some donations have even been put into the pockets of those corrupt officials. Therefore, the Government has not given sufficient account of how the donations of disaster relief are handled. In this regard, the Government should make some improvement to prevent the donations from flowing into the pockets of the privileged which in turn incurs losses to the public. I hope the Audit Commission will step up inquiry and monitoring. Nonetheless, I believe it is difficult for the Commission to inquire and monitor because it can do nothing when the Mainland is involved. I remember when the funding was made, the "good fighter" Chief Secretary had repeatedly promised to step up supervision. But in reality, is it the case? Up to this moment, neither Hong Kong people nor this Council can ascertain whether the expenditure under this subhead is properly handled in accordance with the policy and the commitment made when the funding was made. As such, the Government should give a clear account of it and enhance transparency.
Chairman, I would like to cite an example to illustrate why it is more difficult to oversee the expenditure of capital works as I said just now, especially when it involves compensation under the aforesaid head. Chairman, do you still remember that I raised a question one or two months ago in the Council asking about the compensation for Wah Kai Industrial Centre on land resumption more than a decade ago? In response to my series of questions, the Government simply provided some rough figures without disclosing the details of the overall compensation package, such as the overall amounts of compensation for land LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10429 resumption, for relocation, and for business closure, as well as the number of cases, and so on. The Government refused to give these figures.
The amount of estimates that we have looked into just now involves billions of dollars. But in terms of accountability, the performance of the Development Bureau in recent years is disappointing. Therefore, regarding the expenditures in other aspects of the Development Bureau, People Power proposes in its amendments to deduct the expenditure of the Secretary. However, in view of the Loan Fund as well as the items involved in the heads concerned, as explained by me just now, it is difficult to handle different subheads. As such, we have not proposed any deduction in our amendment.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I will continue to provide some supplementary information on Head 163 ― Registration and Electoral Office (REO).
The provision for "Election expenses" of the REO has been substantially increased from $14.65 million in 2013 to $162.42 million this year (2014-2015) due to the growth in establishment. Although the increase is substantial, we have not proposed to reduce the provision. As I mentioned earlier, there are a number of major reasons for it, including the need to conduct a voter registration exercise, enhance the checking of information of voters to prevent vote-rigging and organize the next round of District Council (DC) elections because some of the constituencies will be re-delineated. I have mentioned these reasons before. In this session, I am going to raise other reasons, some of which may be beyond the control of the REO or the SAR Government, but provisions have to be made all the same.
By-election is a major item. Let me speak on DC by-election first. Since the completion of the DC elections in 2011, we have noticed that DC by-elections took place one after another. This is due to some uncontrollable reasons, for example, problems of integrity, breach of the electoral law or health problems of some DC members. These unfortunate incidents are unexpected and beyond the control of the Government, and yet provisions have to be made for by-elections.
10430 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014
In particular, I have to mention an unreasonable practice which is unacceptable to Hong Kong people, namely, the appointment of incumbent DC members as public officials in the Accountability System. Members will surely remember the examples of Mr LAU Kong-wah, Under Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs and Mr Andrew FUNG, Information Coordinator. We consider the expenses for the relevant by-elections unnecessary. Are there no talents in Hong Kong at all? Are all people dead? Is it really necessary to appoint incumbent elected DC members to positions in the government establishment, and thus necessitate the conduct of by-elections? How many cans of mud carp and luncheon meat have been wasted as a result of conducting such by-elections? Can't the Government wait for two more years and appoint these people to public office upon the expiry of their tenure as DC members?
Furthermore, another possible cause of by-election is "resignation en masse of Members returned from five geographical constituencies as a de facto referendum", or resignation of "super DC members" as a de facto referendum. I am not sure whether the incumbent "super DC members" are willing to resign, but that is a possible scenario. Therefore, we have not proposed to reduce the provision for the REO which has been substantially increased. If by-elections have to be conducted, resources will indeed be needed.
Besides, there is another kind of by-election which Members may not have considered, namely, a by-election of the Chief Executive. Since LEUNG Chun-ying has assumed office, there have been continual demands for his resignation. Of course, we can see that his position is now secure and he may not need to resign. In fact, it seems that he does not even have to go to work as he often pays overseas visits. However, we do not know whether the resignations in the accountability team will set off a domino effect on the Chief Executive so as to necessitate a by-election. I think the Government has to take this into account in preparing the Budget.
(Dr CHIANG Lai-wan stood up)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, please hold on. Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, what is your point?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10431
DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, should Member only focus on discussing the heads of expenditure and not going into details of each subhead and item? Is this a breach of Rule 68(3) of the Rules of Procedure?
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I have a suggestion to make which will give you some time to make a ruling. Please do a headcount.
CHAIRMAN (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)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Before I call upon Mr CHAN Chi-chuen to continue with his speech, I will make a ruling on the point of order raised by Dr CHIANG Lai-wan. Dr CHIANG questioned whether the speech made by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen earlier complies with Rule 68(3) of the Rules of Procedure which provides that unless an amendment is proposed to any head of expenditure, a debate shall be confined to the policy of the service for which the money is to be provided and shall not deal with the details of any item or subhead.
The speech made by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen earlier is mainly related to the policy of the service for which the money is to be provided, with the exception of what he said regarding the policy on appointing DC members as public officials. That is not a policy of the service provided by the Registration and Electoral Office, but as Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has not discussed that point at length, I have not stopped him.
Nevertheless, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, I have to remind you, as this is the fifth time you speak, please try to confine your discussion to the policy of the service for which the money is to be provided under the head of expenditure.
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): How brilliant the Chairman is this time. When I speak, I have indeed exercised much self-control and confined myself. If I were to discuss the policy thoroughly, I could have spoken on each 10432 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 by-election and every re-delineated constituency. When I mentioned the problems of by-elections and the possibility of a by-election of the Chief Executive, I might possibly have encroached on LEUNG Chun-ying, a good friend of Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, and that is why she has to stop me. Nevertheless, I will not speak on by-election anymore. Actually I intend to stop after speaking once or twice more.
In fact, apart from by-election, I have to add two points in connection with the REO. First, the problem of the Chief Executive Election Committee (the Election Committee) subsector elections. At present, the REO is responsible for some of these elections. Members may browse through the information on the Election Committee Subsector elections provided on the website of the REO to get a rough idea.
At present, the REO is only responsible for some of the subsector elections. I wish to point out that some of those elections not being conducted by the REO are at a mess. I will not make a tedious speech on this point, but will give an example of the religious subsector election for illustration purpose. The REO has obviously failed to obtain sufficient information on the electorate base of that subsector, and the subsector itself also does not fully grasp the information concerning the electorate. In the last election of the religious subsector, if someone claimed that he was in charge of a church and could immediately issue a certificate of church membership to me, I could become a voter of the Christian subsector and elect the members of the subsector.
Since the arrangement is ridiculous, I hope that the REO will allocate additional resources to obtain sufficient information on the electoral rolls and the electoral base of the Election Committee, which may continue to operate without any improvement. Alternatively, if a new Nominating Committee is to be transformed from the Election Committee, similar work should be done. I know that if a person is willing to donate $1 million, some people from the religious subsector may even nominate him as a member of the subsector. That is indeed outrageous.
Finally, I will add one point ― I notice the Under Secretary is in the Chamber now ― about the election of the Hong Kong Arts Development Council (HKADC). At present, election of the HKADC is not under the purview of the REO; it is under the purview of the Home Affairs Bureau and has been contracted out to public relations companies. I do not know if such an arrangement is made LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10433 due to the limited resources of the REO. In fact, the REO is most familiar with election procedures, it will strictly follow such procedures and is well-experienced in holding elections. Even if the authorities do not assign the REO to conduct the election of the HKADC, they should at least require the REO to play an advisory, monitoring and supporting role; they should not just contract out the election to a public relations company which has made numerous mistakes in the process. My comments on the REO end here.
Next, I will talk about Head 26 ― Census and Statistics Department (C&SD). One major task of the C&SD is to conduct statistical surveys and operate statistical systems for the production of social and economic statistics including data series on such areas as population, external trade, commerce and industry, labour, prices, national income and Balance of Payments. The estimated expenditure for the C&SD this year is $610 million. No Member has proposed any Committee stage amendments (CSAs) to this head of expenditure because they know that statistics play a very important role in the development and policy formulation of a city or region.
However, I believe some Members may be aware that Ming Pao Daily News reported on its front page for three consecutive days from 7 January 2013 about the alleged fabrication of data by C&SD staff, resulting in Hong Kong Government grossly underestimated the seriousness of the problems of unemployment and "sub-divided units". The report had aroused widespread concern in society. The press report quoted the words of a front-line survey interviewer, "as many as 50% of the survey interviewers are suspected of fabricating data in the monthly General Household Survey conducted by the C&SD … For example, when interviewing unemployed persons, the interviewers will often falsely record in the questionnaire that the unemployed person does not intend to return to the labour market". They do so to avoid asking about 12 follow-up questions to reduce the time taken for the interview and enhance their performance efficiency. "… such practices have turned many unemployed persons 'invisible'."
In addition, the report also quoted the words of a Miss A, "As the Department attaches much importance to unemployment figures, many questions in the questionnaire are related to unemployment. If the interviewee is unemployed, the supervisor will surely review the questionnaire and thus the interviewer may be tempted to avoid asking the questions on unemployment". The interviewer hopes that the completed questionnaires will involve fewer 10434 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 unemployed persons, so as to avoid the review by the supervisor, and the time taken for the interview will also be reduced. The aim is to avoid subjecting the questionnaires to reviews and avoid making mistakes. "In order to conceal the truth and indicate that the unemployed interviewee has no intention to return to the labour market, the interviewer has to fabricate in answering the question on 'whether the interviewee can start work within seven days'. In doing so, the interviewer will selfishly and falsely record that the unemployed interviewee 'cannot start work in seven days', falsely claiming that the interviewee left the labour market to become a full-time housewife, due to sickness or retirement, and so on. Hence, the interviewer can avoid asking many follow-up questions. If the interviewee said that he or she can 'start work within seven days' and wants to stay in the labour market, 12 more questions have to be asked and that will be time-consuming".
The report also pointed out that "Prof WONG Hung of the Department of Social Sciences of The Chinese University of Hong Kong has issued a number of reports in which he questioned the accuracy of the official unemployment figures, in particular, he considered that the unemployment rate of women had been understated. He said, 'Members of the academia are aware that many unemployed women have actually not been included in the official figures of unemployment and the accuracy of the figures is doubtful'. If C&SD staff have collectively fabricated the data, the conclusion of the academia has been proven correct. He said, 'If many unemployed women are falsely described as housewives, the number of unemployed persons will be smaller'. He estimated that the number of concealed unemployed women may reach 10 000".
(THE CHAIRMAN'S DEPUTY, MR ANDREW LEUNG, took the Chair)
My second point is about "sub-divided units". It is reported in Ming Pao Daily News that according to a front-line interviewer, when a large group of interviewers conducted home visits and discovered that a flat comprised of "sub-divided units", they would falsely record that "Nobody responded to the interviewer's calls" and would not conduct any interview on the flat. The reason is that according to the performance indicator of interviewers, interviews conducted on households of four "sub-divided units" in a flat will be considered as one interview, but four questionnaires have to be completed, meaning that the interviewer will get pay for one questionnaire despite having to complete four LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10435 questionnaires. Therefore, interviewers would avoid such cases as far as possible and refrain from conducting interviews on households of "sub-divided units". Consequently, the Government may underestimate the unemployment rate and the number of "sub-divided units". The actual situations of the unemployed and households of "sub-divided units" have not been truly reflected over a long period.
Lastly, according to the General Household Survey conducted by the C&SD in 2012, the rate of unoccupied flats was as high as 10% to 11.4%. The rate of unoccupied flats was fake. In January 2013 when the C&SD was alleged to have fabricated its data, the rate of unoccupied flats suddenly dropped to 8.2%. People doubt that the C&SD has restrained its fraudulent practice after the disclosure of the alleged data fabrication incident.
Dr CHUNG Kim-wah, Director of Centre for Social Policy Studies of The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, pointed out that the rate of unoccupied flats in the past was only 3% to 4% and he failed to understand why that rate as recorded by the C&SD was so high. He added that even if there was deviation, it should only be 1% to 2% and therefore, it was hard to understand why the rate of unoccupied flats recorded by the C&SD was as high as 10% each time. As such, he suggested the authorities to conduct random checks on a small number of interviewed cases, or assign senior staff members to conduct interviews with some interviewers to ensure the authenticity of the data recorded. However, after investigating the matter for almost three months, the authorities published an investigation report concluding that there was not sufficient evidence showing data fabrication.
The Chairperson of the Investigation Task Force on Statistical Data Quality Assurance is Mrs Lily OU-YANG, Commissioner for Census and Statistics. She said that the Task Force did not rule out the possibility that individual field officers had misapplied personal judgment. In effect, she was saying that the interviewers concerned did not intend to fabricate, they had simply failed to follow the guidelines. The Task Force recommended to establish a Departmental Committee to oversee and co-ordinate the quality assurance of the General Household Survey and to conduct a comprehensive review of the existing fieldwork management system of the C&SD. However, to date, we fail to see the establishment of any independent Departmental Committee to oversee the work of the C&SD.
10436 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014
In fact, there are more examples of wrong estimations in other areas by the C&SD which I will not list out in detail. One of these examples is the significant error in population projection. It was estimated in 1997 that the population would be 7.79 million in 2011, but the actual population was 7.1 million, representing a difference of almost 10%, and it is believed that there will be an even greater deviation between the actual population and the estimated population 20 or 30 years later. The truth is, the C&SD has over-estimated the population all along. It has either failed to meet professional standards or "deliberately over-estimated the figures", so as to dovetail with the plans of other departments. On the basis of such figures, we can hardly make any correct assessment. The Government has to rely on the data provided by the C&SD in formulating poverty alleviation policy, population policy and labour policy, and members of the academia have to rely on such data to conduct studies. Therefore, I hope the C&SD can make some improvements.
Finally, I have to make two requests to the C&SD out of good intentions. I hope the C&SD can, in conducting the by-census in 2016 … the authorities have already earmarked resources for conducting the 2016 Population By-census. I hope that certain basic information can be added. For example, in collecting data on population by sex during the by-census, I hope that the choice of gender X can be added to the options of male and female. Furthermore, apart from adding the option of same-sex cohabitation relationship, I think the C&SD can also include other options of different sexual orientations for the public to choose. I have made these requests because without the statistics, policies cannot be formulated. Although the relevant data will be hard to collect and the public may not necessarily tell the truth, if no attempt is made to collect such data, it will never be available.
I so submit.
DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, just now I should have cited Rule 39(b) of the Rules of Procedure to interrupt and point out that Mr CHAN Chi-chuen's previous speech should only focus on the relevant head of expenditure in accordance with Rule 68(3). However, Mr CHAN did not think so and considered that I raised the question because LEUNG Chun-ying is my good friend.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10437
I hope that they should not be so shameless, okay? We are only doing our work. Although I speak in support of the Government, I do hope the Hong Kong Government can continue with their work without being frequently "interrupted" by the four of you. I consider that Mr CHAN has offended me, because he implied that I have ulterior motive in raising the question. Therefore, I raise my objection. Thank you.
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): I did not say she has ulterior motive. Actually, she has a good motive.
(Members discussed among themselves)
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I remember that Dr CHIANG Lai-wan had once said in public that she trusted LEUNG Chun-ying because she was familiar with him. Why was there a problem? She said that as …
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): She does not trust him now.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I find it very weird. At the time when Members were discussing whether an inquiry should be conducted on LEUNG Chun-ying, she said she knew him well and trusted him.
DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, I know you and sometimes I trust you, but that does not mean you are my friend.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr CHIANG, please sit down. Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, do you wish to speak?
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Yes, I do.
10438 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Please continue.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): To save trouble, I will not talk about Dr CHIANG Lai-wan. First of all, Deputy Chairman, I am going to discuss head 114 relating to the Office of the Ombudsman (the Office). As the Legislative Council also has the Complaints Division, we will not be unfamiliar with the handling of complaints, and many Honourable colleagues regularly go downstairs to the Complaints Division to deal with complaint cases. However, unlike the Complaints Division, the operation of the Office is publicly funded and it has certain powers under the relevant ordinance.
What role does the Office play in Hong Kong? I would like to discuss a survey conducted by the Census and Statistics Department, the department which has just been criticized by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen. A survey was conducted in 2008. People were asked if they knew that they could lodge complaints to the Office when they felt aggrieved. Of the 100 respondents, only more than 15 of them knew that they could lodge complaints to the Office. In fact, only about a quarter of the respondents knew that the Ombudsman had the right to investigate matters of public concern. In other words, they thought that … the Office would only conduct investigations upon receipt of complaints, which was not the case. The Office can investigate various matters considered to be of public concern. Among the respondents, 65% of them learn about the Office from television. That was fine. People had very high public expectations of the Office. How high was their expectation? About 65% of them hoped that the situation that they complained about would not happen again after their cases had been handled by the Office.
Deputy Chairman, not many people know about the Office, but after they have learnt about the Office, they consider that it plays a useful role. Should we do something to enable the public understand more about the Office? Should its powers be enhanced? Let us see … I have said numerous times but Mr WONG Kwok-hing is absent again. I have said numerous times. Mr WONG Kwok-hing asked us why we have to speak on items to which no amendment has been proposed. The reason is that I ask for additional funding. In 2014-2015, the funding for head 114, that is, the Office, has actually increased. What is the rate of increase, Deputy Chairman? The increase rate is 0.3%. If inflation is taken into account, the funding has decreased instead of increased, right? In other words, the expenditure for the Office will, after adjusting the factor of inflation, be reduced. How can the Office effectively serve the public? With LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10439 regard to public awareness … money is needed for broadcasting advertisements on television and for taking other actions. Hence, in my view, the expenditure for the Office under head 114 should be increased substantially. However, let me reiterate again, this Council does not have the right to request the Government for an increase in funding. Thus, I am just expressing my views during this discussion about whether the sums for the head should stand part of the schedule.
Many people do not understand where the powers of the Office come from. In fact, the powers of the Office are conferred by the Ombudsman Ordinance. What is direct investigation that I have just mentioned? Honestly, it is more effective for me to give an explanation than placing advertisements because many people are watching the broadcast of my speech today. If the Ombudsman considers that there is maladministration or unfair treatment of members of the public by government departments or public organizations under its purview, he has the power to carry out investigations. People need not report to the police. The Ombudsman can conduct an investigation so long as he sees the need to do so. Thus, the Office is effective to a certain extent in handling cases in which people are aggrieved or in which people have no means to address their grievances. We certainly know that the Ombudsman is subject to certain restrictions under the Ombudsman Ordinance such as his powers are restricted to certain areas, but we are not going to discuss this issue right now. Similarly, the Legislative Council cannot deal with matters involving the police for they should first be referred to the Complaints Against Police Office, so on and so forth.
In this connection, with only a 0.3% increase in the estimate expenditure, the Office can hardly extend its scope of direct investigations because money is needed for the investigation work. Therefore, members of the public earnestly hope that the Ombudsman would redress their grievances under the Ombudsman Ordinance. They hope that the Office can, within its term of reference, conduct investigation on the maladministration of government departments or public organizations. One example is the Mega Events Fund (MEF). If the MEF is within the purview of the Ombudsman, an investigation can be conducted by the Office, and I need not state repeatedly in this Chamber about the Dragon and Lion Dance Extravaganza. Why has the money given not been received, and where has the money gone? An investigation can be conducted, right? An investigation cannot be carried out at present because there is no funding or the terms of reference of the Office are not clear enough. Let me give another simple example. Does the Office only accept cases of complaints as quite a number of people have thought? That is not the case, and I am going to talk about one of its biggest contributions. On 20 March last year before the 10440 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 filibuster, the Office took the initiative to carry out an investigation on public records management, because the Ombudsman has found some clues though nobody had reported the case to the police. Public records management was one of the most important functions of Government because important government policies were all kept in public records. These public records not only help us monitor government administration, but also allow the Government to exercise self-monitoring. Public records are also the historical relics of a place.
When we visit museums in foreign countries, they are all the same with books and records, but we cannot find such things in Hong Kong, right? I think the remarks of the Office represent the views of 90% of Hong Kong people but the Government has yet to make any changes. According to the Government, under the current system, non-confidential records would automatically be made open for public inspection after 30 years; that is, we can look up these records. However, for confidential records, even if they have been kept for 30 years or more, the Policy Bureaux or departments responsible for creating the records will first review such records to decide whether they would be open for public inspection. In other words, government departments can determine whether the records would be open for public inspection after 30 years. Is this too bad? Hence, it is useful for the Office to take the initiative to carry out investigations.
Why is it useful? In other jurisdictions, applications of government organizations for refusing to make public records or closing the records for periods exceeding the specified limit need the approval of the Government and an independent advisory body. In other words, access to information requires the approval of an independent body. The Office has been discussing the subject since last year. I originally intended to draft a bill on archives law but unfortunately I am not competent enough. The Office considers that the Administration should review the system of closing records, particularly the period of closure and whether it is still necessary to consider the level of confidentiality of the records. A problem with our record system is that there are no objective criteria on the grading of records. For example, if I, "Long Hair", become the Secretary and I consider that certain information concerning by my Policy Bureau cannot be disclosed, I thus classify such information as "confidential" or "top secret", so as to avoid washing the dirty linen in public. Therefore, the Office has done something beneficial to Hong Kong. Another year has passed and I do not know what this Council has done to confidential records, and what Mr WONG Kwok-hing has done. Nothing has been done. In that case, why am I not allowed to express my views? I do not know if LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10441
Mr WONG is aware of this incident; if so, I hope he would also express his views as well, he should not blame others. Can he stop being so naughty? Being ignorant and lazy in making any preparations, he asks other people not to sit for the examination. How can he behave like that?
Deputy Chairman, once again, this proves that we are fulfilling our responsibilities of offering advice in this debate about the sums for the head standing part of the schedule. I reiterate that expenditures cannot be increased and it is outrageous to reduce expenditures. Are we not having a discussion? We should note that there is a 0.3% increase in the expenditure estimate; do we still have to blame the Office? The Office does not have funds for maintaining the original services, let alone expanding services, and this rate of increase is even lower than the inflation rate. In that case, the Office will have less funding than before. What should be done? I hope Mr WONG Kwok-hing will no longer practise Chinese calligraphy in this Chamber because he is not really that good. I also hope that he would not leave the Chamber for tea, he should answer my question. What are his opinions on this issue? He said that there are solutions A to J; does he really have any understanding of these matters? If he is not going to speak, I would assume that there are problems with his personality. He said that it is a waste of time for others to speak. I have finished speaking and I would like to ask him if he agrees that the Office should be given such a small increase in expenditure? This is the first question. The second question is not merely directed to Mr WONG Kwok-hing, but all other Honourable colleagues present: Do they agree that the Office should be given such a rate of increase. Do they agree that the Office's proposed confidentiality system of records should be properly reformed? If they agree, they should approve the funding application to help the Office perform the direct investigation duty, right? Do Honourable colleagues understand what I have been saying for the past 15 minutes? Direct investigation requires funding.
Deputy Chairman, in summing up, I really feel that I have become more ambitious after getting a fierce scolding from Mr WONG Kwok-hing; and I should really make a greater effort to learn. I am grateful to Mr WONG Kwok-hing who is ignorant, incompetent and foul-mouthed. There is a saying, "feed scholars with dog food"; let me be the scholar as I would certainly make greater efforts. Thank you, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, but let me advise you, deny no more, it does not matter if you have milk tea, you did have tea.
10442 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, this should be the last time that I speak on an item to which no amendment has been proposed. Every time when I speak, I will focus on the expenditures for a few heads, and I will comment on or criticize the performance and operation of the departments concerned. Some comments have never been made by other Members before.
Deputy Chairman, I will be very brief as I just wish to comment further on head 184 that I have just discussed. Just now, I mentioned that the use of certain funds under head 184 seemed like a maze. I wish to clear the maze and the relevant expenditures can be made in order to help different people.
Under "Head 184 ― Transfers to Funds," one of the key items is the Capital Works Reserve Fund. The expenditures of the Capital Works Reserve Fund include land acquisition and capital subventions. Deputy Chairman, we are recently rather concerned about the Shatin to Central Link (SCL), and as I have just mentioned, the Capital Works Reserve Fund involves a number of areas of expenditures. With the recent discovery of the Sung Dynasty historic relic and a number of important historical remains in implementing the SCL project, I believe the expenditures involved will definitely exceed the original estimates of expenditure of the project. Therefore, if the expenditures can be partially covered by this Fund, amounting to nearly $5 billion … I do not know if there are other projects that would share this amount of money. I believe that, in terms of priority, if a substantial amount of funds are needed for the works in relation to the historical remains recently found in implementing the SCL project, and the Government may not have put aside sufficient funds, the reserve fund can be of great use. As we all know, when the SCL had the problem of cost overrun, the Secretary thought that the MTRCL might be able to catch up with the progress and he did not mention anything about money. I wonder if they were covetously eyeing the $5 billion fund, hoping that the amount could be used to meet the additional expenses of the Express Rail Link. Instead of using the money to meet the additional expenses of the Express Rail Link, it would be better to use the money to preserve our valuable historical remains. Many precious things in Hong Kong have gradually disappeared, including the core values of Hong Kong people; I hope these valuable historical remains in Hong Kong would not disappear because of money or insufficient estimates of expenditure.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10443
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?
(No Member indicated a wish to speak)
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, in this debate session, we are examining whether the sums for the 14 heads to which no amendment has been proposed stand part of the schedule. Generally speaking, these 14 heads cover 11 government departments and organizations, including the Audit Commission, the Auxiliary Medical Service (AMS), the Census and Statistics Department, the Civil Aid Service, the Government Laboratory, the Office of the Ombudsman and the Registration and Electoral Office (REO), and so on. Members have already considered in great detail the sums for each head at the special meetings of the Finance Committee held in early April. Each head is an important component of the Government's annual estimates of expenditure. I have noted the comments made by Members about the estimates of expenditure of the Hong Kong Observatory (HKO), the AMS, and so on.
In 2014-2015, the estimates of expenditure for the HKO are over $250 million. The HKO provides weather forecasts and issue warnings to the public, special users, the shipping community and aviation groups in order to reduce loss of life and damage to property, and minimize disruption to economic and social activities during hazardous weather. The Central Forecasting Office and Airport Meteorological Office of the HKO are responsible for the preparation and issue of weather information, forecasts and various warnings on hazardous weather to the public, the shipping community and aviation groups. The HKO also promotes public awareness of, and community preparedness for, natural disasters.
During 2014-2015, the HKO will: (1) continue to upgrade its TV studio facilities in support of the new TV weather services; (2) enhance media weather services to meet the rising needs of the media and the public; (3) continue to enrich the contents of its website in response to the evolving needs of the public and to further develop the delivery of weather services through mobile and social networking platforms; (4) enrich the content of the Digital Weather Forecast service taking advantage of the latest technological advancement; (5) install replacement computing facilities to support the enhancement of nowcasting 10444 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 service, and enhance the computing network gateways of the HKO to improve security, efficiency, reliability and compatibility in data communication with external systems in support of the HKO's mission-critical services, as well as acquire a new Light Detection and Ranging system to replace the ageing system at the south runway at the Hong Kong International Airport (HKIA); and (6) conduct an initial study of the windshear condition of the proposed third runway of the HKIA.
The HKO monitors ambient radiation levels in Hong Kong and conducts radiological measurements on air, soil, water and food samples. In the event of a nuclear emergency, the HKO will notify and advise government departments on the possible consequences in Hong Kong and recommend protective action. Besides, the HKO organizes training and exercises on radiation monitoring for other government departments involved in the Hong Kong contingency plan for nuclear emergencies. During 2014-2015, the HKO will continue to implement the agreed arrangements between Hong Kong and Guangdong on radiation monitoring and assessment; continue to conduct drills and exercises on emergency response in conjunction with other government departments as well as the relevant Guangdong counterparts; and continue to organize training on radiation monitoring and assessment.
The HKO maintains the Hong Kong time standard and provides time signals for the public. During 2014-2015, the HKO will continue to provide climate information and data to users efficiently and enhance the climate information webpage for more user-friendly access; continue to study as well as to promote public understanding of climate change impact on Hong Kong, especially in the light of Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change's latest assessment; and continue to keep abreast of storm surge, earthquake and tsunami risk assessment in the region.
Members have also talked about the AMS. The estimates of expenditure for the AMS in the year 2014-2015 are approximately $80 million. The AMS is responsible for providing volunteer medical services to assist the Department of Health, the Hospital Authority and the Fire Services Department during emergency situations, as well as supplementary volunteer medical services to government departments and outside agencies during peace time. It also provides paramedic training to disciplined services staff and other appropriate civil servants to enhance their operational efficiency and effectiveness.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10445
During 2014-2015, the AMS will enhance the volunteers' operational efficiency on emergency preparedness for influenza pandemic, and provide paramedic training to cope with infectious disease prevention and control.
The AMS will continue to recruit members to the cadet corps with the ultimate goal of recruiting a force of 3 000 cadets by 2019, and provide decontamination training to AMS members for response to nuclear emergencies at various discharge points and contact points in remote areas and monitoring centres territory-wide.
Members are also very much concerned about the work of the REO. The estimate of expenditure for the REO in the year 2014-2015 is over $260 million. The REO aims to provide the Electoral Affairs Commission with administrative support for the effective discharge of its statutory functions under the Electoral Affairs Commission Ordinance and to ensure that elections are conducted openly, honestly and fairly. The REO will, under the direction of the Electoral Affairs Commission, implement the decisions of the Commission in relation to the review and delineation of geographical constituencies for the Legislative Council and District Council constituencies, the registration of electors, and the conduct and supervision of elections.
During 2014-2015, the REO will continue to provide the Electoral Affairs Commission with administrative support in connection with its work, which includes: (1) the conduct of a voter registration exercise, including the updating of the registers of electors and the related publicity measures to encourage eligible persons (including young persons in particular) to register as electors; (2) the conduct of checks on electors in the current register in respect of their registered particulars, including cross-matching exercise with other government departments; and (3) the review of overall electoral arrangements with a view to providing better services to electors and candidates in future elections.
I have briefly responded to the views expressed by Members. Deputy Chairman, these are my remarks, and I implore Members to support that the sums for the heads stand part of the schedule.
Thank you, Deputy Chairman.
10446 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the sums for the above heads stand part of the Schedule. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr Albert CHAN rose to claim a division.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for five minutes.
(While the division bell was ringing, THE CHAIRMAN resumed the Chair)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please proceed to vote.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): A number of Members present including Mr Albert HO, are not going to vote.
(The Members concerned nodded to indicate agreement)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please check their votes. If there are no queries, voting shall now stop and the result will be displayed.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Dr LAU Wong-fat, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Dr LAM Tai-fai, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mr IP Kwok-him, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10447
Mrs Regina IP, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Miss Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan and Mr Tony TSE voted for the motion.
Mr Frederick FUNG, Mr Ronny TONG, Mr Alan LEONG, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen and Mr Dennis KWOK voted against the motion.
Prof Joseph LEE abstained.
THE CHAIRMAN, Mr Jasper TSANG, and Mr Albert HO, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr James TO, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Ms Cyd HO, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che, Mr WU Chi-wai, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Mr SIN Chung-kai, Dr Helena WONG and Mr IP Kin-yuen did not cast any vote.
THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 55 Members present, 35 were in favour of the motion, seven against it and one abstained. Since the question was agreed by a majority of the Members present, he therefore declared that the motion was passed.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Fourteen Members have respectively given notices to move a total of 1 192 amendments to reduce the sums under various subheads of 69 heads.
Taking into account that the Bill covers the financial resources for the implementation of various initiatives announced in the 2014 Policy Address, I have decided to conduct five joint debates on the 1 192 amendments broken down by the policy areas and subject groupings in the debate on the Motion of Thanks of the Policy Address. The themes, scopes, orders and details of the various amendments are set out in Appendices 1A to 1E attached to the Script.
10448 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will proceed to each of the joint debates in the order as set out in Appendices 1A to 1E attached to the Script.
Upon conclusion of the aforesaid five debates, Committee will vote on each of the amendment in the order of heads as set out in the Bill. After the votes on all amendments, questions that the sums of each of the 69 heads with amendments stand part of the Schedule shall be put to vote one by one in the order of the heads.
CLERK (in Cantonese): Heads 21, 30, 31, 45, 46, 72, 74, 80, 92, 94, 112, 121, 122, 136, 142, 143, 144, 151, 169 and 174.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee will now proceed to the second joint debate which covers the amendments to the heads read out just now. The theme of this debate is "Governance, Constitutional Development and District Administration".
The policy areas covered in this debate are constitutional affairs, administration of justice and legal services, district administration and building management, civic education, human rights, security, as well as public service.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Mr WONG Yuk-man, Ms Claudia MO, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr Gary FAN, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Mr James TO, Dr Helena WONG, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che and Ms Cyd HO have respectively given notices to move a total of 280 amendments to reduce various sums of 20 heads, including the above heads read out just now. The contents of their amendments are all within the scope of this debate.
I will first call upon Mr Albert CHAN to speak and move Amendment No 1 as set out in Appendix 1A attached to the Script, to be followed by Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Mr WONG Yuk-man, Ms Claudia MO, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr Gary FAN, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Mr James TO, Dr Helena WONG, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che and Ms Cyd HO respectively; but they may not move the amendments at this stage.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10449
MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, last time you said that the objects displayed in the Chamber should be related to the scope under discussion. May I ask if the objects displayed in this Chamber are related to the agenda under discussion now?
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now ask the Member who displays the object to explain.
MR WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese): Chairman, the object I now display is of course related to the discussion of this item. Today is the second day of the filibuster. Assuming that $2.55 million of public fund is wasted for each day of the filibuster, the public fund wasted so far is $5.1 million. Therefore, I hope that the Chairman will cut off the filibuster as soon as possible. The object, which resembles a pair of golden scissors, has been on display since day one and it is related to the whole agenda.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr WONG, the first joint debate was concluded a few hours ago. I understand your worries, but I suggest you remove the object for the time being and display it when you truly find a filibuster going on.
As the first joint debate is over and the second debate has just started, your claim of a filibuster is, in my view, not substantiated for the time being. As I told the Members concerned last time, I hoped they would demonstrate with their actions they were not filibustering, so that other Members did not need to make such gestures to show their stand. Mr WONG, please remove the object first and consider displaying it only when a filibuster is actually going on.
MR WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese): Chairman, a filibuster has in fact taken place already.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): During the debate last week and this morning, I paid very close attention to the contents of Members' speeches and no Member 10450 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 has indicated the wish to filibuster, which is of course an objective fact. I still ask Members to wait till there is sufficient evidence to prove that the debate has become tedious and meaningless, indicating a filibuster is going on, before expressing such a view. That will be more appropriate.
MR WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese): All right, Chairman, I accept your suggestion but I do not wish to see the result of "the farmer and the snake".
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, what is the meaning of "the farmer and the snake"? I really have no idea.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, you can find the explanation on the Internet. Mr Albert CHAN, please move the motion and speak.
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I hope that the Member will respect the Chairman's ruling. I will formerly speak when he has removed the object.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr WONG Kwok-hing, please remove the object displayed first.
MR WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese): I am removing the object. The Member who wish to filibuster please continue to speak.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I can stand no more because according to the Rules of Procedure …
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10451
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, Members cannot stand up to speak at will. If a Member wishes to speak, he must indicate first and wait till I have called his name before he can stand up and speak. Mr LEUNG, if you breach the Rules of Procedure, you know that I will not allow you to remain in this Chamber.
Mr WONG Kwok-hing, please remove the object displayed quickly.
(Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung raised his hand in indication)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, what is your point?
(Mr Albert CHAN stood up)
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, as Mr WONG Kwok-hung is removing the object so slowly, can you suspend the meeting first and resume the debate after he has removed the object?
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I see that Mr WONG has removed the object. There is no need to suspend the meeting.
Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, what is your point of raising your hand?
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I would like to ask the Chairman to make a ruling. While I am exercising my power and function in accordance with the Rules of Procedure, I am accused of wasting public money. Does it mean that everyone is wasting public money? This is an insult to this Council. How come only I will be involved? Otherwise, Chairman, you would have thrown me out of this Chamber already.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, please sit down.
10452 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Is there a problem?
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): When a Member accuses another Member of violating the Rules of Procedure in his speech, he must state his justification and I will make a ruling after listening to his presentation. My ruling will be final. However, if a Member criticizes another Member in his speech, as long as he has not violated the Rules of Procedure, the Member being criticized may by all means make a response through proper channels and that does not involve the Rules of Procedure. I urge Members not to disrupt the meeting any more.
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I hope that you would make a ruling whether Mr WONG Kwok-hing is filibustering in respect of your ruling. His motion is so slow.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I see that Mr WONG Kwok-hing has removed the object displayed. Please speak and move the motion now.
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, he acts so slowly as if he is suffering from Parkinson's disease.
Chairman, I move that Amendment No 1 as set out in Appendix 1A attached to the Script be passed.
Chairman, the fight of the progressive democrats against the unjust Budget formally starts now. Chairman, there is no special reason why I am the first Member to speak, not because I, "Hulk", am heavy but because I am the first one to submit the amendments and this amendment is the first item on the list. Amendment No 1 is: "Resolved that head 21 be reduced by $99,111,000 in respect of subhead 000". That is to say, the estimated expenditure for the CEO, which includes the expenditures for the Executive Committee, the salaries, allowances and other operating expenses of the CEO, as well as the non-accountable entertainment allowance payable to the Chief Executive, and so LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10453 on, will be reduced from $99,112,000 to $1,000. The purpose is to practically wipe the CEO out from the earth.
(THE CHAIRMAN'S DEPUTY, MR ANDREW LEUNG, took the Chair)
Deputy Chairman, why do I have to reduce almost all the official and personal expenditure for the Chief Executive? The reason is that ever since "689" was elected, he has been practically ruling Hong Kong with lies. A person who won the office of the Chief Executive and governs Hong Kong with lies should be spurned. If this Council has the power or if the people have the genuine means, they should force the Chief Executive to step down. Maybe the Chief Executive should "castrate" himself.
Deputy Chairman, regarding the performance of "689", other than ruling Hong Kong with lies, he has also caused the deterioration of the entire territory since his assumption of office, which is both disappointing and infuriating. His previous pledges of "one country, two systems" and "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" have now blatantly turned into "Hong Kong communists ruling Hong Kong", that is, "the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in Hong Kong (LOCPG) ruling Hong Kong" in disguise. The co-existence of two power centres has gone as the power centre in Central is under the direction of the power centre in the Western District. All relevant officers are appointed by the LOCPG and the CEO has been downgraded to being a messenger. If the LOCPG has any special orders, the CEO will act accordingly.
As regards the staff employed by the CEO, some are civil servants as in the past, but quite a number of staff are appointed for political reasons and some of them are from Chinese-funded institutions. Some may say that the situation under the British colonial rule was just the same. At that time, the Governor of Hong Kong also had some political assistants and political advisors deployed from Britain to work in Hong Kong. That was the feature of a colonial government. As the sovereign state did not trust the local people, it had to appoint its own people to assist the colonial governor in his governance. Hong Kong was subject to such a humiliation when it was a colony. After the return of the sovereignty, the colonial practice should have changed. However, 10454 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 unfortunately, the historic humiliation brought by the Opium War remains, with the ruler changed from the British colonial government to the LOCPG.
In review of the series of incidents, it is evident that the overall operation of the CEO is not in line with the principle of "Hong Kong people's high degree of autonomy". In the light of the quality of the CEO and the performance of the leaders concerned, "689" in particular, we should absolutely not allow him to remain in office.
The many pledges made by "689" during his election campaign have proved to be lies. When he first assumed office, he took pride in formulating the policy of "Hong Kong property for Hong Kong residents" and incorporating such policy as a requirement in bidding for certain land plots. However, this policy disappeared suddenly in recent days, as if it no longer exists if it is not mentioned. Finally when people ask about this policy, he does not give a clear account of it. All in all, in the past year, the public have strongly felt that the policy of "Hong Kong property for Hong Kong residents" no longer exists.
Moreover, during his election campaign, he pledged to progressively reduce the proportion of accrued benefits attributed to employer's contribution in the MPF account that could be applied by employer to offset long-service or severance payments. I believe many trade unions accepted this pledge as the condition in exchange for their support for him. However, though he has been in office for almost two years, there is no sign that he will carry out any consultation on the proposal, let alone implementing it.
On the other hand, he promised CHAN Yuen-han that he would set the maximum working hours. The Federation of Trade Unions said firmly at that time that "689" would set the maximum working hours after he won the election. However, so far, no specific measures have been taken, not to mention a timetable. Will the Government accept it? We have not seen any specific arrangements made.
In his election manifesto, he said that he would study the impact of our ageing population on public finance and he would set up a special Fund. As far as we understand, that was equivalent to universal retirement protection (URP). Many amendments proposed by "Long Hair" and proposals put forward by LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10455 political parties on the Budget are related to URP. When "689" made the pledge, many media had specially covered the news. They considered that "689" was someone who did real work, someone who made specific pledges and proposals to address the needs of the grassroots. But he totally forgot these pledges as soon as he won the election. The proposal on URP to meet the extra expenditure needed by reason of the ageing population to provide elderly care, medical and health services in the years to come has become an empty promise and a lie. He has no plan to implement it, not to mention setting a specific timetable.
Free early childhood education is another specific measure listed in his election manifesto, but as we all know, he has never given an account of this. Recently, a kindergarten in Tin Shui Wai was forced to terminate its operation due to rental problems. People in Hong Kong are greatly concerned about childhood education. Many people do not understand that the sudden termination of the operation of a kindergarten may leave a lifelong psychological and emotional impact on children attending that kindergarten, and they may never overcome from the adverse impact. For us who have studied in social work, we are very concerned about the psychological development of young children. It is a crime to cause young children to suffer lifelong psychological impact as a result of rental problems. The Government should be condemned for its failure to assist the parties concerned in resolving the problems, thereby inflicting harm on the children. The CEO should be mainly tasked to assisting the Chief Executive to implement the above policy objectives and deliver his election pledges, as it has failed to do so, it is just fair that its expenditure should be scrapped.
Deputy Chairman, the purpose of the CEO is to provide support to the Chief Executive, but apart from assisting him in planting vegetables, I fail to see what the CEO has done, or perhaps it has helped the Chief Executive to make arrangements for his vacation and reserve flight tickets. I think the incumbent Chief Executive is the number one Vacation Chief Executive in history, because soon after assuming office, he took vacation leave. In general, an employee has to work for a whole year before he is allowed to take leave. As the Legislative Session begins in October, Members at least have to wait till Christmas before they can take a small break. Of course, Legislative Council Members have more leave days than many members of the general public. But this Chief Executive is truly formidable. He took paid leave not even a month after assuming office, which was absolutely absurd. One of the biggest successes of the CEO may be 10456 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 its assistance to the Chief Executive in arranging his vacation tours and reserving flight tickets and hotel rooms for him.
Other than providing support for the Chief Executive, the CEO is also responsible for organizing the Chief Executive's public and social engagements, carrying out related arrangements, managing the Government House and the Chief Executive's country residence in Fan Ling, as well as ensuring that the Chief Executive receives the best advice and support for the formulation and co-ordination of policies and also the governance of the HKSAR Government. However, in the past year, with the exception of the views and directions of the LOCPG, many views of the public submitted to the CEO were like stones dropped to the bottom of the sea. Is it because the CEO is partial in listening to views or is it especially keen on listening to views of the "LEUNG's fans"?
Since a system has already been established, there is no need for having so many people to help him collect and process the relevant views. Basically a phone call from the LOCPG is enough to resolve all problems. The LOCPG has more staff, thousands of them, responsible for the intelligence collection system of the entire CEO, information analysis, contact with the Chief Executive … After winning the election, the first thing LEUNG Chun-ying did was to go to the LOCPG to visit his "godfather" and thank him for its vote canvassing. There he grinned like a Cheshire cat. Before thanking the 689 persons who cast their votes in his favour, he went to the LOCPG first, but the LOCPG did not have a vote. Dr LAU Wong-fat, 40 or 50 members of Rural Committees had voted for LEUNG Chun-ying, but once he assumed office, he wanted to demolish your houses, destroy your home, take back your land and annihilate your ancestors. How arrogant he was after he was elected. Although the LOCPG had no vote, he thanked the LOCPG for its vote canvassing.
Since he has the support of the LOCPG, the representative of our great mother country with plenty of resources, money and talents, we should just let the LOCPG continue to back him up and there is no need for the CEO to provide assistance for him. We have no reason to waste over $90 million on the CEO which only arranges tours and books flight tickets for him, right? As for his country residence in Fan Ling, which is only used for entertaining "LEUNG's fans", taxpayers have no reason to let him use it to thank his supporters for their vote canvassing. His performances in the areas mentioned above are gravely disappointed.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10457
Mr Albert CHAN moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that head 21 be reduced by $99,111,000 in respect of subhead 000."
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, like Mr Albert CHAN, I propose to reduce the expenditures for the Chief Executive's Office (CEO). As mentioned by Mr Albert CHAN, the CEO has the function of assisting the Chief Executive in his administration, but I will show Members what the CEO has done over the last year. Certainly, that will take us to what the Chief Executive has done because he is authorized by the Basic Law to represent Hong Kong.
I went to see a doctor today and he said that I have recovered from my leg injury after half a year. Members may be aware of the incident which caused heated discussions in this Council half a year ago. The incident involved the Chief Executive's decision of not issuing a licence to a certain organization. Why do I particularly pick this incident for discussion? That is because the incident involves two factors. First, it involves the Executive Council which I will talk about later but not for the moment, because later I will present my proposal to reduce the honoraria for Members of the Executive Council. At this point, I will only talk about the CEO.
During the whole process, has the CEO assisted the Chief Executive to make an appropriate decision? We really cannot see that it has. The Chief Executive has to handle much work every day. I call him a Chief Executive of "compensated dating". He spends a lot of time in China to develop his so-called business opportunities; that is what he has told us, he goes to China for our sake. Therefore, he spends relatively less time in Hong Kong to handle the administrative tasks. Considering that the Chief Executive spends very little time in Hong Kong, what has the CEO been occupied with? When the master is not in Hong Kong, will the servants have anything to do? Considering this point, if no change is made to the establishment of the CEO, the services it provides will not be able to meet the needs. Why is that so? I believe LEUNG Chun-ying cannot move the CEO to China or to any other place he visits. What I mean is that the CEO is different from what it previously was. Once the Chief Executive leaves the jurisdiction of Hong Kong, the CEO cannot offer him any help. This can be reflected from the myriad of blunders committed by LEUNG 10458 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014
Chun-ying over the past year. He alone made the decision of rejecting the application of HKTVN for a licence. That is a case in point.
I have once raised a simple question in this Council ― as Mr WONG Kwok-hing is now in the Chamber, I wonder if he knows the answer. Can he enlighten me? Is there any other jurisdiction in the world where the decision of issuing a licence to a television broadcaster will be made by the head of a country or a region? No, there is none. Such case would not have happened. In fact, up till now, the Chief Executive has not given an account on this highly sensitive incident, and I cannot do anything about it. Deputy Chairman, it actually implies that nobody can give advice to the Chief Executive. The problem is, there is no place in the world where the issue of a licence to a television or radio broadcasters will be decided by the head of the place. I notice that Mr WONG Kwok-hing is now leaving the Chamber, every time I talk about this matter, he will leave. I think the CEO should be held responsible.
Worse still, although the Chief Executive's handling of the HKTVN incident has caused great discontent, and the authorities have to face a judicial review, LEUNG Chun-ying has remained unrepentant and even proposed to set up an Innovation and Technology Bureau again. That is one of the Bureaux in the package of "five Secretaries of Departments and 14 Directors of Bureaux" which had been bogged down by some Members and I through raising questions in this Council two years ago. Chairman, why do I talk about this matter? First, the matter shows that the Chief Executive is bold enough to provoke the public in exercising his powers. Nobody understands why he did not issue a valuable business licence to a promising organization which had invested and done a lot of work in the sector, but instead granted a licence to an organization which has been incurring losses over a long period of time, that is, Asia Television Limited. On this matter, the Chief Executive cannot have any defence. However, the authorities now propose to set up an Innovation and Technology Bureau again and the Chief Executive has totally put the past behind him. On this point alone, the CEO has not assisted the Chief Executive in attaining sensible governance.
Second, Deputy Chairman, I believe you would be tired of hearing me ask about the Chief Executive's company incorporated in the British Virgin Islands (BVI company) again. Deputy Chairman, LEUNG Chun-ying has done something which none of his predecessors dared to do, and he has set a bad precedent. As head of the Government, he owns a BVI company, the business of which is not subject to investigation and no information will be disclosed to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10459 outsiders. We think this kind of company is established for evading tax or concealing its business. No matter I hurl things at LEUNG Chun-ying, directly ask him questions, or ask his representative, Secretary Prof K C CHAN in this Council, still the question remains unanswered and we are left with a mystery. Has he given up the BVI company or has he, through a trust, assigned another person to manage the BVI, as he has said? It remains unknown. Imagine a Member has asked the Chief Executive about the financial conditions of his hidden company five times, but still no answer has been given. How can he do so? It is not surprising that the Chief Executive has not replied; it is not surprising that an accountability Secretary has not replied, but the CEO has to remind the Chief Executive that he cannot just ignore the question. In my view, this is a very simple question which everyone in Hong Kong wants to know the answer. How come the CEO has not reminded the Chief Executive to answer the question raised by me, LEUNG Kwok-hung, on how his BVI company operates and what its businesses are?
That is a very simple question. Deputy Chairman, I have written to the CEO and ask the question again, because unlike Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, I am not a friend of LEUNG Chun-ying ― Dr CHIANG said that she trusted LEUNG Chun-ying because she knew him; I cannot do so because I do not know him ― hence, I wrote to the CEO to make enquiries, but it has not given me any formal reply. Deputy Chairman, from these two incidents, I consider that the CEO has not assisted the Chief Executive in improving governance.
I want to clarify another matter. Since the assumption of office, Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying has often visited the districts to consult the public. It is a good thing to consult the public, but Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying, or "689" as we call him, has intensified conflicts and instigated demonstrations every time he visited the districts. This is because his supporters would go to the districts to oppose the demonstrators which resulted in conflicts. I wonder if the Chief Executive should visit the districts under such circumstances. Should he consider if there are better options? But Deputy Chairman, he has not considered these questions.
Let me give a simple example to show that the CEO has been negligent. Secretary TSANG Tak-sing is now in the Chamber and I want to ask him about the incident in which I went to Chan Hing Social Service Centre in Tai Kok Tsui to petition to the Chief Executive. Visits to the districts by the Chief Executive should be co-ordinated by the Home Affairs Bureau and the CEO. However, it 10460 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 is regrettable that there are no barrier-free access facilities in Chan Hing Social Service Centre, the venue for the consultation. Persons with disabilities do not have direct access to the hall. In other words, persons with disabilities cannot take part in the meeting. Luckily, on that occasion, people recognized that I am a Legislative Council Member and so they asked four people to carry me to the hall to listen to the Chief Executive. I think people who made such an arrangement deserve a spanking. After LEUNG Chun-ying assumed office, he has proposed a barrier-free access plan, so that there will be escalators, lifts or ramps in all traffic black spots and major roads to provide barrier-free access facilities for everyone. However, in his visit, a hall which is not accessible by persons with disabilities has been chosen as the venue. I do not know if that is the fault of Secretary TSANG Tak-sing ― since he is in the Chamber, he can reply later ― did Secretary TSANG Tak-sing insist that should the Chief Executive visit Tai Kok Tsui, Chan Hing Social Service Centre would be the best place because it was conveniently located; or is that the fault of the CEO? In my view, even if Secretary TSANG Tak-sing or his subordinates were foolish enough to discriminate against persons with disabilities, the CEO should object to the proposal and it should have visited the site first.
Deputy Chairman, I was at the scene on that day, and four hundred to five hundred police officers were also present. In other words, all the police force had been mobilized outside the venue to control the crowd who could not participate in the consultation meeting. The authorities had deployed four hundred to five hundred police officers to be on duty at the scene which involved a substantial amount of public money. However, they had not given due consideration to people like me who had obtained the ticket but could not climb up the flight of stairs to reach the hall. That was a very dangerous and disgraceful arrangement. When the Chief Executive does something which is politically incorrect, it would bring shame to us.
Deputy Chairman, these are the two points which I will mention for the time being. I hope Secretary TSANG Tak-sing will reply later whether it was he or the Chief Executive who insisted to go to Chan Hing Social Service Centre. Otherwise, he would be wrongly accused.
I have cited two concrete examples to show that as an office to assist the Chief Executive, the CEO has not only been careless, but also not sensitive enough and it has no idea that the head of a government should avoid doing anything which is politically incorrect.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10461
There is one other point which I would like to mention. However, it is almost time now and Mr WONG Kwok-hing has left the Chamber again. What I want to talk about is related to him. Come back, Mr WONG Kwok-hing. I am going to talk about the case in which the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions (FTU) has been cheated.
Back then, the FTU gave all its votes to LEUNG Chun-ying the rogue because he said he would legislate on standard working hours. The FTU was certainly very happy and thought that giving its votes to a rogue could at least achieve a good purpose. However, two years have gone by and all LEUNG Chun-ying has done was to establish a committee to study whether legislating on standard working hours is feasible. Deputy Chairman, Mr WONG Kwok-hing certainly has to leave this Chamber because what I have said shows that the FTU is stupid, or silly, or bad (The buzzer sounded) … I will talk about this issue later.
MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): In less than two years after LEUNG Chun-ying assumed office, Hong Kong is not just a city of demonstrations, but a super city of demonstrations. At least one demonstration is held each week; the venue covers Hong Kong Island, Kowloon or the New Territories, and very soon even Lantau Island would also be covered. People can choose which demonstration to join.
LEUNG Chun-ying has committed many serious blunders in governance and the list is too long to be exhaustive. I will mention just two or three major blunders which I think are more serious. His concepts are wrong, but since they are only concepts, it is difficult for people to notice the mistakes. His biggest sin is that he has been telling people privately or openly that the executive and the legislature should collaborate. Any university student who has studied political science will know that separation of powers is the most basic spirit upheld in any civilized society; the powers of the executive, the legislature and the judiciary are to be separated for mutual checks and balances. However, LEUNG Chun-ying said that the three powers should collaborate. In fact, thanks to the royalists and the pro-establishment camp, this Council has indeed been in collaboration with the executive authorities. The royalists and the pro-establishment camp have obtained benefits from the support given; in other words, they have appropriated "pork barrel spending". Therefore, each District Council has received a funding of $100 million and we know what it is all about. Anyway, these people can take what they want.
10462 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014
The second sin of LEUNG Chun-ying is that he has betrayed Hong Kong under the pretext of China-Hong Kong integration. Regrettably, Secretary TSANG Tak-sing is the only public officer in attendance. He is only responsible for home affairs, but what I am going to talk about are the serious blunders in policy implementation of the entire Government. LEUNG Chun-ying has betrayed Hong Kong, but he has tried to cover that up with "hypocritical rhetoric". Let me describe in detail. I have invited this person called LEUNG Chun-ying to have a meeting with my political science students at The Chinese University of Hong Kong. He told them that he attached much importance to promoting "homeland relationship". What is "homeland relationship"? By now, everyone is clear that the so-called "homeland relationship" does not mean promoting the relationship with Hong Kong people; it means socializing with Beijing regularly. However, he is not qualified to socialize with Beijing; he is basically only taking orders from Beijing and that is what promoting "homeland relationship" is all about.
After LEUNG Chun-ying has assumed office, he has appointed officials on the basis of affinity which is obvious to all. His hands are certainly tied by Beijing too. I think it is regrettable that Secretary Prof Anthony CHEUNG is responsible for transport and housing because he is actually an educator. LEUNG Chun-ying's entire governing team is like a private club. As he is not even sure about who is familiar with which policy area and who should be responsible for which tasks, he has plunged Hong Kong into a terrible mess.
It is obvious to all that the executive and the legislature are collaborating. While some Members proposed to conduct an inquiry into the incident of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link project (XRL), others raised objection and suggested that time would be better spent in dealing with the problems at the site. I am surprised that people can make such a wrong suggestion, as if nobody needs to be accountable for the incident. Since the water has been spilt on the floor, just wipe it dry. The cost overrun of the project may amount to tens of billions of dollars. Should anything go wrong, the project may cost hundreds of billions more two or three years later, and the money will have to be paid by taxpayers, will it not? LEUNG Chun-ying is certainly a taxpayer too, but he does not have to pay the additional amount all by himself.
Some Members proposed to conduct an inquiry into the report on the marine disaster. The request was simple, it was not actually a demand for an inquiry, sorry, it was only a demand for disclosure of the report, but such request LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10463 was rejected. We requested for invoking the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance to demand the authorities to disclose the report, but the authorities said that it was not appropriate to do so and sounded as if they were committed to safeguarding the rule of law. However, Mr Dennis KWOK, the Member representing the Legal Functional Constituency, once moved a motion in this Council to urge the Government to safeguard the rule of law, but the motion was negatived. It is ridiculous, is it not? The deformed relationship between the executive and the legislature has been put in the limelight in Hong Kong like a drama show day after day.
Although the pan-democratic camp has obtained almost 60% of the votes, has it obtained close to 60% of the seats in this Council? Certainly not. If we think for a while, we will know what has happened and what kind of system it is. Therefore, LEUNG Chun-ying's Government can behave badly as the number of his supporters in this Council has outnumbered us. No matter what kind of justice we are talking about, the Government pays no heed and will not discuss with us about political ethics or political justice. All the Government wants is that Members will vote against, object to or abstain from voting on all of our proposals. The executive will then be supreme. As members of the public have many grievances, they can only stage demonstration every day and when they do so, they are called rioters and populists. The Government considers that it has never done anything wrong and the only problem is that people are ungrateful.
Some people say that China-Hong Kong integration is a strong trend which cannot be stopped. However, it is most shameful that LEUNG Chun-ying has used concepts which have popular support to package his idea of China-Hong Kong integration, which actually means betraying Hong Kong. Consider the example of the market of 3G spectrum. The Government required incumbent operators to surrender one third of the spectrum that they were holding to be re-assigned through auction. That would be a good thing, would it not? Who would raise any objection to a proposal of opening up the market and introducing competition? However, it turned out that the market would only be opened to one company called China Mobile, and it was also the only competitor to be introduced into the market. It was said that the matter involved an investment worth hundreds of millions of dollar, not a peanut stall, and hence, not any company would be qualified to compete. The way that the Government handled this matter has already scared away an overseas company. The company dared not invest in Hong Kong because of what had happened.
10464 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014
Furthermore, the Government has put forward a fuel mix proposal as if it is very concerned about environmental protection. Hong Kong has to protect the environment, but so does the Mainland, right? The fuel mix proposed by Secretary WONG Kam-sing actually boils down to opening up the market again. He claimed that the proposal would end the prolonged monopolization by CLP Power Hong Kong Limited. That will be a good thing because options will be available if monopolization is struck down. Mind you, that is not what will happen. The future is even more worrying because the China Southern Power Grid will be the sole operator without any other option. Again, it is a Chinese-funded institution. In the future, not only our water supply, but our electricity supply may also be suspended.
Speaking of freedom of the press, it is something which the Chief Executive's Office and the Government respect so much that they will not touch upon. It was most shocking that the Chief Executive wrote to the Hong Kong Economic Journal in his personal capacity to threaten Joseph LIAN, a scholar. What is wrong with the Chief Executive? A Member from that side of the Chamber responded by saying that the Chief Executive also enjoyed freedom of speech. We were surprised to hear such ignorance words. Can the identity, status and powers of the Chief Executive be disregarded totally? Turning to Ricky WONG and the Lion Rock spirit which he upholds, has the Government given them due respect? The Communications Authority has racked its brains to defeat him by letting him buy a questionable mobile television licence for $100 million.
On the other hand, the Communications Authority will allow television broadcasters of Hong Kong to produce editorial programmes starting from 1 July this year. In the programme, the guest will be given a reasonable period of time to respond to criticisms, but the guest cannot speak too much because the interviewer may say that he or she has not been named as the subject of the criticisms, regardless of the fact that the guest has been the subject of discussion in the programme. The guest who has been criticized in the programme cannot speak too much because the total response time is 25 seconds and no more than 25 seconds will be broadcast. The clip can be edited in a fragmented way too. That is so ridiculous. If the guest admits that he is foolish, can the broadcaster only broadcast the clips of his nodding? Have these people worked in a television broadcaster before? Do they know what television production is all about?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10465
In passing, I have to praise the News and Public Affairs Division of Asia Television Limited for doing a marvelous job. If I remember correctly, on Monday evening when the Chairman of The Law Society of Hong Kong (I cannot remember his name now) was interviewed in English, he refused to answer in English and asked the reporter to interpret his answers into English. Is Hong Kong not Asia's world city and is English not our official language? That truly reflects the current situation. The refusal of the Chairman of The Law Society of Hong Kong to reply in English is surely not the fault of LEUNG Chun-ying; it is a reflection that Hong Kong has been mainlandized, or perhaps the person in question speaks Putonghua more fluently than English.
On the subject of mainlandization, we have had many discussions before. Mr Gary FAN and I have proposed to set an upper limit on the number of tourists travelling under the Individual Visit Scheme (IVS) and cancel multiple-entry permits as early as late 2012, but has anything been achieved? Since 2009, the number of tourists travelling under the IVS has increased by eight times. That is ridiculous, is it not? A city with a population of more than 7 million may have to receive 100 million visitors in nine or 10 years, how is that possible? However, Secretary Gregory SO said that there would be no problem and asked us to wait a longer time to board the next train and be more patient. Look at the mess that the XRL has got into. The problem is not merely to board the next train, we do not even know when railway service will be available. The Government has been totally insincere in serving the people. It shirks responsibilities and tries to cover things up. The Government has shirked responsibilities and claimed that the management of the XRL has concealed information, without knowing that these people may have learnt the bureaucratic practice from Government officials and play the hypocrite with every semblance of sincerity. They would grasp every opportunity to shirk responsibilities.
Freedom of the press in Hong Kong has been eroded by the Government so that people have become astute enough to exercise self-censorship. As people do not trust the traditional media, online media has risen to power and become the fifth estate. Being aware that the fifth estate has become so powerful, the Government quickly announced that it will set up the Innovation and Technology Bureau this year. Since Ricky WONG is so good at innovating, the Government can consider incorporating his business under the purview of this Bureau and appointing him to the proposed position of Secretary for Innovation and Technology. Is that possible? I think the Government should do so. In fact, I do not want to hear Members asking one another in this Chamber whether they 10466 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 are interested in becoming the policy secretary of the proposed Bureau. That is shameful indeed shameful, how can the executive collaborate with the legislature in such a way!
I do not know what Mr WONG Ting-kwong's criticism about me is right now. Even the Deputy Chairman has not criticized what I have been saying …
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I cannot hear what Mr WONG Ting-kwong is saying. Please continue, Ms MO.
MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): Thank you very much. Strangely, the proposed Cultural Bureau …
(Mr WONG Ting-kwong spoke loudly)
MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): Do you hear him now?
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr WONG Ting-kwong, this is the time for Ms Claudia MO to speak.
MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): The proposal of setting up a Cultural Bureau was LEUNG Chun-ying's idea and he intended to appoint Ms Florence HUI as the Secretary. Why has this plan not been pursued and why has the proposal to set up an Innovation and Technology Bureau been put forward in a rush? Does the proposed establishment of an Innovation and Technology Bureau really have nothing to do with Internet control? Regulations similar to those stipulated by the Communications Authority can be imposed on online media any time and it will be useless for the Legislative Council to raise any objections. Once regulations have been set down, even Hong Kong In-media or House News have to obtain a licence.
While Hong Kong is suffering from a shortage of land, the large piece of reclaimed land at the waterfront of Sham Shui Po will be used to build a hotel. I asked the Planning Department why the site would be used to build a hotel and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10467 the reply was that it was the Government's policy. So I wrote to the Chief Executive and asked him the policy based on which he made the decision. His reply was that he believed in the professional judgment of the Planning Department. Policies and practices supporting the ideas of the executive collaborating with the legislature and China-Hong Kong integration only serve to betray Hong Kong. Thank you.
DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, the joint debate which we are having today certainly includes my amendment to reduce the salary of Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying and the salary of the Commissioner of Police, TSANG Wai-hung.
Regarding this amendment, I would talk about LEUNG Chun-ying first. Why do I propose to reduce his salary in this Budget? Before the Chief Executive assumed office and when he was running for the election, he had repeatedly said that he would be a Chief Executive who cared for the grassroots. He expressed his great concern about the problems of poverty, retirement of the elderly and the perplexities of the underprivileged because of the wealth gap. As far as housing is concerned, noting the poor living conditions of many Hong Kong people, he repeatedly demonstrated his determination and sincerity in becoming a Chief Executive for housing. Recently, he again said that not only should the people of Hong Kong have a place to live, they should also live in a better environment. When he visited Tianjin recently, he specifically said that he hoped Hong Kong people could enjoy more spacious living area.
Deputy Chairman, it has been two years since the Chief Executive assumed office. When running for the election, LEUNG Chun-ying clearly stated in the section on land planning on page 17 of his manifesto that, "Hong Kong is not short of land; what we lack is a holistic and long-term approach towards planning … It has become clear that timely provision of land resources of an appropriate scale is critical to the sustainable development of Hong Kong". He clearly said that Hong Kong is not short of land; it lacks planning. In the section on housing on page 35, he reinstated in the fourth paragraph that "there is no lack of land in Hong Kong. What is lacking is long-term planning".
Deputy Chairman, I visited Shek Wu Hui in Sheung Shui last week with a group of kaifongs who live in "sub-divided units". To my surprise, there are "sub-divided units" in Sheung Shui and Fan Ling as well. When I was young, I 10468 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 used to live in Sheung Shui. At that time, there were low-rise, low-density residential developments in Sheung Shui and Fan Ling. We did not have village houses. I cannot imagine that Sheung Shui and Fan Ling have many "sub-divided units" now.
The kaifongs told me that the current rent is very expensive, but the living environment is not stable. They said that most of the "sub-divided units" in Shek Wu Hui are built on rooftops. According to a social worker working in the area, there are about 2 000 households living in this kind of "sub-divided units" in Shek Wu Hui alone. Since the lower floors of the buildings have been rented to parallel traders as temporary warehouses or for other commercial purposes, most of the "sub-divided units" are located on the third floor, that is, the rooftops. Hence, these building structures are exposed to the sun and rain. When there is a thunderstorm, the structures will wobble and be dangerous. In addition, the structures are subject to water seepage and may collapse under strong wind.
As the Deputy Chairman may be aware, one special feature of these "sub-divided units" is that residents have to cook on top of the toilet bowl because there is no kitchen. They use the remaining living space for sleeping and eating and for children to do homework and other activities. Sometimes there will be a storage space under the floor. If there is some space near the bed, a rice cooker will be placed there. Otherwise, people have to cook in the toilet. As the toilet is small, they would cook on a wooden plank over the toilet bowl and place bottles of seasoning on top of the cistern.
According to official statistics, about 170 000 people are living in "sub-divided units" in Hong Kong. This figure has been criticized by some groups as a gross underestimation. What has our Chief Executive done for these low-income residents living in such poor conditions? He said he would build public rental housing (PRH) units for them to improve their living conditions as soon as possible. However, from the Director of Audit's Report released recently, we noticed that it would be impossible for the Government to fulfil its pledge or promise of three-year waiting time for PRH allocation. Even if we consider the 10-year housing plan of the Chief Executive to provide 470 000 housing units, the number will not be enough to meet the demand. In addition, the land owned by the Government at present will not be sufficient to build the units as planned. Furthermore, the current production volume falls far short of the demand. Although 20 000 PRH units may be completed every year, 240 000 households are already on the PRH Waiting List. Even if the production target LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10469 can be met and considering that 7 000 PRH units will be surrendered every year, the housing demand of the people currently on the Waiting List cannot be met.
Therefore, Deputy Chairman, before LEUNG Chun-ying became Chief Executive, he cried out loud that he was very concerned about the housing problem and would assist the grassroots to improve their living conditions so that people could live and work in peace and contentment in Hong Kong. But that is not true. When can people live in peace and contentment? We have recently met with the Alliance for Concerning Grassroots Housing Rights, a group representing the grassroots. They have conducted a study recently and found that for 40% of the residents of "sub-divided units", their rent take up 43% of their income. "Sub-divided units" are premises with extremely poor living conditions which I have just described, but the rent is not cheap and the rent per square foot is actually even higher than that of luxury residential properties. The rent of "sub-divided units" also takes up more than 40% of the income of low-income households. They sweat and toil in their work for a place to live, yet they cannot lead a stable life because the tenure of the lease is often less than a year. To add to their predicament, the landlords will install additional water meters and electricity meters to demand higher electricity and water charges from them. Their basic living expenses have thus been seized by unscrupulous landlords.
Since the Government has promised to provide PRH housing for people in three years, we propose that the Government should provide subsidies to people who have been on the PRH Waiting List for more than three years, but LEUNG Chun-ying said that such measure would push up the rent for "sub-divided units". So, we propose that the Government should implement rent control to restrain the increase rate of "sub-divided units". Frankly speaking, as landlords have sub-divided their properties to profiteer, it is only reasonable to limit the rate of rent increase. However, LEUNG Chun-ying said he would not do so and rent control was definitely out of the question. If rent control will not be implemented, rent subsidies will not be provided and PRH housing developments will not be expedited as clearly pointed out by the Audit Commission, nothing will be done in reality. How dare he say that he cares for the grassroots?
Deputy Chairman, the Chief Executive not only said that he was concerned about housing, he also said that he cared about poverty alleviation. His manifesto was full of pleasing words. He said on page 25, "The per capita real GDP of Hong Kong rose by 33.5% from 1997 to 2009. However, during the same period, the income of the group having the highest 10% per capita 10470 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 household income increased by 64.7%, while the income of the group having the lowest 10% per capita household income dropped by 22.2%. It would seem that there are many in our midst who have not benefited from our economic growth. As a result, community groups see bigger and bigger disparities between their interests". He had clearly and correctly pointed out the problem of wealth gap with concrete figures. But has anything changed after he has assumed office? According to the figures provided by the Commission on Poverty, our poor population accounted for almost 20% of the total population and even if post-social transfer household income is used as the basis for calculation, the percentage is still more than 15%. With such a high percentage of poor population, how can we be proud of Hong Kong? Has LEUNG Chun-ying done anything at all?
On retirement protection for the elderly, LEUNG Chun-ying has adopted stalling tactics. Once he has assumed office, he asked Members to pass his proposal of "special fruit grant" immediately. Later, the grant was renamed as Old Age Living Allowance, but asset assessment was also introduced. That is not the retirement protection system that Hong Kong people want. So, what has he done? He has not performed well in poverty alleviation. Regarding the elderly, he promised … on page 46 of his manifesto to "[study] how to introduce short, medium and long-term measures to solve the problem of elderly poverty and improve the present social security and retirement protection systems". However, has he made any improvements? Apart from introducing the Old Age Living Allowance, he has insisted on the provision of a "bad son statement" in applying for Comprehensive Social Security Assistance. This requirement has attracted severe criticism. This problem has made many elderly people unable to get the assistance which they desperately need.
Regarding people with disabilities, the Chief Executive said on page 48 that he would "study and implement strategies and measures to shorten the waiting time for daytime training and residential services". Deputy Chairman, the Chief Executive has assumed office for almost two years. What studies has he conducted and what plans has he implemented to shorten the waiting time for daytime training and residential services? Over the last two years, the waiting time has only become longer and longer. He also said that the Government would "allow people with loss of one limb to apply for Disability Allowance", but the relevant studies are still going on. I believe this initiative will not be implemented even when he steps down.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10471
Deputy Chairman, the Chief Executive has made many promises, but how many of these have been fulfilled? In connection with education, he said he would consider developing "a curriculum and assessment criteria for 'Chinese as a Second Language'" for ethnic minority children. Later, the plan is changed and consideration will be given to developing a framework for "Chinese as a Second Language". What does it mean? It means we will not even know if there will be any curriculum or assessment criteria. In other words, a glass ceiling is installed in the system which will act as an invisible barrier. Many ethnic minority students cannot be admitted into universities because they fail to obtain a pass in Chinese Language in public examinations. Hence, ethnic minority communities will have to live in poverty and they will never make a mark in society.
On page 41 of the manifesto, the Chief Executive said he would "review the effectiveness of integrated education", but almost two years after he assumed office, has he reviewed any of the matters which we have requested? He said he would "plan ahead with the distribution of kindergarten/child care centres and primary schools" and "begin work on the introduction of 15-year free education as soon as possible". Is there 15-year free education today? That is still a subject under discussion by a committee.
Deputy Chairman, the Chief Executive has established a number of committees to keep the discussions going, so that his promises … I have not talked about other problems such as standard working hours and the use of accrued Mandatory Provident Fund benefits to offset severance payments and long service payments, I will leave them to our party leader Mr LEE Cheuk-yan. The Chief Executive has kept on using stalling tactics. He has performed poorly not only in areas concerning basic livelihood issues, but also in relation to housing on which he has attached the greatest importance. Since we have given the Chief Executive almost two years' time, I can now pass the judgment that he is guilty of dereliction of duty.
Therefore, in this Budget, I propose to reduce the total amount of the Chief Executive's salary. I think he should show his remorse by contributing his salary which is something that he can well afford to do. Thank you, Deputy Chairman.
10472 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014
MR LEE CHEUK-YAN (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, just now Dr Fernando CHEUNG said that his amendment aims to slash the entire salary of the Chief Executive., which reads "Resolved that head 21 be reduced by $5,056,752 in respect of subhead 000". Similarly, my amendment also targets at head 21 by reducing it by $5,056,063. And yet, Members should be able to see the difference because according to my amendment, LEUNG Chun-ying will receive a salary of $689. We certainly think that his entire salary should be slashed and he should step down, but given that he received 689 votes and 689 people have voted for him, we should at least pay him $689 as salary on behalf of the Government.
Notwithstanding that, LEUNG Chun-ying does not deserve any salary from the pocket of Hong Kong people. Nor should he remain in the post of the Chief Executive. Bearing the sin of bringing calamity to Hong Kong and the people, LEUNG Chun-ying has been criticized time and again in this Council. Members may recall that at the beginning of this session, he has been criticized for his first most serious sin, the integrity problem. His integrity has been called into question from his unauthorized building works to the policies implemented. Everyone knows that he has been telling lies and protecting himself with "hypocritical rhetoric". Undoubtedly, his first sin must be the integrity problem. Yet, I am not going to dwell on this point as his sins are countless. If Members refer to the records of this Council, they may … All Members are keeping their eyes on the Chief Executive, and can always give examples of his integrity problem.
His second major sin is the betrayal of the "one country, two systems" principle and the interests of Hong Kong. Members may recall that when the Chief Executive delivered his Policy Address, he cited the successful example of a Hong Kong student doing business in Guangxi. I nonetheless find his message pretty frightening because he was actually telling all Hong Kong people that opportunities were no longer available in Hong Kong, and have all gone to the Mainland. Can Members imagine why a state leader would betray the interests of his people to such an extent? The Chief Executive was trying to tell Hong Kong people that they should all earn a living on the Mainland. He is even worse than other Mainland provincial governors or mayors. All local governors or mayors would promote their places, even in the Mainland ― let me leave out mayors elected under a democratic system in democratic countries for the time being ― even for Mainland provincial governors or mayors, they will do their best to step up the promotion of their places in the hope of retaining jobs and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10473 investments. Our Chief Executive has nonetheless betrayed the interests of Hong Kong people to an extent that, instead of promoting Hong Kong and highlighting the opportunities here, he has promoted the opportunities available in the Mainland. What is the point of doing so? How can Hong Kong further develop then? This is indeed very insulting to Hong Kong people.
Members may remember the glorious history of Hong Kong from the Xinhai Revolution ― people may find out how Hong Kong had contributed during the Xinhai Revolution by taking a trip to the heritage trail on Hong Kong side ― to the period of reform and opening up, during which Hong Kong has contributed with its economic management and operation. Today, we are still making lots of contribution. Although our legal system, our universal values as well as our democratic and free system are being attacked and infringed upon, Hong Kong people should be proud of these values, and should take pride in having the opportunities to possess and persistently safeguard these values. Instead of giving such remarks, our Chief Executive only told Hong Kong people, "Hong Kong will finish, so better go to the Mainland!" This is nothing but flattering. The crux of his governance is to prove himself a puppet of the Chinese Communist regime and implement its policies in Hong Kong, and that all his glories would go to the Central People's Government. Likewise, all opportunities are in the Mainland. This is why he always stresses the reliance on our Motherland, and in turn Hong Kong has been losing our edges. Not only do we have our own edges, we should develop them. But the Chief Executive has done nothing but badmouth our edges day after day until we no longer tap on these edges. Given that he has betrayed Hong Kong, does he deserve receiving any salary from Hong Kong people?
His third major problem is, as we can see, all his social policies have caused serious division and dissension of society. People originally have a choice in television programmes, but he has left us with no choice. We have all seen the nasty tricks played by him to refuse granting a free television licence to the Hong Kong Television Network Limited. The same thing happens to national education. Although he insisted to push it forward, he compromised in the end. Yet, we are still worried that he might break up the elements of national education into small parts and continue to use Putonghua to teach Chinese language in schools. In fact, this has gradually eroded the characteristics of the Hong Kong society and our stance on language.
10474 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014
We can therefore see that all policies implemented have resulted in serious division of society. Regarding the conflicts between Hong Kong and Mainland residents, if our Chief Executive can introduce some policies to alleviate the conflicts, their relationship will not become so tense and Hong Kong people will not be so infuriated. These are imminent problems. Not only has rental increased, commodity prices have also surged. But it seems that our Chief Executive can do nothing about them, thereby leaving the conflicts between Hong Kong and Mainland residents unattended. After all, this is attributable to a lack of policy and the fact that the Chief Executive has turned a blind eye to the problems.
I will certainly talk about the labour issues later on. But before I move on, I must state another sin of the Chief Executive. Among all Chief Executives, he is the laziest and has left Hong Kong most frequently. Comparing the three Chief Executives, he has taken vacation leave and visited various Mainland provinces and municipalities most frequently. Again, he is on vacation leave these days. Given that the post is so comfortable, it is more justifiable to reduce his salary. Judging from the number of days he has stayed in Hong Kong, he is probably worth only $689 for he has spent most of the time on vacation and has not dealt with one single social issue. Issues such as poverty alleviation, constitutional reform, and housing problems have not been addressed. Not even the recent Express Rail Link issue has been addressed. He has always gone somewhere. Why are Hong Kong people so miserable that they have to tolerate such a Chief Executive?
On the Labour Day on 1 May which has just passed, I attended a cocktail reception organized by the Government. However, it reception was not hosted by the Chief Executive on that day, but by Acting Chief Executive Mrs Carrie LAM. Where was the Chief Executive? He was in France. Why? It was the Labour Day but the Chief Executive of Hong Kong ignored local workers and flew to France to attend a wedding banquet. The two families of Mr Charles HO Tsu-kwok and Mr Peter LAM Kin-ngok formed a marriage alliance as their son and daughter got married. Anyway, the Chief Executive has gone to France to attend their wedding banquet. Instead of delivering any message about problems relating to Hong Kong workers, he has simply turned a blind eye to them. Which is more important? To him, perhaps attending the wedding banquet is more important because he is inclined towards the rich and the consortium. Why does he insist on not fighting for the rights of workers and promote their interests? The reason is that he has all along inclined towards the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10475 rich and the consortium. Therefore, his attendance at the wedding banquet has a symbolic meaning. It is more important to attend the wedding banquet of the rich than remaining in Hong Kong to help local workers or conduct a study on the interests of workers.
He has betrayed three major interests of workers. Let me start with the first one. As Members may be aware, he has all along portrayed himself to side with the grassroots with the promotion of minimum wage. Before he resumed office as the Chief Executive, the first and only time I met him was to discuss the minimum wage issue, during which he had expressed his strong support. But has he said anything about minimum wage after he resumed office? Has he indicated his support for our proposal to conduct a review once every year? No, it remains to be once every two years. A review of the minimum wage is being conducted, which was last revised on 1 May 2013. Upon completion of the current review, the minimum wage level would be revised again on 1 May 2015. The frequency of the review remains to be once every two years. Why did he pretend to promote minimum wage by highlighting its importance in those days, but upon the enactment of the relevant law by the last-term Government, he remains silent about the minimum wage being gradually eroded? The minimum wage level has failed to catch up with the CSSA level or a level that makes ends meet. But still, he looks on and does nothing. Has he betrayed workers after securing his position by taking advantage of the labour issue? This is obvious to all.
In trying to secure his position by taking advantage of the labour issue, he has made two undertakings. Firstly, promoting the enacting of legislation on standard working hours, which is obviously a big lie that cannot be true. He has again found his way out by setting up the Standard Working Hours Committee ― another example of using a committee to find his way out ― which will only finish its work before the end of next year. As Members may be aware, it will be late 2015 by that time, how can the Government introduce the relevant legislation? What is more, there will be the Legislative Council election in 2016 and the Chief Executive election in 2017. Apparently, he is buying time, hoping to pass the ball of the current-term Government to the next-term Government. Despite the fact that the last-term Government had already studied the issue, the current-term Government studies again so as to indefinitely defer the legislation. We therefore consider that this Chief Executive is cheating local workers and will not honour the undertakings made in his manifesto.
10476 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014
Another thing which he has not honoured is about the arrangement of offsetting severance payments against Mandatory Provident Fund (MPF). He has again cheated local workers. Despite an undertaking has been made in his manifesto and supposedly proposals would be made in this year's Policy Address, it turned out that the proposed arrangement was nowhere to be seen in the Policy Address after major chambers of commerce met with LEUNG Chun-ying before the Policy Address was delivered. Even though he had not undertaken in his manifesto to introduce the offsetting arrangement, he did undertake to partially remove the arrangement. And yet, partial removal has not been introduced either.
Again, the ball is passed back to the Government. Both the Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau and the Labour and Welfare Bureau claimed that the studies are now underway, but no information has been given on how and what is being studied except that the issue is very controversial. Even the completion date of the report has not been specified. There is nothing but again a scam to cheat local workers. That is why we have staged a procession on Labour Day to claim what LEUNG Chun-ying has owed us, and urge him to honour his undertakings to the workers. He also owed us the universal old age security pension, which has yet to be introduced. The Old Age Living Allowance alone is insufficient because in the absence of a universal old age security pension system, local workers do not enjoy retirement protection upon retirement. These aspirations have prompted us to stage a procession on Labour Day when thousands of workers marched to the Central Government Complex to claim back our due rights from the Government and LEUNG Chun-ying. However, he was not in Hong Kong on that day for he has to attend a wedding banquet, and as I have said, he considers attending a wedding banquet is more important than listening to the voices of local workers.
As we can see, this Chief Executive is lacking of integrity and has caused dissension of our society. He has not only betrayed the interests of Hong Kong people, but also the "one country, two systems" principle. Worse still, he is always out of town, but not for work. Last but not least, he has betrayed workers. As Dr Fernando CHEUNG has pointed out in the last session, he has also betrayed the interests of local residents as well as applicants waiting for public housing. These people are either paying exorbitant rents or living in "sub-divided units" with increasing rents, which have not gone up once every few LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10477 years, but year after year, and will continue to surge without any restraint. However, he has done nothing at all. Noting that people's livelihood has been deteriorating, is he worth $689 only? Thank you.
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, we have now moved on to the second joint debate, which involves 69 heads with amendments, but I have only proposed amendments on three heads. This part has altogether 280 amendments, of which 27 are proposed by me. They cover three heads, including eight amendments for "Head 30 ― Correctional Services Department (CSD)"; 14 amendments for "Head 122 ― Hong Kong Police Force", and a total of five amendments for "Head 142 ― Government Secretariat: Offices of the Chief Secretary for Administration and the Financial Secretary". They add up to a total of 27 amendments.
(THE CHAIRMAN resumed the Chair)
The theme of this session is "Governance, Constitutional Development and District Administration". I certainly support the amendments proposed by other Members on the Chief Executive's Office, the Executive Council, the Central Policy unit as well as the Government Information Services. However, I would like to first deal with my own amendments for the time being and will therefore focus on head 30 about the CSD in this session. I have proposed eight amendments concerning the CSD, aiming to reduce certain expenditures under the subhead to $1,000, or to entirely slash the remuneration for CSD staff. They are the major direction of my following speech.
I remember that last year's debate on the CSD was extremely controversial. Being very concerned about the well-beings of the inmates, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung was worried that a reduction of CSD's expenditure would undermine the well-beings or basic human rights of the inmates. While we fully appreciate his concern, I hope Members would understand, although we can propose amendments to the Budget during the Committee stage, we do not have the authority to increase the expenditures for certain items even if we are not satisfied with them. And yet, Members can do it the other way round. If the Government has not done well, we may simply cut all the provision or retain part 10478 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 of the provision. For example, Amendment No 93 proposed by LEUNG Kwok-hung involves subhead 118, which is related to the annual expenses on meals for correctional institutions. He proposes to completely slash the proposed expenses. At a first glance, Members might think that completely slashing the annual expenses on meals means that the inmates would have nothing to eat. Is it our wish to see them starve to death? Of course not. Although we think their meals are not satisfactory, we do not have the authority to increase the relevant expenses. But given that our Government is pretty "cute", it always does things against our wish, or refuses to do what we wish. Following this logic, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung proposes to completely slash the expenses on meal for the whole year. Next, I will comment on the meals and from which … I wonder if the meals has improved when compared with last year, and I guess Mr LEUNG would probably move an amendment in this regard.
I will first elaborate the possibility of completely slashing the expenditures for the CSD. From my personal angle, I think this is possible as the CSD can be privatized or industrialized, and may even make profits. As a matter of fact, there are also cases of the police or military force being privatized. My idea sounds pretty innovative and I have already briefly mentioned about it last year. However, due to the time constraint, I did not go into detail. Prisons or the so-called correctional institutions may not necessarily be government-run, they can be privately-operated. I have collected some information to convince Members. In the early years, the Florida Senate had discussed a motion on the privatization of prisons, proposing that the government-run prisons in the 18 provinces of South Florida be privatized. According to the supporters, of the seven privatized prisons in South Florida, four have lower inmate expenses than other government-run prisons. With the privatization of correctional institutions, about 19 000 inmates have been placed under the supervision of private organizations and the Government has achieved savings as a result. Therefore, this is not impossible and it all depends on whether or not the Government has an innovative mindset.
Another more controversial proposal is outsourcing the services, and I just want to bring this out for a brief discussion. Perhaps some people may find it too sensitive to have the inmates serving their sentences outside the territory, but there are overseas precedents. Of course, suitable location must first be identified, coupled with suitable supervision. Regardless of whether the prisons are privately or publicly operated, the quality of the outsourced services should LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10479 not be lower than that of public prisons. I just want to unleash Members' imagination in this regard. I am not familiar with the Mainland, but I guess many Members would have strong views if inmates have to serve their sentences in the Mainland. And yet, the issue can be further discussed.
Let us now turn to the subheads. The programmes of the CSD cover two major areas. While we often focus merely on Programme (1), namely Prison Management, Programme (2) is about re-integration. I will provide more information for discussion later on, and shed particular light on funding.
The CSD is the third major disciplinary forces under the Security Bureau. With an establishment of nearly 7 000 staff, it is tasked to provide penal management and rehabilitation services. I noticed that the Government planned to expand the establishment of the CSD from last year's estimate 6 889 non-directorate posts to 6 933 posts in the new financial year, representing an increase of 44 posts. I wonder if Members are aware of the Director of Audit's Report No. 62 (the Report), in which there is a chapter on the recruitment of civil servants. The Audit Commission had examined 50 of the 70 open recruitment exercises of various government departments, including CSD's open recruitment exercises. Let me recap the audit findings on page 15 of chapter 8 of the Report: "… the CSD on average took a much longer time to complete its 18 open recruitment exercises … the 10 CSD exercises taking the longest time (that is, 356 to 714 days) to complete … involving 1 to 10 vacancies." CSD's recruitment procedures have been criticized as the slowest, and one example is the recruitment of a Technical Instructor (Construction and Maintenance). The CSD received a total of 477 applications, but it took as long as 714 days before an offer of appointment could be made. Another example is the recruitment of a Technical Instructor (Printing), which took 628 days before an offer of appointment could be made. This is indeed baffling. As pointed out by the Audit Commission, the CSD had taken more than one day to vet each application in some exercises, and would only invite external service providers to submit tenders for providing the test services after vetting the applications when the number of candidates to be invited for the tests was known. This has lengthened the recruitment procedures. This Council finds it difficult to understand why the CSD would act in "slow-motion" after recruitment targets have been set and requests for funding have been approved, and took so long to complete the recruitment exercises.
10480 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014
At present, the CSD administers 29 correctional facilities, including four prisons, 11 correctional institutions, three drug addiction treatment centres, four rehabilitation centres, one psychiatric centre, one reception centre, two custodial wards in hospitals and three halfway houses for discharged inmates, providing safe and humane custody of all persons committed or sentenced by the courts and persons detained under the Immigration Ordinance. On the other hand, we also notice that the facilities have been ageing after using for some time, and the CSD has renewed some ageing facilities through improvement, upgrading and expansion works as well as redevelopment plans.
We are aware that improvement works will be carried out in four correctional facilities in the coming year, including Stanley Prison, Siu Lam Psychiatric Centre and Tai Lam Centre for Women, which will incur an expense of over $100 million. Some colleagues have once visited Stanley Prison with the Panel on Security, and some of us wondered why such visit would be arranged. It turned out that there were reasons. The CSD intended to apply for funding for the closed-circuit television (CCTV) systems.
Since the CCTV systems at Stanley Prison are ageing, a funding of $5 million would be required to replace and enhance the systems. As pointed out by the CSD, most of the CCTVs have been installed for over 10 years, and as the system was largely set up on technological standards of 10-odd years ago, the videos taken are of unsatisfactory quality and they only provide black and white images in some circumstances. Worse still, the retention period of these videos is confined to 14 days only due to storage capacity of the system. The CSD therefore proposed to install a new digital CCTV system at Stanley Prison, including the installation of 2 470 high resolution cameras, and the cameras to be installed in security sensitive locations (such as restricted areas) will be equipped with video analytical function. Also, the recordings can be retained up to 31 days.
When we arrived at the Master Control Room on that day, we were amazed to find that the CCTVs were installed at different periods of time and of different models. While some have started to wear out, some gave blurred images. Therefore, at the meeting of the Panel on Security, none of us opposed the relevant funding application.
I originally intended to talk about the Tai Lam Centre for Women as well, but I am going to skip it and jump to Programme (2) on re-integration. I notice a LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10481 declining trend of success rates of the re-integration programmes within the supervision period. For the training centres, the success rate has declined from 62.1% in 2012 to 61.8% in 2013; for the detention centres, the success rate has declined from 97.8% in 2012 to 96.5% in 2013, whereas for the rehabilitation centres, the success rate has also declined from 95.5% in 2012 to 94.4% in 2013.
In fact, the CSD should aim at expeditiously providing assistance and development opportunities for the discharged inmates ― also known as rehabilitated offenders ― to help them make positive improvements and re-integrate into society, and call on members of the public to accept and support them. But why have the success rates of the re-integration programmes for training centres remained at a low level throughout the years, and even showed a declining trend? This has also called into question whether the funding for Programme (2) is value for money.
The original financial provision was $899.7 million for 2013-2014, but only $874 million has been spent, which is 2.9% less. Why is that so? Why was the CSD unable to spend the entire sum of money? In our opinion, the amount of resources for re-integration is still insufficient and extra provision will be required. However, it turns out that the CSD has failed to spend the entire sum of money, but has spent 2.9% less. After all, this is a matter of computation. Although not all the provision has been spent, it will continue to ask for more next year. Therefore, the estimated financial provision for re-integration under Programme (2) for the year 2014-2015 has increased to $906.8 million. In other words, despite that the provision has not been fully spent, the estimate will still increase by 3.8%. While it seems that the percentage increase is insignificant, it has demonstrated an increasing trend and the amount of provision requested has been increasing by a few percentage points year-on-year. Thinking that the increase is not controversial, it has kept revising the estimate upwards. However, untruth cannot stand the test of analysis. If we do some computations, the chance of securing the financial provision will certainly be lower. And, if it fails to use up the entire sum (The buzzer sounded) …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, your speaking time is up.
10482 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014
MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): Chairman, my amendment is concerned with two expenditures of the Hong Kong Police Force (HKPF). Over the past decade or so, I have been proposing amendments to the budgets for the relevant expenditures, but all attempts have been futile. But still, I consider it necessary to state my position and urge the Government to thoroughly resolve the problem by all means.
Mt first amendment aims to reduce head 122 in respect of subhead 000, that is, reducing the expenditure for the HKPF by $71.23 million, which is equivalent to the annual estimated provision for HKPF's Complaints Against Police Office (CAPO). The CAPO has long been criticized for the system of investigation by peers, meaning that the public's complaints against police officers for abuse of power would be referred to the CAPO for internal investigation. Chairman, decades ago … Recently, the Independent Commission Against Corruption (ICAC) celebrated its 40th anniversary, and 40 years ago, it was an anti-corruption unit established under the HKPF. At that time, some people queried why there could not be an independent corruption investigation organization, and the argument against the setting up of such an independent organization was that only police officers were capable of investigating corruption cases within the HKPF. Of course, there were many other reasons, but the most important of all was that only police officers were capable of investigating corruption within the HKPF. Nonetheless, the establishment of the ICAC has proved that not only police officers are capable of investigating corruption within the HKPF. While the ICAC does not only investigate corruption involving the HKPF, some people did use this as an excuse to oppose the establishment of an anti-corruption unit independent of the HKPF.
Given that the system of investigation by peers has put credibility in doubt, even innocent police officers cannot clear their names because the community at large may still cast doubt on the findings of the CAPO under the system of investigation by peers. As a matter of fact, police officers deployed to the CAPO will not work there permanently as they are not allied staff, and they will be transferred to other postings. Nor is the CAPO an independent force or department. In other words, it is possible that a police officer of the CAPO who is in charge of the investigation of an accusation or complaint concerning another police officer of a certain police district today, will be transferred to that police district the following day and establish a close working relations with the officer being investigated. Many people criticize the system of investigation by peers because not only fairness would be called into question in principle, it is also LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10483 possible that police officers in charge of an investigation may become overly sympathetic and compassionate for their peers. That is to say, if the police officer responsible for handling the complaint has previously worked with the officer being investigated and shared the latter's experiences, then members of the public may query if the former has become overly sympathetic and compassionate for the quagmire that his peer was caught. Will the transfer of postings make it possible that the police officer handling such complaints become the peer, subordinate or supervisor of the officer being investigated one day?
Worse still, from a legal point of view, the CAPO and other units have all belonged to the HKPF. According to the law and internal procedures, if the police officer lodging the complaint is being investigated by other units of the HKPF, the statements he made to the CAPO would be sent to other relevant units. Fearing that his statement might have adverse impact on the other case involving him, the complainants would refrain from giving statement to the CAPO at an early stage to avoid having their statements sent to other investigation units, or the so-called peers.
Nonetheless, these cases are only confined to the HKPF. Assuming that a person who is alleged to have trafficked drugs has reported to the ICAC that a certain police unit is suspected of corruption, the ICAC will then take a statement from him following the normal procedures and investigate in parallel if that police unit is involved in corruption. It should be noted that the statement given by the complainant would not be sent to the HKPF. This gives rise to a question of time gap. If we cannot ensure that the CAPO will conduct investigation right away to safeguard the legal rights of the complainant, the CAPO's function to expeditiously conduct investigations will thus be undermined. This is the limitation of the system.
We have explored other ways to eradicate the problem of investigation by peers. More than a decade ago, for example, the Independent Police Complaints Council (IPCC) had considered enhancing its independence by assigning civilian staff or outsiders to lead the IPCC. It ended up with strong opposition from the HKPF, and the Government did not accept it either. It should be noted that the stronger the opposition from HKPF staff, the greater is the concern of the public, who may wonder why HKPF staff would consider the investigation of abuse cases involving police officers by independent persons unfair and unfavourable. On the other hand, the greater HKPF staff resist to have investigation conducted by an outsider, the more unfair the system is in the eyes of members of the public.
10484 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014
Chairman, subject to the limitations of the system of investigation of peers, the Government seeks to address the credibility issue from a higher perspective and this is why the IPCC, whose Chinese name has changed from "警監會" to "獨立監警會", was set up many years ago. But still, no marked improvement has been made. The reason is very simple. As I have said throughout these years, although the IPCC is a statutory body, it is a "three-nos" body after all. What is meant by a "three-nos" body? It has no investigation power, no power to pass a verdict and no power to impose sanction. The Government has merely made the procedures statutory, but was reluctant to vest it with the investigation power, the power to pass a verdict or the power to impose sanction. I had once asked if the Government could grant the power of second investigation to the IPCC, which means that the CAPO would be vested with the power of first investigation, and in case the IPCC is not satisfied with the findings and considers an independent investigation necessary, the IPCC would then be conferred with the power of second investigation. Is this possible? The Government did not accept this either. In other words, the Government insisted that the IPCC should only be a supervisory body having no investigation power, no power to pass a verdict and no power to impose sanction. Chairman, this does nothing to help the system of investigation by peers, which has no credibility at all.
I want to quote the remarks made by former IPCC Chairman Mr Ronny WONG, a senior counsel. After holding the post for six years, he once said on a public occasion that instead of safeguarding people's rights, the IPCC could only ensure continuous abuse by police officers and the elimination of complaints against them. Chairman, this senior counsel was appointed by the Government. He had held the post as IPCC Chairman for six years and had personally experienced how the IPCC performed its functions before drawing the above conclusion. Chairman, I have no intention to ignore the efforts of the IPCC as our Honourable colleagues and other people from the community have, subject to the limitations of the statutory procedures, done their utmost to follow and review the relevant procedures by all means, and look into the details of the files sent to them for examination. However, if front-line investigation procedures are still carried out by the CAPO in the absence of an independent and professional unit to handle complaints against police officers, I trust that members of the public would not be convinced. Therefore, the $71 million would be wasted.
We often beg people who have no trust in the CAPO to lodge their complaints. Why? Because if there is no complaint against the CAPO, next LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10485 time the CAPO would probably say that the number of complaints has dropped, reflecting that there are fewer cases of abuse by police officers and steady improvements have therefore been made. In order not to have the complaints swept under the carpet such that even the CAPO has not received any complaint, we sometimes need to talk at length. Although the complainants may quote what I am going to say, I insist that they should lodge the complaints even if they are unsubstantiated. Or else, it will become even more difficult for us to promote the supervision of the HKPF against abuse.
Chairman, I will try to finish my speech on the second amendment within the first 15 minutes, that is, reducing head 122 in respect of subhead 103 (Rewards and Special Services). Chairman, to put it simply, that $80 million is not only informant fees, but also covers many mysterious and special expenses. They are not manpower expenses of the Security Wing, which belong to another subhead, or the expense of the Criminal Intelligence Unit (commonly known as the "paparazzi''). Nor are they expenses for the procurement of covert communication or computer search systems as hundreds of millions of provisions have already been earmarked for this purpose. Furthermore, subhead 103 is not manpower expenses for the technical service unit or telephone tapping. No one knows how the $80 million will be used. It is possible that part of it is informant fee in exchange for, say, information about drug-trafficking or the triad society. And yet, without proper supervision, how can we be sure that that sum of money is not used for dirty political surveillance?
The reason is very simple. Historically, this sum of money was an expense for a special agent unit during the Hong Kong-British era, and the Audit Commission had never conducted any independent value-for-money study on this. The number of inspections conducted by various police officers, including inspections by the Commissioner of Police and surprise inspections by the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Management), is exactly the same for each year from 2011 to 2014. While the Commissioner of Police has conducted eight inspections, the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Operations) has conducted 10 and three for the Deputy Commissioner of Police (Management). What a coincidence for the number of surprise inspections to be exactly the same for three years? Similar cases are also found in the ICAC, but it has at least set up the Operations Review Committee to examine covert cases and operations, which is absent in the HKPF.
10486 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014
Chairman, although Hong Kong has yet to legislate on the implementation of Article 23 of the Basic Law, both the Security Wing and the Criminal Intelligence Bureau have been increasing their manpower and the procurement of communication and computer equipment, which is indeed alarming. Is the Government expanding the relevant units to prepare for the future surveillance upon the introduction of legislation to implement Article 23 of the Basic Law? It can be said that the HKPF has already exercised restraint over the $80 million expenditure on special services, which is supposedly used to significantly increase the manpower of the relevant units under the name of anti-terrorist operations. In that case, this Council should be allowed to examine if the expenses are so essential subject to the law in strict confidence. Otherwise, that $80 million might be used to undertake covert operations or political surveillance against people's will. Chairman, this item should therefore be deleted.
DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I now move Amendment No 713 in relation to "Head 142 ― Government Secretariat: the Chief Secretary for Administration's Office and the Financial Secretary's Office". The amendment aims to reduce head 142 by $105,004,000 in respect of subhead 000, and the amount reduced is roughly equivalent to the annual estimated operational expenditure for the Central Policy Unit (CPU).
Chairman, why do I propose this amendment? That is because I think all taxpayers in Hong Kong should know what functions the CPU has served in spending over $100 million.
Chairman, many people do not know the functions of the CPU. People may have a vague idea that it is a think-tank of the Government to advise the Government in respect of policy formulation or the Government's political work. However, digging deeper, we will find that the CPU is like a "political black hole" and a "policy black hole". We do not know how it operates and there is no way that the public can learn of its role, operation, fund allocation guidelines, research reports and the like.
Over the years, there have been many criticisms in society against the CPU in respect of the extreme secretiveness of its operation, as if it is operating in a black box. As a matter of fact, before I joined this Council, other Members had voiced this kind of suspicion. In 2008, Dr Margaret NG raised a similar LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10487 question in the Budget debate, asking whether certain reports of the CPU could be made public or allow public inspection. The answer was totally in the negative. Even reports written some time ago are still not made available to the public or the Legislative Council Members. Therefore, after spending $100 million, no one can read such reports, at most only some abstracts of the reports are made available to us occasionally. This is a very serious matter. As the executive authorities is accountable to the legislature, the use of public funds should be transparent. But if we look at the CPU more carefully, we will see that after the money is spent, there is no way taxpayers and Members can learn of the results of those studies.
Chairman, I think the CPU needs an overhaul and the best solution is to terminate its work, withdraw the $100 million funding and discuss afresh how the CPU should operate. Chairman, if the CPU employs so many people to conduct studies or if it has contracted out so many study projects that requires a total funding of $100 million, Members or taxpayers should first ask: what functions and powers do the CPU have; whether it conducts policy studies or political studies; whether it conducts the studies itself or contracts out the work; who determines the subjects to be studied; in conducting the studies, which subject matters are truly required by Hong Kong society; what criteria are adopted in contracting out the study projects; what subjects of studies are to be contracted out; what methods are adopted in conducting the study; who is going to monitor the standards of the studies; who are to benefit from the study results; whether the Chief Executive or the three Secretaries of Departments and the 12 Directors of Bureaux can access the study results; whether the public or the Members of the Legislative Council can access such results; whether no one other than a handful of persons in the highest echelon in the Government can access such results?
Although I teach in the university, we cannot get research funding whenever we wish. We have to give our justifications for conducting a research and publish the findings after the completion of the research. However, after the CPU has spent $100 million, apart from a handful of persons in the Government, no one can access its study reports. I consider this a huge "black hole" and a loophole in respect of research work.
Chairman, we are anxious to know the role and operation of the CPU because the provision of $100 million is under the expenditure for the Chief Secretary for Administration's Office and the Financial Secretary's Office. 10488 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014
Among all studies to be conducted by the CPU using this estimated operational expenditure of $100 million and those conducted last year, we would like to know the number of studies commissioned by the Offices of the Chief Secretary and the Financial Secretary; the number of studies initiated by the CPU itself; as well as the number of studies commissioned by the Chief Executive or the Executive Council. No one knows the answer and I believe no Member among those present in this Chamber knows.
The allocation of funds by the CPU is even more alarming. I will not comment on the standard of studies conducted by the CPU. I learn that the CPU also contracts out study projects every year. I am particularly interested in the study on the Trend of Discussions on Social and Political Issues in the Mass Media (the Study), commissioned by the CPU to the One Country Two Systems Research Institute (OCTSRI) in the past three years. A total of $2 million had been spent in the past three years and the OCTSRI was commissioned to carry out the Study in all three years. We are anxious to know whether any underhand dealings and conflicts of interest were involved in the allocation of funds. Why? We all know who is in charge of the OCTSRI, and this person is also a Member of the Executive Council. Furthermore, the former advisor to the OCTSRI, SHIU Sin-por, is the incumbent Head of the CPU. Do SHIU Sin-por, CHEUNG Chi-kong and LEUNG Chun-ying dominate all the studies conducted by the CPU? Why has CHEUNG Chi-kong's OCTSRI been repeatedly commissioned to conduct the studies on the trend of discussions on social and political issues, national affairs and national policies in the past three years? Has SHIU Sin-por personally approved such an arrangement? If he has not, as many "LEUNG's fans" have been planted in the LEUNG Chun-ying Government, are any of them involved in the approval process? Are these study projects awarded through public tender?
Although it is stipulated that study projects outsourced by the CPU with a budget of $50,000 to more than $100,000 have to undergone a vetting process, in the absence of other bidders, the funds can be allocated by the CPU provided it has the approval of one or two persons. Is this practice too lax? Is SHIU Sin-por one of those who can approve the funding? Can "LEUNG's fans" approve the funding? How come CHEUNG Chi-kong has been commissioned every time? As a Member of the Executive Council, why does CHEUNG Chi-kong not refrain from bidding the project to avoid conflict of interest? There are too many questions involved.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10489
In respect of these studies, I have said just now that no one can access the reports. The House News once asked the CPU and the OCTSRI for details about the Study conducted with public funds, the information requested include the executive summary, conclusion, method of study, statistics and raw data; it also asked whether the study involved the shaping of public opinions, releasing or relaying certain remarks on the Internet; whether the CPU has reported the study findings to the Chief Executive or any Policy Bureaux? However, no answers have been provided. This is another black box, a mysterious research black box.
We are also anxious to know why the funding for the Study has doubled to $772,000 in 2013-2014. How were these studies contracted out? Were they awarded to the one who made the lowest bid? Was there a screening procedure? Had the CPU approached other universities or research institutes? If these institutes did not apply to conduct the Study, was that because they did not know about such project or they were not interested in conducting those seemingly non-academic studies and hence did not apply? We have no idea about the answers to these questions. On what grounds does the CPU consider that studies on national affairs and national policies cannot be made public? What confidential information is involved? If the study is related to public opinions expressed in the media, the information involved is already open to the public, as people's opinions expressed in the media, such as newspaper, television, Internet and Facebook are open to all. The CPU only pays someone to collect those data and analyse them. Those data are not state secrets and there is nothing to hide because they are all open. We are talking about media studies, which deal with open information. Why can't such studies be made public? If the findings are not made public, people will doubt whether the data are not handled objectively and whether the arguments are biased. It is very reasonable for people to have such doubts.
Moreover, we have talked so much about studies on national affairs and national policies. If the Government wishes to allocate funds to conduct studies on national affairs and national policies, let us not consider whether it is reasonable to do so, the findings of such studies should be released as the academia need to learn about information on national affairs and national policies; university and secondary students need such information for their Liberal Studies; and Legislative Council Members and the business community also need such information. Why then are studies on national affairs and national policies confidential? Why can't the study reports be made public? No one can give me a satisfactory answer. Hence, Chairman, I think it is very 10490 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 reasonable to slash the $100 million expenditure for the CPU for the coming year. After we have a comprehensive discussion on the functions and powers, mode of operation, the vetting mechanism of research funding, and the release of study reports to the public, we will then discuss afresh the kind of CPU that we need or how much funding we should reasonably give it so that we can have a normal monitoring system.
With these remarks, Chairman, I urge Members to support my amendment.
MR CHEUNG KWOK-CHE (in Cantonese): Chairman, I propose reducing head 142 by $105,004,000 in respect of subhead 000, which is the annual funding for the Central Policy Unit (CPU). As the CPU has developed into a private club for the business sector and government officials, even if it is not publicly funded but self-financing, many people still find that the CPU in its present form will only harbour further corruption in society.
The CPU was established by the former Governor, Sir David WILSON, as a think tank in 1989 before the reunification. The main function of the CPU then was to advise the Governor, the Chief Secretary and the Financial Secretary. After the reunification, the CPU still serves as the highest think tank of the Government. As a matter of fact, it is a very common practice for many countries and places to have non-governmental or official think tanks. In the history of China, starting from the Spring and Autumn Period and the Warring States Period, emperors and lords of the various states already went out of their way to enlist the talented, the learned and those with great resourcefulness as their aides and advisors. Regarding the issue of intellectuals joining the government regime, I have mixed feelings in recent years. On the one hand, intellectuals can, through this platform in society, engage in social affairs, contribute their expertise and become a force to drive society forward. Leaders are eager to enlist the services of the talented and the learned because, as we all know, knowledge is the wealth of society and intellectuals are precious resources. On the other hand, however, after getting the appreciation of those in power, some learned persons may very often turn into lackeys of those in power; and as a result, in societies of the past and present, many well-respected and traditional scholars lose their academic independence and independent thoughts, and their noble sentiments gained from their knowledge and intelligence vanish in front of the rich and powerful, putting their academic knowledge to shame. Of course, I do not categorically make negative judgment on the relation between the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10491 academia and people in power, neither do I view from the simple perspective that working for the Government equals to losing one's independence and integrity. But as a matter of fact, power always has a lure. The closer one gets to power, the stronger this lure is. Therefore, for people from the academia to engage in government work, they must steadfastly maintain their integrity in order to do the work well. On the contrary, if a government is fair and seeks truth from facts, what it truly needs is not people who echo the government's views but those with independent views and penetrating insight; and only then will the purpose be served. A government which seeks truth from facts does not need yes-men. It is most despicable for an intellectual to become the government's "hatchet man" who engages in pseudo-academic business in the name of academic purpose to deceive the public and do harm to society.
The think tank of the high echelon of the Government should serve to meet the Government's policy needs and address the public aspirations. The foremost requirement of such a body is to form a concept of development by gathering and collating various viewpoints; and it also needs to gather large amounts of social information that is accurate and consistent with the fact. It is a shame that after the reunification, the CPU has sunken into a body that does not do honest work but becomes a "hatchet man" and a "lackey" of the Government.
Reflecting on the time during the rule of the British Hong Kong Government from 1989 up to the reunification, the CPU was the think tank of the Governor, the highest decision maker in the Hong Kong Government. Its ambit of work was similar to that of today, which was to collect public views. However, the CPU was comprised of members from various realms of society and nepotism was hardly an issue. Members were from all walks of life and from various social strata with various political views, such as Mr LEE Cheuk-yan who cared about the grassroots, Ms Christine LOH who belonged to the middle class with a Western mentality, Mr HO Hei-wah who was concerned about the underprivileged in society, Mr Gary CHENG and Miss CHAN Yuen-han who had a leftist labour background, and also Dr Margaret NG from the four major traditionally professional sectors. The CPU even invited CHENG Ngai-lung, the General Secretary of the Democratic Alliance for Betterment of Hong Kong, a senior and important member of a pro-Beijing political party, to be a full-time member to the CPU and the right-hand man of Leo GOODSTADT, the Head of the CPU. The CPU had thus become a body for collecting public views, comprising social elites from the left, the middle and the right who could gauge the pulse of various social strata; a highly competent Civil Service, as well 10492 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 as the professional research teams whose members had expertise in various areas. The CPU also invited prominent businessmen, professionals, scholars and social leaders to join in as part-time members, so as to complement one another and take on board the views of the general public. I am not saying that the CPU under the British Hong Kong Government was flawless, as it also had problems such as the lack of transparency and sufficient representation of the grassroots, but on the whole, it had at least strived to fulfil the task in a more pragmatic and realistic manner.
Chairman, a former full-time member to the CPU, LAU Sai-leung, who resigned in 2012, received an interview about the CPU in 2013. The content of the interview warrants our attention. LAU Sai-leung joined the CPU of the British Hong Kong Government as early as 1992 as a part-time member and remained in that position for four years. At that time, he had a full-time job as the policy researcher of the Democratic Party. He said that Leo GOODSTADT, Head of the CPU, said to him that the CPU did not need the fans of the Governor, instead, it required people who could assess the political situation objectively and provide appropriate views. LAU Sai-leung re-joined the CPU as a full-time member in 2006. He pointed out that at that time, I quote, "The CPU has become a 'polling body' and a platform for currying favour with pro-Beijing and pro-establishment persons. It has lost its former function of assessing the political situation. All its part-time members are the offspring of the rich and political figures belonging to the pro-establishment camp. The mentality of these members in attending meetings is also different from those of members before the reunification. Many of them use the fortnightly CPU meetings as a venue to express their political views." (End of quote) He also described the standard of the incumbent part-time members, and I quote, "At every meeting, government officials will brief the attending part-time members. For example, at the meeting to discuss the Budget, officials from the Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau would explain to the attendees the procedure of drawing up the Budget. Supposedly, these members should be very accomplished and learned and their role is to advise the Government. How come government officials have to brief them instead?" As LAU Sai-leung frankly put it, most of the part-time member of the CPU "have not offered much advice to the Government and the CPU meetings have been turned into 'a platform for empty talks'." (End of quote) The above remarks tally with people's impression about the CPU in the last couple of years.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10493
First of all, wide participation is no longer a factor to be considered in the appointment of CPU members; instead nepotism is a common practice, and many members' performance is far from satisfactory. For example, on the list of part-time members in 2011, there were CHEN Qing, daughter of CHEN Zuo'er, former Deputy Director of Hong Kong and Macao Office of the State Council of China; SI Rongxi, son of SI Ziqing, member of the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, David WONG Yau-kar, son of WONG Po-yan, former Vice-Chairman of the Committee for the Basic Law, FAN Chun-wah, son of Rita FAN, member of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, as well as Herman HU Shao-ming, son of HU Fa-kuang, member of the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference. According to a survey conducted by some newspapers, the attendance rate of these offspring of the pro-establishment figures was very low. For example, CHEN Qing only attended nine of the 21 meetings in the whole year and the attendance rate of CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, Vice-Chairman of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong, and Paulo PONG, grandson of PONG Ting-yuan, nicknamed "Steel King", was even under 40%. Moreover, the work of the CPU is very secretive. For example, some reporters had enquired about the topics discussed at the 21 CPU meetings in the past year, the spokesman declined to answer on the ground of confidentiality.
Chairman, even the topics of discussion are not made public, let alone the reports of studies conducted with public fund. The study items published on the CPU website only contain the executive summaries of the study reports, which are very brief. The public can hardly learn about the findings of these studies. This approach not only deprives the public of their right to know, but also impede the participation of the academia and people from non-governmental think tanks, significantly reducing the efficacy of the studies. Let me cite another example. The CPU of the last term conducted five studies between 2007 and 2010 on retirement protection, a subject of great public concern, but to the great dissatisfaction of the social welfare sector, it never released any detailed reports to the public.
Members should be able to recall that in 2012, the CPU withdrew the annual research funding of $20 million granted to the Research Grants Council (RGC). The CPU has since taken charge of the management of the Public Policy Research Funding Scheme. According to the new arrangement, the CPU will set the direction and topic of the researches, vet the applications of research 10494 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 institutes and monitor their progress. As a matter of fact, the RGC has been effective in approving the research projects on public policies and the biggest advantage was to have experts of the relevant subject to evaluate the researches, so as to guarantee the academic standard and neutrality of the researches. The CPU is an organization with a political background, and its academic status is not so well established. It is hard for it to maintain neutrality in vetting the research applications, neither is there any guarantee of the academic quality. In an interview, Prof Roland CHIN, who resigned from the post of the Chairman of the RGC last year, said in all earnestness that he hoped the CPU would respect academic freedom in future and ensure the quality and originality of the researches. He also hoped that the assessment panels of the CPU would uphold the core values of the RGC, respect academic freedom, remain neutral politically and commercially, and strictly guard against academic fabrication. Even though it is too early to comment on the new arrangement, I can tell Prof CHIN that it is highly probable he will be disappointed.
What is more alarming is that the CPU has come from behind the scenes to the front stage and interferes with the Government's appointment of staff. It has taken over the power of the Secretaries of Departments to plant its trusted subordinates in many positions. Some newspaper analyses have pointed out that KAO Ching-chi, a full-time member to the CPU, has now become the person in charge of the appointment of members to advisory committees and statutory bodies. She is responsible for identifying and planting in these bodies trusted aides who support the Government's governance. As a matter of fact, the Head of the CPU, SHIU Sin-por, subsequently confirmed in public that LEUNG Chun-ying, the Chief Executive, had directed that KAO Ching-chi should be notified on the appointment of almost 4 000 government-appointed public officers, such as school principals and school board members.
Chairman, the CPU has deteriorated and become another organization other than the Executive Council for political entertainment, a playground for the rich and powerful, and even a "nursery" for the offspring of the pro-establishment figures to curry favour with the rich and the powerful in the political arena. In a word, the CPU has become an obscurantism machine and a club for government officials, businessmen, the rich and the powerful to make underhand dealings. As a scholar has pointed out, the CPU's original function of gauging public sentiment has long disappeared and it has turned into a venue for sharing political spoils. Such an organization has grossed people out. It should not exist in LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10495
Hong Kong and should not be allowed to spend a cent of the people's money. As such, at this meeting to approve the Budget, I request slashing the funding of $105,004,000 for the CPU as set out in subhead 000 under head 142.
Chairman, I so submit.
MS CYD HO (in Cantonese): Chairman, I propose an amendment to reduce the expenditure on the emolument of the Government Records Service Director (Director). "Resolved that head 142 be reduced by $1,380,600 in respect of subhead 000". The amount to be deducted is equivalent to the emolument of the Director, a D1 post.
The Director is in a very humble position, and in the civil service system, his words carry no weight. However, he has a significant responsibility. He is the official historian in charge of recording history. Given the humble position of the Director in the entire government framework and the requirement of the civil service system for two officials to be in a similar rank in order to have effective communication, he is unable to discharge his duty.
People are generally mistaken that the Director only handles some very old or outdated documents. However, when special incidents happen and the public want to trace the records, they would find that the records have been destroyed or there is no such records or such records have never been created. In such case, if they want to enquire into the matter and hold someone accountable, there is no way to do so. As such, if government officials are involved in irregularities or even corruption, they would feel at ease because there is no record of their wrong-doings and they can thus evade sanction and are not held accountable.
An example in the past was the Government's handling of the SARS epidemic in 2003. It has been reported that people want to look up the records but have failed to do so. Records on the history concerning the transfer of sovereignty have not been well kept. This year, the Administration Wing spent $290,000 to purchase records from the National Archives of the United Kingdom about the Kowloon Walled City, our constitutional development, and the political relationship between China and Hong Kong, which include letters and documents of the Prime Minister's Office between 1974 and 1979, and between 1979 and 1997, as well as records of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Colonial Office. If the Hong Kong Government had carefully kept detailed 10496 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 records like that of the National Archives, we did not need to spend money to purchase such records.
Chairman, a more recent example is of course the Lamma Island marine disaster. The Permanent Secretary for Transport and Housing (Transport), Mr Joseph LAI, has recently completed a detailed report, comprising 430 pages, on the internal practice of the Marine Department and whether it has breached any rules. From earlier documents, we learnt that when Marine Department officers inspected the design of the cabins, the plans they had were inaccurate and during inspection, they could not find any records indicating whether there were any irregularities concerning the cabin design or whether the number of life jackets for children did not meet the legal requirement.
It turns out that the Marine Department has an unwritten practice of not recording any acts of non-compliance of the law, only a verbal advice will be given. However, since when has this unwritten practice been adopted? Can we find out from the records that such a practice has been adopted? Are there any guidelines or standards for staff of the Marine Department to comply with when they carry out the inspection? Have they reported to their superiors any irregularities found during inspection? Are superiors covering up for their subordinates, are subordinates indolent or perfunctory in carrying out their duties? No one knows.
If the Marine Department has not kept any written record of the practices of its staff and their actions taken, different consequences can be resulted. First, the irregularities of the vessel would have remained undiscovered until the occurrence of an incident causing 39 lives. The irregularities would only come to light when an in-depth investigation was conducted. However, no one can say who should be held accountable. Now that the Government has refused to make public the 430-page report, the bereaved families are unable to claim compensation even if they want to. Besides, there is only over a year left for them to lodge the claim before the three-year claim period expires.
The absence of records or files will allow some inept government officials or even corrupt officials to evade monitoring and provide a hotbed for corruption, because they know that even if they have made mistakes, have done something bad, have breached the regulations, or even have not performed their duties or neglected their duties, no one will find out.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10497
In 2009, the Government Records Service (GRS) and the Administration Wing jointly issued a guideline on record management to various departments. After the issuance of the guideline, has the GRS discharged its duty properly to follow up the implementation of the guideline? Had the GRS properly discharged its duty and followed up with the Marine Department the implementation of the guideline; and had the GRS communicated with the Marine Department promptly and urged the department to keep a proper record, would the Lamma Island disaster have been prevented? If there were sufficient life jackets for children on board the ship, would the lives of some children be spared? The Government has recently refused to make public the report, which is … Mr Justice William WAUNG, a retired Judge, pointed out that the 430-page report would not obstruct the course of justice. This is the view of a retired Judge but the Government refused to make the report public.
Chairman, the right to know is a very important human right, which should be upheld by the Code on Access to Information (CAI) in conjunction with the archives law. However, as the Policy Bureau in charge of protecting the people's right to know and free flow of information, the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau's performance is way under par. Though the Bureau has created a website for the CAI, the information provided is scant. The public cannot learn from the website the justifications of the Government's exemption to release information and they also fail to understand their rights. Very often, government departments make use of the exemption provisions of the CAI as the protective shield to refuse disclosing information, so as to evade monitoring. The spirit of openness and transparency enshrined in the CAI cannot be upheld.
Although Policy Bureaux are willing to disclose information, the premise is that the Government must possess the relevant information before it can release it to the public. Therefore, there is an urgent need to enact an archives law. If government departments do not comply with the General Circular issued in 2009 concerning the preparation and creation of records, even if they comply with the CAI, they can still evade monitoring eventually.
Before leaving office in March this year, Mr Alan LAI, the former Ombudsman, had completed an investigation report themed "Direct Investigation Report ― Public Records Management in Hong Kong". It is mentioned in the report that the GRS has not diligently followed up the General Circular that it issued jointly with the Administration Wing in February 2009. It lists out the GRS's "Nine Sins". I have to speak rapidly to read them out. First, it has failed 10498 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 to set up an independent advisory body, hence we do not have an advisory framework independent of the Government to give advice on public records management and monitor government departments. The reason for these inadequacies is that the GRS does not want to be monitored. In fact, the establishment of an independent advisory body needs not be empowered by law; the GRS can take full charge of the arrangement.
Second, it was required in the General Circular issued in 2009 that all Policy Bureaux and government departments (B/Ds) should set up its own records disposal schedules and a standard classification scheme should be adopted for managing their administrative records. The original objective was to complete the tasks by April 2012, but to date, many of the requirements are yet to be implemented.
Third, in 2012, the GRS required B/Ds to establish by 2015 codes on records creation and collection, but as at the end of 2012, only three B/Ds have met the requirement. It is doubtful whether the target will be met.
Fourth, it was originally required that B/Ds should submit plans for disposal of time-expired records to the GRS for its approval at least once every two years, however, between 2008 and 2012, only seven … sorry, it should be seven B/Ds have never transferred any records to the GRS for appraisal, and another nine B/Ds have been very lax in following the requirement. They only transferred the records to the GRS after the expiry of the deadline.
Fifth, B/Ds' deferral of transfer of records to the GRS merely requires the written consent of a directorate officer, who does not have to give any justification. This is due to a flaw in the design of the form. Actually, if the column "reason" is provided in the form and B/Ds are required to give reasons, follow-up actions can be taken.
Sixth, non-compliant B/Ds should be subject to disciplinary or administrative action. However, even though the GRS considers disciplinary or administrative action necessary, if the B/D involved does not agree, the GRS would not pursue further. Although the Director is in a lower rank, he must discharge his duty, uphold the spirit of professionalism and follow up. He should not be reluctant to follow up because his rank is lower. This is not an excuse for shirking his responsibility.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10499
Seventh, it is the staffing problem. I will provide more data in my speech later. Despite the large volumes of records required to be managed every year, the GRS has only got 13 Archivists, three Curators and 15 Executive Officers (EOs), and the EOs are non-professional officers. We have always stated that the GRS is in urgent need of reviewing its manpower. Has the Director discharged his duties and done his best to fight for more staff from the relevant Secretaries and his superior?
Eighth, it is the lack of transparency, which is absolutely ridiculous. There is no systematic dissemination of information by the GRS to the public about individual B/Ds' policy statements on record management, record disposal schedules, the number of records destroyed and archived. The GRS has also not published an annual report on its work.
Every year, I raise a "package question" which is directed to all B/Ds. The question concerns the number of records transferred to the GRS for appraisal each year, the number of records destroyed and the number of records required by the GRS to be archived. All these figures should have been systematically disseminated by the GRS, but it has never done so. That is why I need to raise a "package question". However, Chairman, you may recall that the Chief Secretary for Administration had, when addressing this Council, criticized us for asking over 6 000 questions, which are too many. I wonder if she was implying that we should ask fewer questions. It is alright for us to ask fewer questions, but the B/Ds must take the initiative to publish the relevant figures.
The ninth point is the management system of electronic records. As a matter of fact, since 1990s, various B/Ds used information technology and computers to process their files. At present, there are also mobile phone text messages and messages posted on social networks. For example, the Financial Secretary "rules Hong Kong through the Internet" and publishes a blog every week. Many government officials or civil servants often use their mobile phones, iPads and other mobile communication devices to publish their views or communicate with one another.
How were the electronic records managed in the past? It was by the "print-and-file" approach. However, because of the sheer volumes of information, it is impossible to print out every piece of information. Besides, this approach is unreliable and prone to omission and loss when the information is printed. As we do not have an electronic system to help with record-keeping, 10500 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 lots of information is thus lost. Although technologies advance in leaps and bounds, the Government's record management has not made any progress in 20 years.
Let me cite an example. The Political Assistant of the Environment Bureau has posted an article on Facebook earlier to debate with the public concerning whether re-exported waste plastic is transferred to the landfills or is totally exported out of Hong Kong. If the situation turns against her, will she delete the article, eliminating this record forever?
Chairman, all the aforementioned items are the "Nine Sins" pointed out by the Ombudsman and they have nothing to do with the law. On the contrary, because of the problem with poor administration and management of the Director, the Government's records management work continues to deteriorate, hence we propose to slash his entire emolument.
I will cite other information again the second time I speak. Thank you, Chairman.
MR WONG YUK-MAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, Council is now proceeding with the Committee stage of the Appropriation Bill 2014. As devised by the Chairman, this is the second joint debate covering the themes of governance, constitutional development and district administration ― such a division has made reference to the debate arrangement on the Policy Address ― and the policy areas involved are, namely, constitutional affairs, administration of justice and legal services, district administration and building management, civic education, human rights, security and public service.
In the following five joint debates, amendments have been proposed by a number of Honourable Members. Some people say that we have been filibustering in today's meeting and that the filibuster has been going on for days incurring a huge waste on the public coffers. Mr WONG Kwok-hing is putting up a show every day because he intends to run for the "super District Council seats" in the next term. While we sympathize with and understand his position, he is always barking up the wrong tree, and it is plain for all to see. As a result, a certain anecdote has occurred. Strictly speaking, he is partly responsible for the adjournment of the meeting because of a lack of quorum. I will not go into any details now, for I dislike getting entangled with those people.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10501
Chairman, give me some time to make one thing clear. In these five debates, amendments have been proposed by 14 Members. Except the Chairman, there are 69 Members in the Council. With 14 Members proposing amendments to the expenditure items of the Budget, several Members who have proposed a particularly large number of amendments have been criticized as engaging in a filibuster. But if amendments are proposed by all Members, does it mean that all Members are filibustering? Is that what they mean? Chairman, even your goodself talk about "filibustering" all the time. But, as far as I am concerned, I never consider myself filibustering. After the meeting was adjourned due to a lack of quorum, Mr Albert CHAN, while walking out from the Chamber, told reporters that this was the home turf of the People Power and the League of Social Democrats. I take great exception to that remark. This is the home turf of the people and we are here to represent them. We are the representatives of public opinion.
The Appropriation Bill 2014 (the Bill) is critically important to the people's livelihood and well-being. The Legislative Council has established procedures for representatives of public opinion to debate on the Bill in a rational and articulate manner. First, the Bill goes through its Second Reading so that Members can examine the Budget as a whole from either a macro or micro point of view and determine whether the Financial Secretary has performed his duties capably and boldly, or whether he was still a scrooge. Members can freely debate on the matter, and every Member can speak for 15 minutes. The Council then proceeds with the Committee stage of the Bill, and Members are free to propose amendments in accordance with the Rules of Procedure. Of the nearly 2 000 amendments proposed by Members this year, 900-odd have been rejected with only some 1 000 amendments remain. Thankfully, this outcome is truly some extra mercy because some amendments are indeed frivolous, meaningless or repetitive, while some are merely copied from last year's amendments. We are fully aware of the situation.
But that is of no importance at all. It is most important that through this opportunity and platform, Members can discuss the Budget or the Bill with articulate arguments and reasoning and present their views on the expenditure items under various departments, heads or subheads in the Draft Estimates or the Bill. If a Member holds that the provision for a particular item is excessive, he can propose an amendment for its reduction, which is always a political gesture. Most of the time, this also serves as a position statement, and some Members may propose specific measures. For instance, Mr James TO would propose an 10502 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 amendment to delete the $80 million "mysterious expenses" from the provision of the Hong Kong Police Force every year without exception. That is his proclaimed position statement.
We are now discussing some other departments, including the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department and the Marine Department. Take for example the Marine Department. Notwithstanding the public outcry against the department as a result of the recent vessel collision incident, no official is required to step down. Some Members therefore take up this opportunity for discussion. That is an example of Members making a political gesture or position statement. This Council must allow representatives of public opinion to seize the opportunity of a Budget debate, especially through the amendments proposed in the Committee stage, to show the people who are watching live telecast of the proceedings now what is going on with the Government, and why are there just a few Members left in the Chamber.
Chairman, please do a headcount.
CHAIRMAN (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)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr WONG Yuk-man, please continue.
MR WONG YUK-MAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I have proposed a large number of amendments in the second joint debate of the Committee stage of the Appropriation Bill 2014 (the Bill). Just now, I said that amendments to various heads of expenditure have been proposed by 14 Members, mostly those of the pan-democratic camp and those who are alleged as filibustering. Mr WONG Kwok-hing has left the Chamber again. He had better pray that a quorum is present now, or else he would have to return to his seat. Why isn't any Member of the pro-establishment camp speaking? Chairman, does it mean that the entire Bill is not worthy of any amendment at all? I am really puzzled. Do they want to tell people that we, representatives of public opinion, are just passing the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10503
Budget as a formality year in year out? When the Bill was read the First time, a motion was moved by the bearded guy over there. When the Bill was read the Second time, meaningless and non-constructive speeches were made by Members, yet the President did not stop them. Now when the Bill proceeds with the Committee stage before the Third Reading, no other Member speaks as if they have become dumb. What would be the public's impression of Members of the Legislative Council?
It is rare that Mr WONG Kwok-hing has also spoken about the many means and channels for Members to negotiate with the Government. That is what really matters, right? Because our greatest power is the power to approve the budget. It would be very serious if the Appropriation Bill is not passed. Is that right, Secretary Prof K C CHAN? The Government has already started to cry wolf now and threatened the public with various claims such as filibustering would defer CSSA payments, withhold salary payments for civil servants, so on and so forth. I can say that withholding salary payment is a good thing for all including Members of the Legislative Council. How could that be bad? All the claims about the Government facing a fiscal cliff or operational difficulties, so on and so forth, are just their one-sided arguments. As the Budget has already entered the Committee stage, why is there any reason … Unlike Dr CHIANG Lai-wan who is absent from the meeting because she considers it too boring, Members should have proposed their amendments to the Bill. If she finds it boring, she might as well end her life. How can a Member absent from the meeting just because he finds it boring? Does it mean that the Legislative Council is only left with several ferocious and filibustering Members? No, that is not so. I just notice that only a few Members stay in the Chamber. If Mr WONG Kwok-hing does not return to his seat, I will request another headcount. I like to play with him. As aptly described by the Cantonese colloquial saying, "he who makes the provocation is lowly and should not complain even if he is beaten to death". Although he sounds very high-sounding, his speeches are often meaningless and incoherent. But that does not matter for he has the right to speak.
Going back to the Committee stage of the Bill, that is exactly when Members should express … As I said just now, some Members propose amendments in order to proclaim their positions, some do so as a political gesture and some for the sake of making specific suggestions. We do so in order to perform our duties as representatives of public opinion, isn't that right? But honestly, insofar as the annual budget is concerned, since "Long Hair" started to 10504 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 filibuster last year, the budget debate has now become known as a "filibuster". Chairman, I must put the record straight. I never consider the proposing of amendments during the Committee stage an act of filibustering, not to mention that I have only proposed 120 amendments, right? Chairman, if I really want to filibuster …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr WONG, you have already spoken for over seven minutes and 30 seconds. Please confine your speech to the amendments covered under this joint debate.
MR WONG YUK-MAN (in Cantonese): Actually I am speaking on the amendments, but I must first give an explanation, in particular to members of the public who are now watching live telecast of the meeting …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Please speak on the relevant amendments.
MR WONG YUK-MAN (in Cantonese): … that is, to let the audience or Hong Kong people know that we are now having the second joint debate on the themes of governance, constitutional development and district administration, with the relevant heads of expenditure covering areas including constitutional affairs, administration of justice and legal services, district administration and building management, civic education, human rights, security, and so on …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr WONG, you are repeating the contents of your speech.
MR WONG YUK-MAN (in Cantonese): … but what views have been expressed by Members? I have merely proposed 120 amendments, and some are concerned with the Chief Executive's Office (CEO). Many Members have also spoken about the CEO, but we have our own views. Of course, I have prepared a lot of materials including those related to the CEO. Why is it necessary to delete the provision for the remuneration of the Chief Executive? Some Members have made the same proposal previously, but our rationale is different.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10505
As far as I am concerned, since the so-called "689" Chief Executive attended the first Question and Answer Session of the Legislative Council after he assumed office ― Chairman, I am referring to the amendment to head 21 … that is, to delete the total provision for the Chief Executive's remuneration under head 21 in respect of subhead 000. Actually, there are many items and I do not want to list them out one by one. Now I would first deal with the part about the Chief Executive. One simple question: Why is it necessary to delete the provision for his remuneration? That is a very simple question, right? You can say there is a connection between my amendment and the amendments proposed by other Members because I am not the only Member who propose such an amendment. Many Members also propose to delete the provision for the remuneration of the Chief Executive. Chairman, it is actually very passive to delete the provision for his remuneration, and the best option should be asking him to go home and sleep. When he attended the first Question and Answer Session of the Legislative Council after he assumed office, I did something which I consider to be the most satisfying in recent years, that is, when I spoke in the Question and Answer Session ― although you eventually ordered me to leave the Chamber, I managed to say the following before I was evicted: I would neither address him "Chief Executive" nor "Mr LEUNG Chun-ying", I would call him "689" for he obtained only 689 votes in the coterie election, and he is not qualified to represent Hong Kong people. I said that he was a liar, ignoble in character and completely devoid of integrity. Then I asked him whether he should resign, and whether he knew how to write the Chinese character "醜" (meaning shame). That is the one thing I have done which I consider to be the most satisfying in recent years for even Members of the pro-establishment camp also call him "689" in private chit-chat. LEUNG Chun-ying was called not by name but "689". "689" ― if considering the numerical order of 6, 7, 8, 9, we notice that the number "7" is missing. That is the other meaning held by some people, OK? That is my best work because the term epitomizes my query for his complete lack of credibility. Now we all know what is meant by "689". Some people ask why he is called "689". Today Mr LEE Cheuk-yan also spoke about "689", and we all use the term "689" ― this is the one thing which I am most proud of. Nonetheless, please feel free to use this term and there is no need to acknowledge the original source. Once, even the chairman of a committee who was a Member of the pro-establishment camp also used the term "689" inadvertently, and I was overjoyed to hear it.
How representative is he? Firstly, let us consider the element of credibility. Of course, insofar as credibility is concerned, he has nothing to do 10506 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 with it personally, right? Because by nature of the system, he would lack credibility. However, although he lacks credibility as a result of the system, he can at least act as if he has a certain degree of credibility. He could have done something that is truly … just like the livelihood issues he mentioned when he was running for the coterie election, right? At that time, he said that his administration would be people-based, and that he cared about the poor, the grassroots, the housing problem, and so on. All his pledges were very high-sounding. He is a typical person who "talks as if he is invincible, but does not possess any actual capability". Let me tell you: "689" LEUNG Chun-ying is a textbook case and there is no better example than him. If I have to explain to primary students what is meant by a person who "talks as if he is invincible, but does not possess any actual capability", I would cite LEUNG Chung-ying or "689" as an example. If I were a teacher, I would definitely do so because there are too many pieces of evidence to show that he "talks as if he is invincible, but does not possess any actual capability", right?
LEUNG Chun-ying or "689" has been in office as the Chief Executive for two years, or almost two years. What has he achieved? His greatest achievement is to create a rift inside the pro-establishment camp. That is his greatest achievement. His second greatest achievement is to create increasing livelihood hardships for the grassroots. People expect that more residential units or public rental housing (PRH) would be constructed. By the way, Anthony CHEUNG is in a streak of bad luck these days, and I think he is starting to get a bit disoriented. The Transport and Housing Bureau under his purview is involved in all incidents. Let us see, he is related to the vessel collision incident and the Marine Department, as well as the scandal over the Express Rail Link. Many incidents are also related to the housing branch of the Bureau, the two recent value for money audit reports of the Audit Commission are cases in point. The present report is just the sequel. When the last report, viz. Report No. 61, was published, we had already told him that the pledge of three years' waiting time for the allocation of PRH was a trick. The present report tells him once again that the pledge of three years' waiting time for the allocation of PRH is nothing but a trick.
In the beginning, some fools had certain expectation for "689" because he claimed that additional housing would be provided in Hong Kong, say, his pledge to produce 20 000 units annually or the target to ensure that Hong Kong people were adequately and comfortably housed. Nonetheless, this is yet another LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10507 example of him "talking as if he is invincible". As it turns out, no matter by what calculation, there is no way to construct 20 000 units annually on average. Let me tell you: There is no way to achieve this production target in the coming few years, and only 10 000-odd units can be constructed at most. Yet there are 200 000-odd applicants on the Waiting List. This is just simple mathematics. When I organized residents' meetings to discuss the Budget ― Chairman, in fact I am a very responsible person. After the announcement of the Budget, I organized residents' meetings for individual housing estates to discuss the Budget. After the announcement of the Policy Address, I also convened residents' meetings on the Policy Address and visited the housing estates one by one. What I want to say is that I am not making empty speeches here. I have also visited the districts.
Buddy, members of the public can most readily understand that the pledge of three years' waiting time for the allocation of PRH is nothing but a trick ― of course, instead of putting it in a polite way, they would resort to profanity, OK? The pledge of three years' waiting time for the allocation of PRH is nothing but a damn trick, that is what people told us when we visited the districts. We would then explain to them that he has his own method for calculating the waiting time. According to his calculation and methodology, the waiting time does not include the freezing period. However, they may find it difficult to understand. In response, people would tell us, "Mr WONG, we do not understand what you mean. Anyway, I have been waiting for five years, and still I have not been allocated with PRH." That is the truth, right? That is another example of LEUNG Chun-ying who "talks as if he is invincible, but does not possess any actual capability". But that is all the time I have for now. Chairman, I still have a lot more to say later on. I can tell you: I can speak for a whole day just on "689", do you believe my words?
MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, when examining last year's Budget, I originally proposed 12 amendments at the beginning, and five of them were similar to the amendments proposed by some other Members. Subsequently, the pan-democratic Members held a press conference, indicating their withdrawal from any further debate over last year's Budget, thereby the number of my amendments had decreased from 12 to seven at the end. This year, I have proposed 10 amendments to the Appropriation Bill 2014. The areas covered in this joint debate relate to five amendments I have proposed, including 10508 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014
Amendment No 26 which seeks to deduct the estimated expenditure for six months' emolument of the Chief Executive, Amendment No 31 which seeks to deduct the annual estimated expenditure for the Chief Executive's visits outside Hong Kong, Amendment No 588 which seeks to deduct the estimated expenditure for six months' emolument of the Commissioner of Police, Amendment No 750 which seeks to deduct the annual estimated expenditure for the Study of Trend of Discussions on Social and Political Issues in the Mass Media commissioned by the Central Policy Unit, and Amendment No 786 which seeks to deduct the annual estimated expenditure for the public consultation on the methods for selecting the Chief Executive in 2017 and for forming the Legislative Council in 2016 conducted by the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau.
Chairman, I will start with Amendment No 26 which seeks to deduct the estimated expenditure for six months' emolument of the Chief Executive in respect of Subhead 000 under Head 21 ― Chief Executive's Office. I will explain why I propose this Amendment. Chairman, as some other Members have mentioned, the Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying has assumed office for almost two years. With an annual emolument of up to $5 million, his performance is certainly unsatisfactory as he cannot fulfil most of his election pledges. However, he still indicated at the end of last month that he was satisfied with the progress of policy implementation. It seems that there is a huge gap between what he said and what we think and observe. So far, the election of the Chief Executive in Hong Kong is not by universal suffrage. Even if the Chief Executive is unable to fulfil his election pledges after he has been elected, Hong Kong people cannot use their votes to evict him when he seeks re-election.
LEUNG Chun-ying published his manifesto with 57 pages and six chapters when he stood for the election two years ago. Nevertheless, many pledges in this election manifesto have ultimately become empty words. Chairman, LEUNG Chun-ying can still remain in office, drawing attractive emolument, building "homeland relationship" and travelling around during vacation. The Neo Democrats and I definitely consider this unreasonable. LEUNG Chun-ying was elected the Chief Executive with just 689 votes. When we assess his performance on the basis of his election manifesto, we can clearly see how unjust the existing electoral system in Hong Kong is. It is ridiculous and unreasonable to offer LEUNG Chun-ying an annual emolument of as much as $5 million. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10509
Chairman, I will now refer to the six chapters of LEUNG Chun-ying's election manifesto and settle scores with him point by point. I am going to point out his false and deceitful pledges one by one. No wonder some pro-establishment Members said that LEUNG Chun-ying won his post with lies.
Chairman, the first chapter of LEUNG Chun-ying's election manifesto is about population and human resources policy. In paragraph 5 under "My Policy Platform" on page 13 of the manifesto, LEUNG Chun-ying has undertaken to conduct an overall assessment of the additional demand for various public services arising from children born to non-local parents, as well as Hong Kong's capacity to cope with the demand, as the basis for developing a long-term policy. What has he done since he has assumed power? He simply implemented the "zero" delivery quota for "doubly non-permanent resident (DNR) pregnant women" by means of administrative measures to temporarily stop DNR pregnant women from gate-crashing public hospitals, but he has never seriously examined the capacity of Hong Kong in supporting DNR children, including the provision of education, transportation and social welfare services. Chairman, if LEUNG Chun-ying has done some work, problems related to the influx of cross-boundary DNR children into the North District six months ago would have never happened. As a result, many parents of local students had to queue overnight for kindergarten places. Chairman, they slept out overnight just for getting an opportunity to attend an interview, not a school place. Have we, the Hong Kong people, done anything wrong? According to the data provided to me by the Security Bureau, each month there are still 20 DNR pregnant women attempting to gatecrashing into Hong Kong for delivery, which means one in less than two days. Chairman, how should we explain to Hong Kong people that LEUNG Chun-ying's administrative measure of "zero" delivery quota is an effective policy to address the far-reaching and extensive problems in the coming decades arising from DNR pregnant women seeking deliveries in Hong Kong?
Chairman, how does the Government get hold of the statistics about DNR children? The Government has all along been relying on the results of the six rounds of Survey on Babies Born in Hong Kong to Mainland Women conducted by the Census and Statistics Department between 2007 and 2012. The surveys were conducted by interviewing parents of DNR children at the Births Registries of the Immigration Department, so as to collect basic information about the socio-economic characteristics of these parents and their intentions about the babies' future living arrangement. In other words, LEUNG Chun-ying has all along been relying on the statistics compiled by Donald TSANG's Government in 10510 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 formulating flexible measures in response to the problems of DNR children since his assumption of office. The pledge made in the election manifesto to conduct an overall assessment as the basis for developing a long-term policy has become empty words. Chairman, he has not done anything. LEUNG Chun-ying has deceived Hong Kong people. To put it in a vulgar way, he is a swindler, drawing a high annual emolument of $5 million without doing any work. Therefore, I propose this amendment to deduct his six months' emoluments.
Chairman, as mentioned by LEUNG Chun-ying in the third paragraph under "Background" on page 11 of the same manifesto, he will reserve unto the Government the authority to screen and approve newcomers to our shores. However, the Neo Democrats considers that over the past 24 months or two years, the Government could not work out with the Mainland authorities on how to grant One-way Permits (OWPs). Since the Government cannot even properly deal with such a simple issue, it cannot take back the approving power of OWPs even though it is the ruling government of the territory. This in fact violates international conventions, and is not in line with the usual practices adopted by Hong Kong in vetting and handling immigration applications made by people from other places such as Taiwan and Macao. This is unjust and unfair. As immigration policy is an internal affairs of Hong Kong, the Government should have the power to initiate and formulate immigration policies to meet the needs of Hong Kong, and we have been granted such right by virtue of Article 22 of the Basic Law. However, the Government has not made any progress regarding the approval authority of OWPs in the past two years.
Chairman, the second chapter of the Chief Executive's election manifesto is about land, planning and transportation. In paragraph 3 under "Land Planning" of "My Policy Platform" on page 19, LEUNG Chun-ying again promised to protect our country parks and bodies of land and water with ecological value, and formulate long-term plans for other areas of land available for development. However, in the past two years since LEUNG Chun-ying has assumed power, the SAR Government has been challenging our bottom line regarding the country park and has repeatedly tested the water with a view to developing country parks. In his Policy Address delivered in January 2014, LEUNG Chun-ying proposed to rezone for residential use sites in Green Belt areas which were devegetated, deserted or formed. However, some green groups subsequently found that the Green Belt areas to be developed are indeed not devegetated. The Green Belt areas serve to protecting the ecological environment of the country parks. LEUNG Chun-ying's practice has violated his pledge of protecting the country LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10511 parks as stated in his manifesto, we should therefore deduct his six months' emolument.
Chairman, as indicated by LEUNG Chun-ying in paragraph 4 under "Land Planning" of "My Policy Platform", he will blend ecological conservation, greenbelts, villages and agricultural land into a unique and lively rural development model, and will promote green tourism for modern city dwellers. That sounds great, but how many words has LEUNG Chun-ying used to describe the agricultural policy in his Policy Address 2014? Less than 100 words. In these two years, the Government has not paid due attention to the agricultural industry in Hong Kong. Agricultural development is still under constant threat of land resumption. Learning that the Government intends to implement of the North East New Territories New Development Areas Project, the residents affected and local organizations have repeatedly requested the Government to improve the agricultural policy at the same time. While the development in the North East New Territories will terminate the remaining local agricultural activities, the Government remains apathetic. Worse still, it breaches the pledge made in the manifesto regarding land planning. The Government has recently announced that it intends to turn the Lantau Island, "an ugly duckling", into a "swan" for Mainlanders by adopting a so-called unique and lively rural development model and promoting green tourism. "An ugly duckling" is a description made by a member of the Lantau Development Advisory Committee, personally I do not think so. Is this a breach of his election pledges? He has not fulfilled what he has promised.
Chairman, I have spoken on the first two chapters of the Chief Executive's election manifesto in respect of land planning. Later, when I speak again, I will explain how LEUNG Chun-ying has reneged on his pledge regarding the transportation policy in the same chapter, and will point out one by one how he has reneged on his pledges made in other chapters. I will prove that LEUNG Chun-ying should not receive such attractive emolument as he has not done a good job.
Chairman, I so submit.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?
10512 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I would like to report that I fail to see "Comrade WONG Kwok-hing" and he is not present again. I hope you will ask him to return in accordance with Rule 17(3) of the Rules of Procedure. He has gone loafing.
CHAIRMAN (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)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG kwok-hung, please speak.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I am speaking on Amendment No 27 concerning head 21 in respect the Chief Executive's Office under subhead 000, which "Resolved that head 21 be reduced by $2,528,376 in respect of subhead 000." The amount of reduction is approximately equivalent to the estimated expenditure for six months' emoluments of the Chief Executive (including salaries and non-accountable entertainment allowance).
Why do I need to deduct his emoluments for six months? I certainly have grounds. Chairman, when you vet our amendments, you said that you would not approve the amendment if the proposed deduction is for one year, but not six months. I therefore proposed a six-month deduction, and it is worked out from computations of some trivial figures.
In response to Mr Gary FAN's question, the Permanent Secretary of the Chief Executive's Office said that the Chief Executive had made 11 visits to the Mainland in 2013-2014. Let me say something in passing. Just now, a reporter approached me outside and said to me that LEUNG Chun-ying was "not okay". I then asked him, "Really? I have never heard that LEUNG Chun-ying is not okay." The reporter then told me that LEUNG Chun-ying is no longer the political figure with the highest recognition rate, his rating has dropped to the third place. Why would this happen? Because someone … everything has its own sneaky rules. Being the Chief Executive, he should move around in Hong LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10513
Kong. I deduct his emolument for six months because he is not in Hong Kong for six months of a year.
Chairman, his children have gone abroad and he has properties in the United Kingdom, so he will immediately fly over to the United Kingdom whenever he is on leave. Does he "love the country and Hong Kong"? I have not taken this into consideration because after all, he went there while he was on vacation. The fact is, however, he has spent too little time in Hong Kong, and this is tantamount to asking the old lady Mrs CHAN when she visited Sham Shui Po last time. The spirit of Mr WONG Kwok-hing has been taken apart and he is again not present. Although Mr WONG Kwok-hing is not present, I will continue with my speech. If you were the Chief Executive, what is the base of your administration? Certainly, it should be Hong Kong, but he has gone to the Mainland so frequently that 11 visits had been made in 2013-2014. Assuming that he stayed there for four days on average, what is the total number of days spent in the Mainland?
What is more, if duty visits were counted from the day he became the Chief Executive-designate, that is, between 1 April 2012 and 28 February 2014 (excluding the last two months), 23 visits had been made. How much did he spend? Chairman, the answer is $2,937,630. What did he gain? He is not obliged to tell us. He has not mentioned in the Policy Agendas or the Policy Addresses the gains from these duty visits.
I recall that he once asked a young person whom he met in the Mainland to sell red wine. This is the only thing that he has mentioned. In my opinion, he will fail wage earners and taxpayers if he receives emolument for a full year. I therefore consider that he should not be paid for the period of time when he was not in Hong Kong, unless he tells us what he had done during the period.
Let me cite a very simple example. He was on a duty visit to New Zealand, Chile and Brazil between 9 and 18 April 2012 to promote Hong Kong. Chairman, have you heard that Hong Kong has business dealings with these countries? No. But I do remember that all Legislative Council Members have received invitations from the Vice Consul of the Consulate General of Chile in Hong Kong, inviting us to visit Chile. The Chief Executive has not made any report upon his return. The Vice Consul of the Consulate General of Chile in Hong Kong has invited us time and again to visit Chile, and has even given us 10514 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 some wines ― as they are less than $500, declaration is not necessary ― From this, we can see that the duty visits made by the Chief Executive are completely illogical. Did he pay overseas visits to take care of his overseas businesses by taking advantage of his capacity as the Chief Executive-designate? God knows.
Another thing is, Mainland is the place where LEUNG Chun-ying visited most. This is one characteristics of the so-called "compensated dating" Chief Executive. If the Chief Executive really thinks that the Mainland is full of business opportunities, he should establish Hong Kong offices in all provinces or special regions, like the Economic and Trade Offices in Shanghai, which is a more practical approach. In other words, instead of flying around like a lady of the night, the Chief Executive should set up offices in different regions and cities. After establishing Hong Kong offices or networks in the Mainland, we would have government officials of different levels to deal with the matter. There is no need for a leader to wander around. As I have said time and again, the behavior of many people can be described as "wild willows leaning with the wind". If anyone invites LEUNG Chun-ying for a meeting, he will surely go without knowing the purpose.
At present, there are four Hong Kong offices in the Mainland, but the places where LEUNG Chun-ying visited may not necessarily have anything to do with these four offices. The visits are not essential in many cases. For example, between 9 and 13 June 2013, he flew to New York of the United States. What was the occasion? I am going to read it out, and Members would also find it ridiculous. He went there "to attend trade promotion events organized by the Hong Kong Trade Development Council (HKTDC); and to hold meetings with political and business leaders and meet Hong Kong people who work and study in New York." He would attend all trade promotion events organized by the HKTDC. I wonder if he is taking advantage of public means to satisfy his private ends. Whom did he meet? As we all know, he once flew to the United States in the hope of meeting BLOOMBERG, but BLOOMBERG refused to meet him. From the information provided by Ms Ran CHEN of the Chief Executive's Office, there is no way we can find out whom he met.
Chairman, if you go on a duty visit, a very important question to ask is which government officials you are going to meet. They can be Minister of Commerce, Premier or Vice-Premier, representing different hierarchies. Nonetheless, during the visits, LEUNG Chun-ying has no idea whom he would LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10515 meet. Thus, his reply is beyond verification. Very simply, he went to a remote place called Guiyang between 8 and 9 September 2013 to attend the 9th Pan-Pearl River Delta Regional Co-operation and Development Forum and Trade Fair. Whom did he meet? Did he meet Guiyang Party Secretary? Or, did he visit the place for no reason? I find it difficult to monitor the Government. After the Chief Executive visited a place, he should have come back with some name cards to show us whom he has met. Yet, no such information is available.
I therefore consider that LEUNG Chun-ying should not receive such high salary in the past two years, or the previous year. Chairman, I also notice another thing from LEUNG Chun-ying's duty visits. The visits have nothing to do with the two departments overseen by Prof K C CHAN and Gregory SO. In other words, these two Directors of Bureaux are supposedly appointed to provide assistance for the Chief Executive or make referrals, but it turned out that nothing has been done. The Chief Executive has arbitrarily picked his accompanying staff. Chairman, to be honest, if the Legislative Council has to make a duty visit, you will certainly choose the relevant persons as accompanying staff. When I was deported from Shanghai last time, for example, Secretary General Kenneth CHEN also stood out and said, "No one could arbitrarily search Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung's luggage before informing the President." The matter was settled after some negotiations.
However, noting from the numerous overseas visits made, LEUNG Chun-ying was neither accompanied by Directors of Bureaux nor their subordinates, meaning that the visits are independent of the Government. Were there unspeakable secrets? Why should we allow the Chief Executive to fly around and take advantage of public means to satisfy his private ends? I must state that I may have made mistakes in this regard, but in view of the ridiculous reply given by the Chief Executive's Office, I have no choice but to make wild guesses. And yet, I did notice one thing. In many case, there were no accompanying staff at all. If Members do not believe, they can ask Prof K C CHAN the number of times he has accompanied the Chief Executive to duty visits. He is sitting right here. Has this appointed official ever accompanied the Chief Executive to such visits?
On this point, I insisted that his salary should be slashed by half. A deficient Chief Executive is not entitled to full emolument. I will explain why his full emoluments should be deducted later on and I hope Members will pay 10516 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 attention to this. Mr WONG Kwok-hing is not present again. The emolument of the Chief Executive should be slashed because he often made meaningless visits. I have to ask Mr WONG Kwok-hing to return, whose salary should also be deducted. He is a waste of public money.
Chairman, I would like to ask Mr WONG Kwok-hing to return and perform his function in accordance with Rule 17(3).
CHAIRMAN (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)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, when so many Members have proposed to cut the expenditure for the Chief Executive's Office, in particular, the remuneration of the Chief Executive, I would also like to join their debate at once. However, as I am still dealing with issues related to Head 30 ― Correctional Services Department (CSD), I must handle these issues first.
In the last round of my speech, I mentioned the CSD's Programme (2) Re-integration. Under this Re-integration Programme, the revised estimate for 2013-2014 drops 2.9% compared with the actual expenditure for 2012-2013 and the original estimate for 2013-2014. That means the provision allocated is not fully used. This is a big problem. Regarding the psychological counselling provided by correctional institutions to persons in custody under the Prison Programme, in the area of psychological counselling and welfare services, the number of sessions and visits has dropped from 386 328 in 2013 to 384 810 in the estimate of last year. I think the CSD has to give an account of the reasons why psychological counselling and welfare services, which are so important to persons in custody, have decreased instead of increase. Is this because the general psychological health of these persons has improved and so the number of psychological counselling sessions and visits can be reduced in the estimate?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10517
The services I mention are under the Programme of Re-integration under the purview of the Rehabilitation Division. In fact, a number of Members are very concerned about this issue. For example, Dr LAU Wong-fat has asked a question ― I am not sure whether he still remembers ― which is: What is the number of staff on the establishment of the Department responsible for helping rehabilitated offenders to find jobs upon release? What is the expenditure involved? What is the estimated number of rehabilitated offenders who will receive assistance in finding jobs in the coming year? I believe Dr LAU Wong-fat expected to get the answers and figures through one of the channels A, B, C, D, E, F, G proposed by Mr WONG Kwok-hing, that is, through the special meetings of the Finance Committee, so as to review whether the Administration has made effective use of resources. But to our surprise, the Administration plays a trick on "Uncle Fat" by giving the following reply: "As the above work is part of the routine duties of CSD's Rehabilitation Division, we do not have separate figures on the establishment and expenditure involved in helping rehabilitated persons to seek employment." The Government is in favour of adopting such practice: unclear division of works and lack of breakdowns of the overall expenditure. There is no way to evaluate cost effectiveness and value for money unless the Audit Commission performs audit review on each item. Only then can we have some idea.
The latter part of the question is on the estimated number of rehabilitated offenders who will receive assistance in finding jobs in the coming year and the reply is: "Since the number of persons in custody who are sentenced to imprisonment in correctional institutions and the length of sentence are determined by the courts" ― this is just like saying that "the Pope is Catholic" because there is no need to explain that these are determined by the courts ― "there is a great variation in the number of persons in custody to be discharged each year." When Members ask for the figures, they of course need to make the calculation by themselves. But the Administration replied that it does not even know the number of persons admitted to and discharged from correctional institutions because there is a great variation. The Administration continued: "Moreover, the background of each person in custody, their choice of occupation and their needs for securing a job are all different and may be depend on the social and economic circumstances, and so on. Therefore, the CSD is unable to provide an estimate on the number of rehabilitated persons who will seek employment. Nonetheless, the CSD is committed to spare rendering assistance to every case where necessary."
10518 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014
Dear colleagues, are you satisfied with such a reply? Does it mean the CSD has done its work by giving a reply to a question? Are we very satisfied? Regarding the point I made just now, some people query whether the CSD has "fabricated" the figures. The CSD claimed that the employment success rate of discharged prisoners is as high as 90%, but the Society for Community Organization said that the employment success rate of discharged prisoners is less than 50%. How does the CSD come up with the relevant number? According to the CSD's subsequent reply, adult ex-offenders have an 80% employment rate after they have received vocational training and six months' voluntary follow-up services. In other words, not all discharged prisoners, but only those rehabilitated offenders within the scope set by the CSD who have received six months' voluntary follow-up services, have an employment rate of more than 80%. Yet, the CSD publicly claimed that the employment success rate of discharged prisoners was as high as 90%. No wonder this is different from the actual situation and the number derived from the survey of the non-governmental organization. This shows that the CSD has exaggerated the results of the work it is responsible for and has evaded accountability. When Members enquire about certain figures, the CSD only makes up a reply by compiling some routine answers.
When we talk about this subject, we have cited a lot of examples in the past, such as ill-treatment of inmates or even death of inmates during custody. There are numerous examples, but I will not list them out one by one here. I will only illustrate with the latest incident which happened in early April. An Assistant Officer II is suspected to have assaulted a male inmate aged under 21 in a rehabilitation centre. When the management at directorate level discovered the improper use of force by the officer, the case was referred to the police. The officer made up a story by claiming that the inmate attacked first. The inmate was subsequently charged of two offences, namely, common assault and intent to mislead police officers. The trial of the case is in progress. I am not going to comment on the case, I just bring it up.
This case is the tip of the iceberg, of every case that surfaces, there may be 10 or 100 cases not unearthed. Why? As we know, people who witness what has happened may not have the courage to stand forward and testify. In many complaint cases, it involves the handling of one inmate by one or more correctional officers. Despite the presence of onlookers, some of them are of course other inmates, they subsequently refuse to testify or provide evidence, thus making it difficult for the inmate who has been beaten or ill-treated to get supporting evidence from a third party. In this regard, we hope that the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10519 correctional services of Hong Kong will continue to improve, so that the scenes portrayed in films like Prison on Fire and Chinese Midnight Express will not happen in Hong Kong again. We all know that the Council has little power to monitor the CSD. For example, during our visit to the Stanley Prison, surely we would not be able to see the negative or so-called dark side of the story. I also note from the information for this year that the occupancy rate of two correctional institutions, namely, Cape Collinson Correctional Institution which admits young males, and Nei Kwu Correctional Institution which deals with female drug addicts, is almost saturated. In particular, the occupancy rate of Cape Collinson Correctional Institution has increased from 83% in 2011 to 85.9% in 2012, and further to 92.9% in 2013. We can see that the figures are rising in consecutive years and the occupancy rate has gone beyond 90% which is nearly saturated.
At present, there are two correctional institutions for young persons in Hong Kong, namely Cape Collinson Correctional Institution and Lai King Correctional Institution which accept young males and females respectively. In view of the rising occupancy rate, the Government should really consider expanding the institutions to increase their capacity so as to meet the unforeseeable occupancy rate in the future. Overcrowding will not only increase the possibility of conflicts among inmates, but will also increase the stress of correctional staff. The cases of impolite treatment or even maltreatment and ill-treatment mentioned just now may be attributed to work stress, which will lead to a vicious cycle. For Nei Kwu Correctional Institution I cited just now which specializes in female drug addicts cases, the occupancy rate has dropped from 90.6% in 2011 to 83.6% in 2012, but rebounded to 90.3% in 2013. The figures I cite are all extremely high which have reached over 90%.
At present there are a total of three drug addiction treatment centres in the territory, namely Hei Ling Chau Addiction Treatment Centre for adult males, Lai Sun Correctional Institution for young males, and Nei Kwu Correctional Institution for young females. The general occupancy rate of these drug addiction treatment centres is not as high as that of the institutions I just mentioned. In particular, the occupancy rate of Hei Ling Chau Addiction Treatment Centre remains at 60% to 70%, with 61% in 2011, 69.3% in 2012 and 69.7% in 2013. This shows that if the rate of the female drug addiction treatment centre remains at a high level, the Government may need to consider whether it should separate the centre into two, with one admitting adult females and one admitting young females, as in the case of male centres.
10520 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014
Lastly, I would like to bring up two issues. I remember I have raised one of them last year, that is, the issue on solitary confinement. Solitary confinement, also known as segregated confinement, has long been criticized and condemned by many human rights organizations and monitoring organizations. Solitary confinement is to lock up the inmate in a very small room, and the inmate may only get out of that room to do exercise for one hour in every 24 hours. Studies have pointed out that an inmate placed in solitary confinement for 10 days would suffer physical and mental impact. In response, the CSD said that solitary confinement was legal and reasonable as it was empowered by the Prison Rules to place individual inmates in solitary confinement in order to maintain order in prison. The existing Prison Rules of Hong Kong, having been implemented since Hong Kong was a British colony, is rather outdated and has not been reviewed for a long time. Solitary confinement is considered mental abuse in a civilized society, but yet there are inmates in Hong Kong who have been locked up in solitary confinement for over 100 days. This is obviously a violation of the human rights convention. I have known some rehabilitated offenders who recall the terrible experience of being put in solitary confinement, during which they suffered from auditory hallucination and would talk to themselves because they thought someone was talking to them. They could not tell whether the one talking to them was really a human being and they might even ask whether somebody was really talking to them. Solitary confinement is mental abuse to them. In my view, solitary/segregated confinement is not necessary unless it is arranged for the special needs of particular inmates. For example, during my visit to Stanley Prison, I learn that some inmates request for solitary confinement in order to avoid harassment.
Finally, while I propose to deduct the annual expenditure for the CSD, I must declare that some expenditures of the CSD have indicated improvement which I must highlight here. They are Items 862, 863, 864 and 883 in the Capital Account under head 30 (Page 142 of the Expenditure Analysis by Head). These four items are for the procurement of low radiation X-ray body scanners, which will be installed in Lo Wu Correctional Institution, Tai Lam Centre for Women, Pik Uk Correctional Institution and Hei Ling Chau Addiction Treatment Centre Hospital. In the last financial year, the Government proposed for the first time the introduction of such equipment in Lai Chi Kok Reception Centre. This is in fact regarded as a benevolent policy to the correctional institutions, although the sum involved is not very large. I would like to point out that the so-called practice of "probing with hand" adopted in the past is very uncivilized and is intended to humiliate inmates. It will be a good policy if such X-ray body scanners can be introduced to the institutions. However, after I followed up the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10521 situation of Lai Chi Kok Reception Centre, it is found that the practice of "probing with hand" may be adopted again because the X-ray body scanner may sometimes be out of order. Therefore, I hope the Government will reserve sufficient resources for the maintenance of such equipment. In case the scanner in one of the reception centres is out of order, inmates should be allowed as far as possible to choose to be examined in another centre instead of being humiliated by the adoption of the traditional practice.
I so submit.
MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I would like to take this opportunity to explain why I raised a point of order just now. Indeed I do not care much about the object displayed. What I mainly want is to ask you whether you rule that a filibuster is going on. I raised a point of order last week and I asked whether you ruled that a filibuster was going on. You answered in the affirmative. Since the debate had just started at that time, why did you rule that Members were launching a filibuster when they just begun to speak? I cannot understand at all. Yet …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, you have already spoken on this point of view. Please do not debate in the Chamber on a ruling I have made.
MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): No, Chairman. They are relevant. Please let me finish first. You often criticize before I have finished what I am going to say. I think this is not fair to me because …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, please speak on the amendments of this joint debate.
MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Yes, I will … because there is a premise. Why do I say so? It is because after you have received the amendments proposed by colleagues, you keep telling the public that Members are launching a filibuster. You even echo with the Government's remark about the emergence of fiscal cliff. Why do I raise this question …
10522 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, firstly, what you are saying is not true; secondly, your speech is not relevant to this joint debate. If you continue to talk about something that is not relevant to this debate, I have to stop you.
MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, it is relevant. Can you please let me finish first?
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): What you said just now is not true and I am not going to have a debate with you in the Chamber.
MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, if you think what I said is not true, you can simply clarify the part that is not true. It is unreasonable for you to stop me from speaking, right? Just now some colleagues also said something which is not true but you did not stop them …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, as I have already said, Committee is now having the second joint debate. Please speak on the amendments covered.
MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): I have to explain that the purpose of proposing amendments is not to launch a filibuster. The amendments are meaningful. If the Government considers that a fiscal cliff will thus emerge, it should be responsible for solving the problem. Moreover, Members have the duty to, apart from conducting discussion on the Budget, propose amendments to the Budget, and later vote for against the Budget.
Therefore, the Government should not act on wishful thinking or regard the Legislative Council a rubber stamp, thinking that we must do whatever it tells us to do or pass whatever it proposes. This shows no respect for the Council. As such, I take this opportunity to say that the amendments proposed by the Members, which have also been approved by you, are reasonable and in order. I think it is inappropriate for the Government to advise us, especially the Chairman, to cut off the filibuster in due course in view of a possible emergence of fiscal cliff. I criticize such practice of the Government as it impedes and affects Members who want to propose amendments.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10523
On this occasion, I hope the Chairman and the Government can learn a lesson from this experience. As you said just now, it will be acceptable if the issues raised by Members are not repeated. That means the acts of the Members are in compliance with their duties and should therefore be recognized; otherwise, if you keep saying they are launching a filibuster, it will be unfair to them and affect our whole debate as well. Moreover, the Chairman has the responsibility to stop Members when they repeat their arguments. By doing so, you have already carried out your duties. By saying repeatedly that Members are launching a filibuster, it will affect Members in discharging their duties …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, may I remind you that you have strayed away from the question.
MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): It is because the amendment they propose this time are, in my view, very meaningful and significant. Why are they meaningful and significant? The present amendment of reducing the expenditure for the Chief Executive's Office (CEO) and even reducing the Chief Executive's remuneration in subhead 000 under head 21 is very meaningful. Why? Firstly, we are dissatisfied with the performance of the Chief Executive. Though we consider that he has violated the rules, there is nothing we can do under the existing mechanism to make him step down. He will have to step down voluntarily. As such, if Members are dissatisfied with his performance, all they can do is slash his remuneration. As Mr WONG Yuk-man has said, we should not do so, but since there is no other way we can make the Chief Executive and staff of the CEO pay attention to their work, as well as their attitude and principles in doing their jobs, we can only resort to this means. This is the most important issue. Therefore, I strongly support the amendment to slash the expenditure.
The popularity of the Chief Executive has been dropping and has dragged down the support rate of the whole SAR Government to a level below acceptable standard. Why should he not be held accountable? Officials in many other governments would have taken the blame and resigned under this situation, but our Government and the Chief Executive have never done so. Instead, the Chief Executive remains in his throne. As such, we have no choice but to express our dissatisfaction towards him by slashing his salary. As pointed out by 10524 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014
Mr WONG Yuk-man, it would probably take us many days to list out all his inadequacies. This is really true.
For example, after he has assumed office, he paid no regard to rules and regulations. In introducing the Old Age Living Allowance, according to the rules of the Council, before submitting funding application to the Finance Committee for approval, the application should first be discussed by the Panel so as to allow Panel members to understand the details of the policy. However, he made the most unreasonable request of asking us to pass the funding proposal by 26 October. The Panel on Welfare Services was only set up on 16 October. With only 10 days inclusive, how could we have time to understand the details of the policy? In view of the complexity of the policy and the wide scope involved, how could we discuss and understand the details of the policy? But he paid no attention to this situation. Instead, he told the public that the proposal must be passed by 26 October; otherwise the allowance could not be dated back to 1 October. When we asked him whether it was alright if the proposal was passed on 26 November, his reply was in the negative, saying that in that case, the allowance could not be dated back to 1 October. When we asked him for an explanation, he failed to give a reason. Therefore, what he did had violated the established rules of the Legislative Council, forcing us to be rubber stamps to pass whatever he wanted us to pass. In my view, this is a very ridiculous administrative means. This is the first impropriety I would like to spell out.
Secondly, he keeps saying that the public want a solution to the housing problem. I agree that the housing problem must be addressed. However, he often stresses the adoption of a people-oriented approach in implementing his policies. When land sites have to be identified for housing, how is the people-oriented approach put into implementation? He fails to do so at all. Take the development of the Northeast New Territories (NENT) as an example. He should have a better understanding of the aspirations of the residents, farmers and commercial tenants affected. But instead, he said only consulting the District Councils and Rural Committees would be enough. How about the residents affected? If we had not forced him to consult them, he would not have done so. He refused to talk to the residents to understand their situation. Is this a people-oriented approach? He has failed in this respect.
Apart from the question of NENT, the same happened in the MTR's development project in Sun Yuen Long Centre, New Territories West, where no consultation has been made with the affected residents. The so-called LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10525 consultation was just to inform residents of the project. Residents were informed of the project on the day before it was submitted to the Town Planning Board for approval. Where have all those procedures gone? How about the people-oriented approach? The Government has been inconsistent in words and deeds. This is the second problem.
The third problem is about the election pledge. What promises had LEUNG Chun-ying made? He promised to deal with the issue on the offsetting arrangement of the Mandatory Provident Fund. In his first Policy Address, nothing was mentioned. That is acceptable; we do not blame him for not accomplishing anything in the first year after his assumption of office. But in the second Policy Address, he gave a vivid account as if something would be done, but it turned out that nothing has been done. Yet, he did not give any explanation or account; end of story. As regards the future plans, he did not give an account of it. Where have all these promises gone? He fails to live up to his promises and he keeps stalling in implementing the policies. For example, regarding the issue on standard working hours which is one of our major concerns, he tries to play tricks by setting up an ad hoc committee to conduct reviews. This ad hoc committee will spend three years to conduct studies. What will happen after three years? Nothing has been mentioned about how to implement standard working hours. In fact, no promises have been that the policy will definitely be implemented, the ad hoc committee is just responsible for conducting a study on this issue. What is the plan? After three years, the tenure of the current-term Government will soon end, and this issue will not be followed up. He has not honoured the promises made in the past and has let the people down. Such questions will keep arising.
Since the establishment of the SAR Government, it keeps claiming its concern about people's livelihood and what it will do to make improvements. In particular, during the election campaign, LEUNG Chun-ying talked about adopting a people-oriented approach to improve people's livelihood. He even visited various districts, bringing along a pen and a stool, in order to understand the local conditions. But what has he done? Nothing. He said that he would address livelihood issues, which are our major concerns, but in the end nothing has been achieved.
Apart from these issues, to our regret, there is an even more important question which he has not dealt with. What is it? During the reunification, what gave Hong Kong people the confidence to accept the return of sovereignty, 10526 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 it is the Central Government's guarantee of "one country, two systems", "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" and "a high degree of autonomy". If the Central Government has already recognized these principles and premise, should every Chief Executive be obliged to protect and safeguard them? If so, should he protect and safeguard these premise and principles in his administration, as well as in his policies and speech? However, sadly, that is not the case. Why? If we have paid attention to the recent interviews, SHIU Sin-por, Head of the Central Policy Unit (CPU), stated clearly in a public interview, I cannot cite his exact wording, but he said to the effect people should know that the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (LOCPG) would interferes. Interference does exist. Chairman, if it is fine for the LOCPG to interfere, I really want to ask how the principles of "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" and "a high degree of autonomy" can be upheld.
The Basic Law has expressly stipulated the relationship between the Central Government and the SAR Government in that the former is only responsible for national defence and foreign affairs while the latter takes up all other affairs. It is true that as far as the constitutional reform (which we are talking about these days) is concerned, the Chief Executive is appointed by the Central Government; and any amendments to the constitutional reform are also subject to the approval of the Central Government. These are all stipulated in the Basic Law and not subject to argument, irrespective of whether we agree with it or not. However, if the principles of "one country, two systems", "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" and "a high degree of autonomy" are so important, how come the SAR Government or our Chief Executive, LEUNG Chun-ying, does not clarify or stop SHIU Sin-por's remark on the interference of the LOCPG in the SAR Government, Hong Kong affairs or the operation of Hong Kong? Given that they do not even try to stop such remark, how can the principles be upheld?
Chairman, I think this is very important. If the Chief Executive does not express his stance and attitude towards this issue; this is tantamount to conniving, allowing, and acquiescing the LOCPG's interference in the internal affairs of Hong Kong. How can this be permitted? It is a violation of the premise and principles of "one country, two systems", "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" and "a high degree of autonomy". Chairman, if this problem (The buzzer sounded) … existed before 1997 …
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10527
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, your speaking time is up.
MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): … no one would accept the reunification.
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, Amendment No 1 proposed by me is to reduce the expenditure for the Chief Executive's Office (CEO) by some $90 million. Just now I have pointed out some of the deficiencies and problems in the operation of the CEO in order to prove that my amendment is appropriate, reasonable and justified.
However, I am very disappointed that Mr WONG Kwok-hing is not present again. Chairman, I request a headcount and invite Mr WONG Kwok-hing to come back to the Chamber to listen to my explanation; otherwise he would later distort the facts by accusing us for saying something not supported by facts or justifications or are repetitive. I have not repeated anything in my speech.
Chairman, please ring the bell to summon Mr WONG Kwok-hing back.
CHAIRMAN (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)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN, please continue.
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Thank you, Chairman. Thank you for summoning Mr WONG Kwok-hing back. Chairman, I believe the blunders committed by "689", the Chief Executive, and the CEO of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, are the most numerous in the history of Hong Kong. Simply put, the most significant pledge he has made to Hong Kong people, especially to those 689 electors who voted for him, is his undertaking of addressing livelihood issues. Some people supported him because of this 10528 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 undertaking, particularly on improving housing problem. When he just assumed office, he immediately indicated that he would increase housing supply, especially public rental housing supply. Unfortunately, he has appointed "Sub-divided units Paul"1, who knows nothing about planning, as the Secretary for Development. Such an appointment has become a defect in the overall planning. Chaos and blunders are resulted from the very beginning. The most notable example is the case regarding a small site near the Hong Kong Baptist University. The identification of this small site for building several hundred flats has caused an uproar in the territory. Those who are planning experts have repeatedly pointed out that Hong Kong has been developing new towns for more than 30 years and the Government know very well how to identify large quantity of land for housing construction. Nonetheless, he thinks that he is clever and changes the past practice by introducing six methods for land supply. These six methods are to smack our face until it is swollen to put on a fat look. In the end, nothing has been achieved.
Recently some strategic changes are made by returning to the approach of developing new towns. Just look at the figures, the construction of 680 000 housing flats means we need land nine times … five times as big as Tin Shui Wai. However, at present there are only two new towns, namely the North East New Territories New Development Area and Hung Shui Kiu, which cannot even meet half of the requirement upon their development. He therefore plans to build a new town but it takes five to eight years from planning to construction. Due to the present mistake in direction, he promises to build 480 000 housing flats. I believe this promise will then turn into another lie and empty talk.
Chairman, Mr WONG Kwok-hing has disappeared again. Please do a headcount.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.
(Mr IP Kwok-him raised his hand when the summoning bell was ringing)
1 The nickname of Secretary Paul CHAN for operating "sub-divided units" in the past. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10529
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr IP Kwok-him, what is your point?
MR IP KWOK-HIM (in Cantonese): Is the absence of Mr WONG Kwok-hing a reason for requesting a headcount? If not, should this be rectified?
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Any Member is entitled to request a headcount irrespective of the reason given. A quorum is not present in the Chamber at this moment.
(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN, please continue.
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, thanks for arresting Mr WONG Kwok-hing at large. Chairman, regarding "689" …
(Mr IP Kwok-him stood up)
MR IP KWOK-HIM (in Cantonese): May I ask whether we can use the expression "arresting Mr WONG Kwok-hing at large" for conducting a headcount. I would like to get a clarification.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): The question raised by Mr IP Kwok-him is not a point of order. No matter what reason was given by Mr Albert CHAN just now in requesting a headcount, a quorum was not present in the Chamber. Once a quorum is present, the meeting continues.
Mr Albert CHAN, please continue.
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, you are brilliant. Chairman, if Members would like to criticize other Members for what they say, they should 10530 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 sit quietly and listen, and raise criticism after the speaker has delivered his speech. Making criticism indiscriminately without listening will definitely lead to bad consequences.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, please speak on the amendments.
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, when LEUNG Chun-ying is involved, that is, when we have to reduce the expenditure for his whole Office, I can give the countless evidence of the crimes he has committed. As the Chief Executive and principal officials in the Chief Executive's Office (CEO), even though their performance may not be outstanding, the decisions and arrangements they make should not disgrace Hong Kong.
I believe we can clearly recall the poor performance of the CEO in arranging a meeting between the Chief Executive and the President of the Philippines. The ludicrous behaviour and silly smiles of the Chief Executive, as well as the seating arrangement have belittled Hong Kong, making all Hong Kong people feel being humiliated. The arrogance of the President of the Philippines contrasted greatly with three officials from our side (including the Chief Executive) sitting in a row as if they were being lectured. This can be regarded as the most unsettling scene among other occasions of the so-called foreign affairs in our history. In particular, bereaved families of the victims find it most unacceptable. This incident reflect the Government's inadequacies and inability to make quick response. Even though you have been ridiculed, you should react promptly by walking out in protest. However, they chose to stay behind to be humiliated. This is indeed a poor performance.
On the other hand, I have to point out the problem of low efficiency of the CEO despite the large number of staff. Many people say that the expenditure for the CEO is only some $90 million, which is a small sum compared with other government departments and Policy Bureaux. However, if we look at the detailed figures and make a comparison against similar officials in the past, we will find that the figures are so enormous that they are unacceptable.
In 2014-2015, there are 12 posts for policy co-ordination in the CEO. There are indeed more generals than soldiers. Their duties include planning and arranging for the Chief Executive's official activities, and co-ordination of news LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10531 and public relations work ― public relations have become a laughing stock in the media. With abundant online reports and messages, the facial expressions of and remarks made by the Information Coordinator at press conferences have also been captured. The reporters consider it a waste of public money to appoint a person of such poor quality at such a high pay. In addition, there are 12 posts for departmental administration; two for translation services; 20 for secretarial and other support services; 30 for clerical and general support services; 21 for domestic services for the Chief Executive's official residences; and seven for driving services. Among these posts, five are at directorate rank.
Let us make a simple comparison. Do not make a comparison with TUNG Chee-hwa and Donald TSANG. Let us take a look at the British Hong Kong colonial era, which has often been despised by a lot of Members, especially those belonging to the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong. During the era of Sir Murray MACLEHOSE, a lot of new public and housing policies were formulated, including the four pillars of public policies: housing, social welfare, healthcare and education. A number of policies, especially the construction of public housing and the establishment of the Housing Authority, were introduced by Sir Murray MACLEHOSE in the 1970s.
During the era of MACLEHOSE, there were only three staff members responsible for policy co-ordination while there are 12 working for LEUNG Chun-ying. Currently 12 persons are responsible for departmental administration while there was only one in the MACLEHOSE era. At present seven persons work for driving services while there were five then. We can see that the number of persons for clerical and general support services has doubled from 14 in the past to 30 at present. Therefore, when we look at the redundancy of staff and make a comparison, we will have a strong feeling and query whether public money is wisely spent. This is a serious problem especially it is now the post-modern era. Chairman, many enterprises have been cutting their manpower in clerical support because a lot of procedures are computerized.
If we have handled complaint cases from residents, we will know that the way the CEO deals with complaint cases is very laughable. Very often the CEO just acts as the "messenger". When a person complains to the CEO about a certain Policy Bureau or department, the CEO will forward the case to the authority concerned, which will then assign an assistant (that is, the official concerned) to make a reply. Subsequently, the CEO will forward the official's 10532 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 reply to the complainant. Since the CEO only acts as the messenger, better not waste the money of taxpayers, just tell the public that the CEO does not handle complaints; if a complaint is to be lodged, it should be handled by individual department. What the CEO now does is simply referring the public's complaints about policies and departments to other departments for follow up, and then forwarding the department's reply to the public. Such practice is not just bureaucratic, but stupid and silly. Does the CEO regard all members of the public idiots? When a complaint is lodged against a person or a department, is there no independent mechanism to handle the complaint? Can the CEO, based on the response of the department concerned, decide whether there is any impropriety and then follow up? In my view, the way it handles complaints can hardly meet public aspiration.
As I mentioned just now, the CEO is a large and powerful office with great status, one of its duties is to co-ordinate policies and assist the Chief Executive in dealing with various problems so as to facilitate the best performance of the Chief Executive. As such, its performance and mode of operation is unacceptable. Chairman, there is another characteristic of the CEO, which is related to the number of persons handling confidential documents. There are five Confidential Assistants in the CEO. I really do not understand why five persons are needed to do the job. Are there a lot of confidential files? In fact, a lot of confidential matters have already been dealt with by "689", who personally visits the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region or the Mainland, by negotiating with certain officials. During the era of the British rule, the Governor had to communicate with the British Government on numerous matters and written correspondence was the main channel at that time. However, there are various channels available for communication nowadays. And "689" loves to travel to the Mainland, visiting places that cannot be disclosed and making contacts with different parties. Yet he still needs five persons to handle confidential files. What are the contents of these confidential files? No one gives an account or an explanation. As a result, there are a total of 104 posts in the CEO, most of which are for clerical support. The large number of senior officials is also alarming and tantamount to wasting public money.
Chairman, my amendments concerning the CEO are of various combinations. Of course, my first amendment, that is, Amendment No 1 aims at reducing almost all the expenditure for the CEO to $1,000. But in Amendment No 7, I propose "Resolved that head 21 be reduced by $20,800,000 in respect of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10533 subhead 000". The reduction is equivalent to the annual estimated expenditure for the Executive Council. Of course, this amendment is made on the assumption that Amendment No 1 is not passed. If Amendment No 1 is passed, I do not have to propose Amendment No 7. Why do I need to propose a reduction of the expenditure for the Executive Council if Amendment No 1 is not passed?
Frankly speaking, the performance of the Executive Council is the reason attributing to the poor administration of the Government. Firstly, a number of Executive Council Members, including the No 1 fan of LEUNG who has recently declared bankruptcy, are accused of being involved in conflicts of interests. More than one of these Members have resigned due to this reason. Such a membership of the Executive Council has already created a series of problems at the start. Moreover, over the past two years, we have seen that in a number of cases, especially the one concerning the license application of the Hong Kong Television Network Limited, Executive Council Members have contradictory views with the Chief Executive. Normally, the Chief Executive should dissolve the Executive Council and form a new one. Given that the decision of the Executive Council is inconsistent with the Chief Executive on such a major policy, the Executive Council should be reorganized (The buzzer sounded) … that is the reason why I propose Amendment No 7.
DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I speak to explain my amendment to the Budget ― Why should the salary of the Commissioner of Police Andy TSANG be reduced? The Commissioner of Police belongs to the so-called "hawks" and has all along taken a hard line. What is more, his principle is the absolute principle and everyone should listen to him. After he resumed office, he has made a lot of sound bites and often showed a haughty attitude. For example, during a protest against the Budget in March 2011, there were clashes between the police and the people. From a video clip circulated on the Internet, we saw that a police officer used pepper spray against a protestor without giving warning ― similar cases happened again the other day ― and we saw another police officer punching a protestor. After media coverage, it was found that a boy was pepper sprayed at the scene. When the Commissioner of Police was asked if he should apologize for this, he asked why he should apologize for protecting law and order. This is bizarre and his bizarre story was widely circulated.
10534 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014
In August 2011, when the then Vice Premier of the State Council, Mr LI Keqiang, paid a visit to a family in Laguna City, Kowloon East, during his visit to Hong Kong, a person wearing a T-shirt with words "平反六四" (meaning vindicate 4 June) was removed. At that time, a person who was later identified as a police officer obstructed the filming by blocking the camera, and this gave rise to a public outcry. When Andy TSANG gave an account of the incident in this Council, he said the police officer concerned had instinctively blocked the camera on seeing a black object rushing across. It was only afterwards that he discovered that his hand was accidentally placed on a camera. He had no intention to block the reporter's camera. This is his explanation of a black object. The Independent Police Complaints Council (IPCC) had conducted an investigation on this complaint and the report concluded that the allegation of obstructing news coverage was substantiated. Instead of withdrawing his explanation of a black object, Andy TSANG made another sound bite, "It is unrealistic to withdraw any remark that has been made."
In August 2012, the media revealed that Andy TSANG visited Beijing for three days, but the visit was not made public. Speaking to reporters after returning to Hong Kong, he said there was no need to make public conventional duty visits. Press release would be issued only when substantive effects or results have been achieved. Such an amazing remark! How come a trip to Beijing by a senior official appointed only with the approval of the Central Authorities need not be announced? Later, the media revealed that the police had procured sound cannons. In response, he said that the sound cannons were not weapons used against the demonstrators, but just an acoustic device that was not harmful at all. But according to the media, records showed that the sound cannons are internationally-recognized offensive weapons which may even turn people deaf. Andy TSANG explained that the public has some misunderstanding about the sound cannon. It is not a weapon but an acoustic device.
In May 2013, Ms Melody CHAN Yuk-fung, a volunteer of the Occupy Central movement, revealed that she was arrested by the police and netizens queried if this was political suppression. Pursued by reporters, Andy TSANG replied that he had no idea who the so-called volunteer of the Occupy Central movement was. It was pure speculation that the arrest of Ms Melody CHAN is related to the Occupy Central movement, and there was no basis at all. He went on to say that though Ms Melody CHAN was put on the wanted list as early as LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10535
January 2012, the police decided to make a low-profile attempt and avoid arresting her in the office, fearing that this might affect her colleagues. Such "low-profile" assertion was another ridiculous theory. Subsequently, Ms Melody CHAN refuted his assertion, saying that she had interviewed LEUNG Chun-ying a couple of times after she was put on the "low-profile" wanted list. Also, she had entered and left Hong Kong freely without any obstruction, and the police had not arrested her. She was arrested at home.
During a demonstration staged in May 2013, a female demonstrator was held by a male police officer in his arms and was brutally treated when she protested against the Chief Executive. This has aroused serious criticisms from the community. In response, Andy TSANG said that body contact was unavoidable in such chaotic situations.
In March 2014, the Working Group on Civic Education under the Central and Western District Council held a meeting to examine the allocation of $250,000 of public money for taking forward the publicity of the Basic Law. After the Chairman of the Working Group LEE Chi-hang refused to allow the journalists to observe the meeting or take any video, and ordered that the meeting be held in camera, a member from the Democratic Party, HUI Chi-fung, expressed disagreement with this arrangement. Someone then called the police and HUI Chi-fung was brought out of the meeting room. Again, the incident had aroused wide public criticisms. When Andy TSANG was asked about the incident, he said that the police had discharged its duty in accordance with the law to ensure peace in society. When Andy TSANG was pursued by reporters about the meaning of "peace in society", he said anyone who was not sure of the meaning of "peace in society" should seek legal advice.
In March 2014, former Chief Editor of Ming Pao, Kevin LAU Chun-to, was chopped. During the period of time after the attack, Andy TSANG told the media time and again that there was no evidence linking the case to LAU Chun-to's journalistic work. However, LAU's wife, Ms CHAN Pik-kwan, clearly indicated that their family did not have money problems, marital affairs or personal grudges. Thus, they strongly believed that the attack was related to LAU's journalistic work. What did Andy TSANG say then? He said the police would not rule out any motive at the moment. But up till now, the information in hand did not show the attack tied directly to journalistic work. What was the implication? Did it imply that the victim had marital affairs, money problems or 10536 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 personal grudges? What evidence did the police have then? Given that there was no evidence to rule out any possibility, how could he be so sure that the attack was not related to journalistic work?
Chairman, I have quoted numerous fallacies of Andy TSANG, who has repeatedly found excuses for the various mistakes in law enforcement. When describing the incidents, he has even deliberately toned down scenarios that may lead to controversies or may arouse public concern, such as freedom of the press and of speech. Being the Commissioner of Police, the head of our law enforcement unit, he should, supposedly, safeguard the basic freedom and safety of Hong Kong people. Instead of explaining the acts of the police, such as suppressing members of the public and obstructing media coverage or freedom of the press, incidents which even the IPCC has acknowledged, he gave various excuses and was reluctant to withdraw remarks that have gone overboard.
I absolutely think that this is a dereliction of duty on the part of the Commissioner of Police. Not only has he neglected his duties, his remarks have also brought negative implications on the Police Force. I am sure that the Police Force is efficient and devoted, and most police officers are destined to protect Hong Kong's law and order as well as the safety of Hong Kong people. In the face of members of the public and the media, our Police Commissioner will only use sweet words and take a tough stance. And, when reporters asked on behalf of the community about what he or the Police Force has done, he would try to evade with such fallacies.
Chairman, simply put, I think he should no longer be our Police Commissioner. I therefore move this amendment to completely cut his salary from the Budget. Thank you, Chairman.
MS CYD HO (in Cantonese): Chairman, when I spoke for the first time, I mentioned the Government Records Service (GRS) Director, who has failed to do what is within his capability. I therefore propose in my amendment to reduce his salary under head 142. Next, I will continue to point out his shortcomings in the management of his department and quality assurance.
As a matter of fact, the Government created a great deal of files every year. After we put forward "package questions", some reporters have patiently added up the figures provided by various Policy Bureaux and departments. Yet, I think LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10537 the number falls far short of that provided by the Government in response to one of our colleagues, who asked about the total number of files appraised and destroyed over the past three years (between 2011 and 2013). The table concerned is very simple and has only nine boxes. In the past three years, the number of records appraised was 13 828 000. What more alarming is the number of records destroyed, totalling 60 945 000. I wonder how tall the pile of records is if measured in terms of the International Finance Centre. Destruction of records would only be approved after they are considered by the department concerned to have no preservation value. Or, judgment would be made based on the headings of the records. For example, it is easy to tell from the heading "repairing of the sewerage at No. 964 Jordan Road" that programme records of this kind is not very meaningful and could be destroyed. Thus, record destruction can be carried out on a larger scale.
Nonetheless, according to former GRS Director Simon CHU, in order for records to be properly appraised, it will take an average of five hours to appraise one record. Given that there are only 13 archivists, how can they appraise 13 828 000 records within three years? What is more, the appraisal of some 11.2 million records was completed in 2012. I wonder how they had boost their strength to finish appraising such a huge amount of records in one year. We are therefore pretty worried that the Government had hastily appraised the records during the relocation to the new Central Government Offices in 2011, thus resulting in the massive destruction of valuable information.
(THE CHAIRMAN'S DEPUTY, MR ANDREW LEUNG, took the Chair)
We have enquired various departments of the number of records pending appraisal, and learnt that the amount is equally frightening. And yet, we have not seen the GRS Director liaising with various departments and making prior arrangements in respect of manpower and time. The Hong Kong Police Force (HKPF), a department of public concern, has a total of 2.22 million records pending appraisal by the GRS in the past three years. The HKPF alone has some 2.2 million programme records and 230 000 administrative records. Yet, these are only records transferred to the GRS for appraisal in the past three years, representing merely one third of the records of the entire HKPF ― relevant questions should be raised through other channels before we can have a full picture by consolidating the collected data ― it is discovered that the HKPF only 10538 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 possessed a total of 4.23 million programme records, and that is all, together with 508 000 administrative records, but it has transferred a total of over 2.4 million records between 2011 and 2013, representing one third of the records possessed by the HKPF. Has the GRS asked the HKPF why it had transferred one third of its records for appraisal for the very first time all of a sudden. Is it true that the record management of the HKPF also has serious problem?
On the other hand, we are also very concerned about the 13 archivists working in the GRS. If it takes five hours on average to appraise a record and the HKPF alone has 2.45 million records, how can they cope with the workload? Certainly, if the GRS is sensitive enough, it should have taken the initiative to liaise with the various Policy Bureaux. From the reply, we learnt that the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau has not transferred any records to the GRS for preservation, but has destroyed a total of 110 records in the past three years. What happened in the past three years? During the period, at least two incidents have come to an end as a result of law enactment, including the resignation of some Members to trigger a referendum in 2010 and the legislation on the mechanism of by-elections in 2011. Given that something so important had happened, how come the reply shows that the number of records transferred by the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau to the GRS for preservation is zero? How did they proceed with the transfer of records? How were the records examined? Or, has the GRS considered the unprecedented referendum campaign triggered by the resignation of Members and the unprecedented amendment of the relevant law to prevent Members from taking part in the by-elections after resignation so unimportant that the relevant records should rather be destroyed than preserved? This leaves us with a big question mark.
Other departments that have been called into serious question all belong to the Development Bureau, and they are the Planning and Lands Branch, Lands Department and Planning Department. As Members may be aware, the Development Bureau has been plagued by a number of controversial issues over the past few years, but these three departments have likewise transferred a total of only 22 records to the GRS for preservation. It can be said that the Planning and Lands Branch is the most important of all, but only one record has been preserved. How many records have been destroyed? These three departments have altogether destroyed 3 338 records. In fact, we have made strenuous efforts to obtain these figures. After putting "package questions" to various departments and Policy Bureaux, we then consolidated the data to gain the whole picture. Though we have only highlighted the major eyesore and important part LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10539 of the picture, they are already very frightening. Not to mention the Chief Executive's Office and the Offices of the Chief Secretary for Administration and the Financial Secretary.
The mistakes made by the GRS were not disclosed by the Office of The Ombudsman this time, but have been revealed in a previous report of the Audit Commission. According to the Director of Audit's Report No. 57, many of our records have been stored in an environment where both the relative humidity and temperature are not suitable for storing papers. As a result, many records have shown signs of wear even though they can be preserved after going through the appraisals. The GRS Director should bear full responsibility for this is absolutely a dereliction of duty on his part.
Furthermore, the GRS has not properly launched education and publicity campaigns. Nor has it advised members of the public to make good use of the GRS. The website of the National Archives of the United Kingdom has provided comprehensive and detailed instructions to teach people how to search for information online, or obtain certain information online direct. Comparatively speaking, GRS's webpage is not informative at all. Apart from the webpage, the facilities of the GRS building in Kwun Tong are not user-friendly either.
A few years ago, concern about record management has prompted a number of university students and I to conduct a trial on the services provided by the GRS. Some of the students have therefore become frequent visitors of the building. At first, they were well-received by the GRS, but then it began to make things difficult for the students, probably because the GRS was afraid that they might reveal the shortcomings of its services. Thus, the GRS began to make things difficult for them. The students also noticed that the part of the building where people can access the records does not provide WiFi. Thus, even if the users have brought a portable computer with them, there is no public WiFi for doing extensive reading online or browsing other webpages immediately.
Deputy Chairman, as I have mentioned in my earlier speech, the GRS is obliged to shoulder the heavy responsibility of preserving the history of Hong Kong with only about 30 staff. Instead of taking the initiative to increase manpower, the Director has practically done nothing and let the civic society fight for him, which is a serious dereliction of duty on his part.
10540 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014
In fact, this is not only a matter of the attitude of the GRS Director, but also the evasive attitude of the Government. An obvious example is the Chief Secretary for Administration complaining about the excessive questions put by Members during the resumption of the Second Reading debate. Notwithstanding that nearly 6 000 questions have been raised this year, she has neglected the fact that the number of Members has also increased from 60 to 70. Furthermore, after last year's warm-up, newly elected Members should have become familiar with the procedures and know how this Council works in this second year. She has nonetheless not highlighted these factors. But the fact is, all these constitutional changes were initiated by the Government. I am very worried that the Chief Secretary for Administration's complaint about the excessive questions put by Members represents the impression of the entire Government.
Putting questions for the budgets in such a large-scale and systematic manner is indeed the way through which information can be obtained from the Government every year, and Members generally take turns to raise up to 20 questions, either written or oral. When raising questions on the budgets, questions of the same topic can be put to different departments. This is why we have requested various departments to answer questions about the hosting of receptions, entertainment, corruption and record management within one month. I therefore urge the Government not to evade from public inspection and expeditiously enact an archives law.
When I spoke for the first time, I have pointed out that although the GRS Director does not have statutory power, he is still capable of doing many things which he has not done. The enactment of law can, however, force the GRS Director to take action. The enactment of the archives law actually has three main objectives. Firstly, to monitor the Government so that those mediocre or corrupt government officials will no longer act wantonly given that everything will be put on record. All information will be clearly set out, from the Chief Executive's overseas visits, reception of officials from the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the HKSAR to the Mega Events Fund, for example, whether the primary or kindergarten students have received travelling allowances paid from the Fund. These records may help prevent corruption. Secondly, to serve as historical records. Thirdly, to accumulate experiences. Regardless of whether previous experiences are smart and successful or failures and stupid, proper records should be kept for future reference, so as to prevent other people from wasting efforts or taking unnecessary steps.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10541
Deputy Chairman, we have already drafted a private bill on the Archives Action Group. It contains only about 20-odd pages and involves a total of 38 provisions. As a matter of fact, the Government is duty-bound to promote the management of archival records for it has the framework, guidelines and policy. What do we not have then? A signature. A campaign is all we need, and normally a signature campaign will be launched to collect as many signatures as possible. But this time, we only need one signature from the Chief Executive. This is because according to Article 74 of the Basic Law, all private bills must be signed by the Chief Executive. Is it possible that the GRS Director implements this private bill jointly with the community groups in his own way using his professional knowledge, and tell the Government … He may grab my private bill at any time and pass it to the Government for implementation. It is perfectly alright for me.
But unfortunately, the Government has instead passed the ball to the Law Reform Commission. When is the earliest possible time that it will deal with the matter? A review report will be released in 2016 at the earliest. However, from now on to 2016, many records would have disappeared under such an unsound and deficient system. We are therefore very dissatisfied with this (The buzzer sounded) … It would be best to layoff the GRS Director. Thank you, Deputy Chairman.
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I speak on Amendment No 32 relating to "Head 21 ― Chief Executive's Office" and Subhead 000: Resolved that head 21 be reduced by $1,500,000 in respect of subhead 000. The amount to be reduced is roughly equivalent to the annual expenditure estimate for the Chief Executive's overseas visits. During the last debate session, I already mentioned that LEUNG Chun-ying frequently conducted overseas visits, as if he is engaged in compensated dating. His overseas visits are secretive, with no mention of the purposes of his visits and the accompanying officials. For this reason, I suspect that his visits are futile.
Initially, I proposed to reduce his emoluments by 50%, that is, six months' emoluments, because he frequently conducted overseas visits. This amendment is related to provision for his overseas visits. If no provision is made for 10542 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 overseas visits, he will have to spend $1.5 million a year on overseas visits. By then, I believe he would not spend money indiscriminately. This certainly sounds a bit ridiculous but the Chief Executive has already spent $2,937,630 on overseas visits from 1 April 2013 to 28 February 2014, which is a considerable amount of money. Reducing the expenditure for overseas visits can avoid wasting money. This is my view on expenditure for his overseas visits.
Concerning the emoluments of the Chief Executive, that is, my Amendment No 20 relating to "Head 21 ― Chief Executive's Office" and Subhead 000: Resolved that head 21 be reduced by $5,056,752 in respect of subhead 000. The amount to be reduced is roughly equivalent to the annual expenditure estimate for the Chief Executive's emolument (including salaries and a non-accountable entertainment allowance). Why is this necessary? Deputy Chairman, you are also a businessman and you would certainly recruit competent staff.
Let me give an example. If a wage earner told you at a job interview what he could or could not do, or what he had done, and you decided to hire him after listening to what he said; and if you found that he was actually incompetent after he has assumed duty, he could dismiss him. As we cannot dismiss the Chief Executive, we have to reduce his emolument. Let me put it in simple terms. Many wage earners, in particular the Federation of Trade Unions (FTU) ― Mr WONG Kwok-hing, my Honourable colleague, has returned ― voted for LEUNG Chun-ying in the Chief Executive election because LEUNG Chun-ying clearly made two very important promises to the labour sector. First, enacting legislation on standard working hours; and second, abolishing the offsetting mechanism of the Mandatory Provident Fund (MPF) Scheme.
Deputy Chairman, it has been two years since LEUNG Chun-ying assumed office, and his term of office is five years. Let us discuss the setting of standard working hours. LEUNG Chun-ying stated in his election manifesto that he would enact legislation on standard working hours. But now he has set up a committee to examine if this can be done. In other words, it is still unknown whether this can be done within his term of office. Viewing from this perspective, the wage earner has failed to honour the promise he made to his boss at the job interview. We are his boss, even though we do not directly employ him, we have identified 1 200 people to vote for him. The progress in setting standard working hours is slow, and the labour sector is helpless and has made an uproar. Since the FTU has not raised this question, I would do so on its behalf. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10543
Mr WONG Kwok-hing is going to say that I am filibustering, but buddy, since he does not speak up when he is being cheated, I thus use my speaking time to speak for him.
In his election manifesto and the Policy Address, LEUNG Chun-ying has not made any proposals to improve the situation and he does not have a timetable for legislating on standard working hours. We do not know when the work will be done but I would not haggle over it with him. The FTU has also proposed abolishing the MPF offsetting mechanism. We certainly know that employers are very unwilling to do so because it was specified in the MPF legislation that the employers' contributions (5% of the salaries concerned) could be used to offset long service or severance payments. However, this problem has existed for 14 years since the implementation of the MPF legislation, and we notice that it has become increasingly serious, making many people perplexed.
I would like to give a simple example. I just give government figures. From the implementation of the MPF in December 2000 to September 2012, how much money has been offset? The total accrued benefits that have been offset are $18.766 billion. During this period, many wage earners could originally rely on the employers' contributions to enjoy a stable life in the first few years of their retirement; but the contributions have been offset. This practice should definitely be stopped. Assuming that an employee with a monthly income of $10,000 gets a 5% pay rise each year, from December 2000 when he started working to December 2013 when he left the job, he should receive $155,000 as long service payment. The accrued benefits attributable to employer's contributions were $137,000 but he could only receive $18,000 under the offsetting arrangement. Essentially, he can only receive 10% of the long service payments. Regarding this method of calculation, if LEUNG Chun-ying is really concerned about the working class in Hong Kong, he should have dealt with the matter immediately after he has taken office; yet, we have not seen any progress. About these two proposals, I think LEUNG Chun-ying has clearly not made efforts for the interests of grass-roots workers.
The third point is about universal retirement protection, which is the cause of this filibuster as said by the public. In this debate session, I will briefly talk about universal retirement protection. I hope Secretary Prof K C CHAN would note that, in his election manifesto, LEUNG Chun-ying proposes to "set aside adequate moneys in a special fund to provide elderly care" when appropriate. When is regarded as appropriate? This is the third year of his term of office, and 10544 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 two years have already passed. The term of office of the Chief Executive is five years; two and a half years will soon pass but he has not yet started to set up the special fund that he proposed to set up when appropriate.
Secretary Prof K C CHAN, your boss, John TSANG, the Financial Secretary, claims that I bully him; in fact, he bullies the elderly. The Chief Executive proposed to set up a special fund to provide elderly care and carry out reforms when appropriate. He has conducted a reform this year but there are only $4 billion. The amount is insufficient, but he is reluctant to earmark funds. Secretary, I do not know where your boss, Financial Secretary John TSANG, has gone; maybe he has gone to the Jockey Club, as an important event will be held there this evening.
In the third year of the Chief Executive's term of office, the Financial Secretary is actually robbing the Chief Executive's money by allocating about $230 billion to set up a "Future Fund". Where will the money come from? It comes from the Land Fund. I propose that $50 billion should be allocated from the Land Fund to set up an "elderly care fund". An "elderly care fund" is similar to the universal retirement protection fund and elderly pension fund mentioned by Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying, but they are not totally the same. Universal retirement protection cannot solve all elderly care problems.
I have been asking the Government for a provision of $50 billion for two years, and I will make the same request this year. Do Honourable colleagues agree that the Chief Executive has neglected his duties? The Chief Executive said that he would take some actions, or he would take some actions when appropriate, yet half way through his term of office, he has not taken any action. He has even been "robbed" $230 billion by his subordinate. I have made myself hoarse in this Council and have been chided every day. Mr WONG Kwok-hing condemned me for standing in the way, using analogies such as "mud carp" and "luncheon meat". In fact, I did all these for universal retirement protection, hoping that Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying would fulfil his promise and set up an "elderly pension fund" when appropriate.
Unfortunately, in the Budget debate today, John TSANG mentioned a "Future Fund" in the last part of his speech, but his ideas are poles apart from those of mine and of the Chief Executive, and more resources will also be taken away. Deputy Chairman, in the face of such a harsh guy as John TSANG, LEUNG Chun-ying does not necessarily have to offer him hell money as I did. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10545
He only needs to do is to make a public statement to the effect that "The Financial Secretary, Mr TSANG, has his own views, but I also have mine, and in my opinion, the "Future Fund" should also be used to provide elderly care when appropriate, as mentioned in my election manifesto". If this is the case, we will be elated and I do not need to filibuster.
Deputy Chairman, under these circumstances, how can I let LEUNG Chun-ying have the money? If I let LEUNG Chun-ying have the money, he should not pay salaries to John TSANG. I would discuss why John TSANG should not receive salaries in the next debate session.
Thank you, Deputy Chairman.
DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, in this session, we focus our discussion on the Government's governance, constitutional development and district administration. First of all, I would like to discuss head 21 about the Chief Executive's expenditures.
Deputy Chairman, before our Chief Executive took office, how did he make the public mistakenly believe that he was competent? He was really smart in telling people that he was very hardworking and it was smart for him to visit various districts, bringing along with him a chair, a pen and some papers. However, after his assumption of office, the Chief Executive is almost nowhere to be seen. It has been less than two years since he took office, and he has been out of town for a total of nearly four months. He spent nine days on overseas visits, and so far he has taken leave for 57 days. For the sake of promoting the so-called homeland relationship, he visited various Mainland cities for up to 50 days. In other words, he has been away from Hong Kong for a total of 116 days, but Hong Kong people have no idea what he has done in the Mainland.
To put it bluntly, the situation in Hong Kong is like shit. As we all know, regarding the Express Rail Link incident which happened recently, both the Transport and Housing Bureau and the MTRCL with 77% of shares held by the Government, have been telling lies to cover lies. When the Government is so corrupt, where has the Chief Executive gone? He is nowhere to be found. On 3 May last week, the last day of the constitutional reform consultation, he was out of town as always.
10546 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014
LEUNG Chun-ying is very smart, he might have learnt from experience that the more he is seen by the public, the more people dislike him, because his words and deeds have enraged the public. He is now acting smart by not showing up and making himself disappear. He leaves Hong Kong at the most important and critical days. Is that going too far? We pay him high salaries. Though he certainly does not care, his salaries are paid by the hard-earned money of taxpayers. He lives in the Government House and he has hired a bunch of helpers, drivers, and so on. These staff will receive salaries regardless of whether he is at home. Yet, he is nowhere to be found at the most important moment.
He has very smartly "passed the buck" for problems that he does not want to handle. As we all know, political reform is the commitment he made to the public, and he declared that the problem of universal suffrage would be solved within his term of office. However, he has "passed the buck" to Carrie LAM, a "good fighter". I will talk about Carrie LAM later. At times of controversies, the Chief Executive is not in Hong Kong, he has made himself disappear. He has not said a word on the proposals requested by all Hong Kong people, including the universal suffrage proposal with no screening, and the universal suffrage proposal with civil nomination. He pretends to be ignorant of such proposals. How can such a Chief Executive be accountable to the public? Do not forget that he still says that he has not ruled out the possibility of standing for re-election. It is really outrageous that this guy is so shameless. He fails to address the existing problems; how many pledges has he made? If we have a quick review, we will find that he has not fulfilled any of his pledges made in his election manifesto in respect of healthcare, labour, the constitutional system, the economy, education, and so on.
Regarding the governance of Hong Kong, if we look at what happened last week, we would have thought that Hong Kong is simply a place belonging to the third world. For an important project costing more than $66 billion, whether it is a white elephant project or a face-saving project or a political project as depicted in the Mainland, the Government insisted on its implementation at that time, but now the project is almost "unfinished" and its completion will be delayed. The Chief Executive is not in Hong Kong to handle the poor performance of his subordinate and the completely uncontrollable MTRCL. After his return to Hong Kong, he said something very offensive. He did not intend to solve the problem; instead he asked the public to trust Secretary Prof Anthony CHEUNG. He has distanced himself from this incident, as if it has LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10547 nothing to do with him. The Chief Executive has become a commentator. He should not receive such high salary if he is a commentator. He might as well join Joseph WONG's organization and become a commentator. Then, he only needs to make comments and he does not need to do anything. Everything has nothing to do with him.
As for the Golden Week which starts on 1 May, he claims the merit of proposing the Individual Visit Scheme and has thus saved Hong Kong. If that is the case, regarding the disputes before 1 May, including the Secretary's appeal for people's tolerance for Mainland children urinating and defecating everywhere, a problem which has caused social division, or the great tension between China and Hong Kong that emerged at a later time, since he is so smart, claiming to be in very good relationship with the Mainland and on good terms with officials of the Central Government, why does he not step forward and tell us that he is determined to and capable of solving these problems? He has not done so; these problems also have nothing to do with him.
How can we accept such a Chief Executive? He also told us that he would run for re-election. As he is so shameless, I believe he will run for re-election in 2017, regardless of whether the fake universal suffrage proposal will be passed. In the past, he once told Hong Kong people that he would not run for election for n-terms, but eventually he did run for election. He could shamelessly accuse Henry TANG of having illegal structures in his house though he also had the same problem. This guy tells blatant lies and he skives off, disappearing from the scene.
If the highest person in charge of an organization is ready to bear responsibilities, his subordinates will stay alert and try to give their best performances. Nevertheless, seeing that their boss is sloppy and lazy who tries to shrink responsibilities, and withdraws whenever possible, the subordinates will naturally follow suit. As we can see, the Financial Secretary, who is in the most important position, should attend this meeting and listen to our debate. Though we are discussing constitutional affairs that are related to Carrie LAM, she is also nowhere to be seen. "If the upper beam is not straight, the lower ones will go aslant". From this observation, we can imagine how the future governance of the SAR Government will be. If we still rely on the Chief Executive's continued governance and leadership, we are certainly entrusting these matters to the wrong person and asking the blind for directions.
10548 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014
On the other hand, let us consider constitutional affairs which is covered under this head. The "three-member team" is responsible for dealing with constitutional matters, and they include Carrie LAM, a "good fighter"; the Secretary for Justice who always talks about the law but people do not quite understand his legal basis; and the Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Raymond TAM. About these three people, I believe we only remember one thing; that is, the Government has spent a lot of money to hire a public relations company to produce some promotion clips on universal suffrage; the beautiful lighting is impressive. In these clips, "Let's talk. Let's listen" is emphasized but in fact, the tune is set. The most funny part is that at the last part of the promotion clip, the Chief Secretary, who holds great power and is responsible for writing the report, asked us not to block the way. I do not know whether she is influenced by her boss who is brilliant in the "hypocritical rhetoric". Hence, all government officials of the SAR Government, including the elites … as we know, under a civilian government, some Administrative Officers are considered as elites for they have better academic results and they work more seriously. However, all officials of the SAR Government, including those elites whom we were proud of in the past, are now good at telling blatant lies and making ironic remarks.
Who is actually blocking the way? Are Hong Kong people in a position to decide on the constitutional reform proposals? If they are, they need not initiate the Occupy Central movement or hold an electronic referendum. Hong Kong people cannot make that decision. They have been bombarding us with comments made by some senior officials from the Mainland. After all, a bird cage is set and we must follow; otherwise, the way will be blocked. She asks us not to make any moves, and at the same time, she asks us not to block the way. What are the reasons? Is there anything wrong? So, when some Honourable colleagues propose amendments to deduct her salaries or the salaries of the three-member team, I once thought that it is unreasonable to do so because at times, she has also performed the role as a "good fighter". However, later I find that her performance is unsatisfactory, she has acted in an irresponsible way and has confused truth and falsehood. How can that be acceptable? Officials should be the role models of their subordinates. As we all know, in the past few months, the only thing she did impress us was that she hosted a meal, and that was the only occasion on which she discussed with us. We had a meal or a breakfast at her residence on Barker Road on the Peak, and each political party or grouping might have stayed there for more than an hour. My party only had 15 minutes to give her a letter. That was what she had done in the past few months. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10549
When the MTRCL fails to complete the project on schedule, it makes up excuses; similarly, the Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs and the Chief Secretary for Administration, Mrs Carrie LAM, made up excuses. Claiming that the way is blocked, they open up a blind alley. That road will not lead to universal suffrage but to fake universal suffrage involving screening. Finally, they insisted that the way is blocked.
In the past few months, has she really faced the public? She has not done anything except that she took part in the activity arranged in advance by the pro-establishment camp, during which someone raised the middle finger. As we saw on television, even some children staged a show. Yet, she has not really faced the public. How can she convince us that she has tried her best and has done what should be done for implementing universal suffrage in Hong Kong in 2017 and 2020? Will she feel ashamed when she receives her salary? In the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau, there are other officials such as the Under Secretary and Administrative Assistant, but we fail to see what they have done. Apart from voicing support for others, he has not done anything that can really help Hong Kong find a way out. Why do we need him? Should we pay him such high salary to have meals or breakfast with us?
I would like to point out that the Financial Secretary is also disappointing. He is a very senior civil servant and has served as a principal official for quite some time. Nevertheless, the Budgets over the years contained wrong estimates. He has said that Hong Kong needs proper financial arrangements that would facilitate the long-term development of Hong Kong, but he is all talk but no action. He first presents us with a deficit budget, but ultimately, there is surplus. He tells us that the Government has no money and asks us not to discuss things in future, because he will not get involved in the discussion. This Government only deals with the current matters.
He has wasted a lot of opportunities for no reason and over $100 billion has been spent without getting real benefits. The universal retirement protection that we are talking about is proposed by academics, not the general public. These academics include the academics and statistics experts from the University of Hong Kong. The proposed start-up fund is $50 billion and the Government will certainly make contributions. This proposal can help solve the future problems in Hong Kong, but he does nothing and continues to make up all sorts of excuses. He proposes to set up a "Future Fund". At first, we thought that a "Future Fund" can help solve our long-term problems, especially the problems of the grassroots 10550 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 or members of the community who do not have bargaining power. Yet, this is not the case. In fact, this Fund would just facilitate infrastructural projects, allowing major contractors or consultants to get a share of this "fat pork".
In my view, it is really pathetic for the Government of Hong Kong, the Chief Executive and the principal officials to be so rotten. If the Government still fails to draw a lesson from the bitter experience, Hong Kong will be very unlucky. I so submit. Thank you, Deputy Chairman.
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, Mr WONG Kwok-hing has come back. A Member asked me to summon him back if he did not return, it is not necessary to do so now.
Deputy Chairman, in relation to "Head 21 ― Chief Executive's Office", I support the proposal to reduce the honoraria for non-official Members of the Executive Council. The amendments this year are, however, different from those in the past. In the past years, the amendments proposed to reduce the expenditure for the Executive Council to, say, $1,000. This year, there are only five amendments to reduce the honoraria for Members of the Executive Council and they are quite interesting too. For example, Amendment No 13 proposed by Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung reads "Resolved that head 21 be reduced by $10,920,000 in respect of subhead 000". The amount is approximately equivalent to the annual expenditure for the honoraria for 13 non-official Members (excluding the Convenor) of the Executive Council.
My question is: Why does Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung propose to reduce the honoraria for 13 Members? Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung also proposes to reduce the honoraria for seven Members and Mr Albert CHAN proposes to reduce the honoraria for two Members. In fact, do you know how many non-official Members there are in the Executive Council? I believe many members of the public are not sure. Even for Legislative Council Members who are responsible for approving the funding for the honoraria for Members of the Executive Council, if reporters ask some Members outside the Chamber this question, perhaps they may not know the answer.
At present, there are 16 non-official Members of the Executive Council. If former Members Franklin LAM and Barry CHEUNG are included, there will be 18 of them. When Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung speaks later, I hope he can LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10551 explain why he has proposed to reduce the honoraria for 13 Members of the Executive Council. Actually, according to the previous method used in drafting the amendments, the number of Members to be deducted the honoraria would be changed from 16 to 15 to 14 to 13, and so on in each amendment, or the number of months would be changed from 12 months to 11 months to 10 months, and so on. However, Members have exercised restraint this time and have not proposed reductions in such a petty manner.
However, why do Members propose to reduce the honoraria for 13, seven or two Members of the Executive Council? I hope Honourable Members can consider this question after I have spoken. If we are to reduce the honoraria for two Members, who would be the two who are "most unpopular and cannot stay"? Or, does the Member direct against the structure of the Executive Council, instead of individual Members? How many non-official Members of the Executive Council are there at present? No number has been given. Is it true that, with the absence of two Members, the Executive Council will not function as good as it was before? Certainly not, perhaps it will function even better. Therefore, after Franklin LAM and Barry CHEUNG had left, no one has taken up their positions. Perhaps some people will say that nobody is willing to become Executive Council Members. As a straw will show which way the wind blows, this incident shows that the number of non-official Members of the Executive Council is not fixed, and even if the number is reduced by seven, I believe the operation of the Executive Council will not be affected. Therefore, I hope that Members will consider these amendments carefully and choose the number of non-official Members of the Executive Council to be reduced and cast your vote accordingly.
Indeed, the list of blunders committed by the Executive Council over the past year is too numerous to be listed out. A case in point happened most recently which blatantly reflected the inadequacies of the Executive Council. In one of the special meetings of the Finance Committee held this year to examine the Estimates of Expenditure 2014-2015, Dr Kenneth CHAN asked a written question which was neither difficult nor intended to make things difficult. Dr CHAN raised a straight-forward question asking for some figures. In the first part of his question, he asked what the estimated expenditures on allowances payable to each non-official Member of the Executive Council are. I believe many Hong Kong people and even Members of this Council do not know the answer. In fact, the honorarium payable to the Convenor of the Executive 10552 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014
Council and each non-official Member for a year are $1,340,000 and $840,000 respectively. I mentioned this difference during a session of the Budget debate last year and the Government could not convince us why the rate of honorarium for the Convenor of the Executive Council was higher than that for other Members. On behalf of those Members who receive an honorarium of $840,000 a year, I have a fair comment to make. The honoraria for Members who serve both the Executive Council and the Legislative Council should be discounted so that it will be more economical to employ them.
Nevertheless, the rates about the honoraria are not the crux of the matter. The important point is that when the Government was asked to provide the attendance rates of the Convenor of the Non-official Members of the Executive Council and each Non-official Member at the meetings of the Executive Council in the past two years, the answer given was startling indeed. The Government's reply was as follows, "We cannot provide information on the attendance rates of individual Members of the Executive Council since we do not compile any such statistics". That was indeed the written reply. Certainly, the Member who raised the question was not satisfied with the reply, so he asked why there was no information on the attendance rates again in an oral question in a special meeting of the Finance Committee. Ms Alice LAU, Permanent Secretary of the Chief Executive's Office, also gave the same reply. She pointed out that the information cannot be provided because the Government has not compiled any statistics on the attendance rates of Members of the Executive Council. The Executive Council operates under the systems of confidentiality and collective accountability so that its Members can freely say what they want. However, the existence of these two systems is also the main reason why I support to reduce the expenses for Members of the Executive Council. Discussions of or remarks made by Members of the Executive Council during the meetings will not be made public because of the confidentiality system. Back then, when former Chief Secretary for Administration Henry TANG accused LEUNG Chun-ying in an election forum of proposing to use the anti-riot squad to suppress participants of the 1 July march in 2003 and to grant only a three-year licence to Commercial Radio, he was said to have breached the rule of confidentiality.
Actually, when former Chief Executive Donald TSANG was in office, some reporters had also asked the Government for the attendance rates of Members of the Executive Council. At that time, the Government did not say that it had not compiled the statistics, it used the rule of confidentiality of the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10553
Executive Council as an excuse to refuse to provide the information. However, all decisions of the Chief Executive in Council are very important policy decisions. The rule of confidentiality of the Executive Council is intended to protect Members of the Executive Council so that they can freely say what they want, but keeping the attendance rates of Members of the Executive Council confidential cannot serve that purpose. We consider the Government's replies too superficial to address the real issues. For example, non-official Members might need to withdraw from the discussion of individual items due to conflict of interest. If so, the Government could have reported the occasions to us instead of using them as an excuse for not compiling the statistics. Such an approach will allow Members of the Executive Council to get paid out of the public coffers without doing anything. It will also encourage indolence. Therefore, I think the last-term Government had done far too little in holding Members of the Executive Council accountable to the public.
Initially, we believed that LEUNG Chun-ying's Government would make improvements in this respect. Members may recall that soon after LEUNG Chun-ying assumed office, he told reporters adamantly after the morning session of the first Executive Council meeting that he would reform the Executive Council. He told reporters that he could extend the meeting time from half a day to one whole day until 4.30 pm, and he could shorten the summer break from eight to nine weeks to two, so that a new approach would be adopted. He gave people the impression that he was very hardworking. LEUNG Chun-ying has a habit of making exaggerated statements, but will he honour his words? Consider one simple example. Earlier, LEUNG Chun-ying has become the first Chief Executive in history to adjourn a meeting of the Executive Council because there was no item on the agenda for discussion. That is his approach. While it is true that meetings of the Executive Council can continue into the evenings and Members can stay up day after night, night after day to attend meetings, but have they done so? No. Worse still, a meeting was adjourned because there was no item on the agenda. How is it possible that there are no important issues and no policies to discuss? Who would have expected that there are no records of the attendance rates of Members of the Executive Council? But is it true that there are no records?
Deputy Chairman, that is not true. As you may be aware, there is no way we can get the answer by asking a written question, nor can we do so by asking an oral question in a special meeting of the Finance Committee. However, the 10554 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 answer was provided after reporters had followed the matter up for a few days. This shows that this Council is not as capable and powerful as reporters. The authorities did not make any admission initially, but they had to afterwards; they did not disclose the information initially, but they did afterwards. Eventually, the attendance rates of the Members concerned were provided.
Members may know from the news that Prof Arthur LI has the lowest attendance rate. He only attended 48 of 79 meetings and his attendance rate is 61%. Certainly, a footnote was provided later explaining that Prof LI had to take care of a sick member of the family. He had made a prior application for leave to the Chief Executive and had retained his position without payment during his leave. I do not think that is a secret at all; it is a fact which can surely be disclosed to this Council. Mr WONG Kwok-hing complained that many special meetings of the Finance Committee were held and we asked thousands of questions. However, we could not even get an answer to such a simple question. By choosing to give a reply to reporters instead of to Members, the Chief Executive's Office has actually slapped the Legislative Council a few times on the face. As regards whether Members think Prof Arthur LI's case is acceptable or sympathize with him, I will not discuss it here.
We found that the attendance rates of other Members of the Executive Council were also very low. For example, Mrs Laura CHA SHI has the second lowest rate. She attended 63 of 79 meetings and her attendance rate is 80%; Mr CHOW Chung-kong attended 68 of 79 meetings and his attendance rate is 86%. I will leave it to the public and this Council to comment whether such attendance rates are high or low or satisfactory. Members can express their opinions when they speak on the proposals to reduce the honoraria for Members of the Executive Council later on. But, concealing attendance rates from this Council and the Finance Committee as if they are secrets is just unbelievable. Certainly, we should praise those Members who have done well. Mr CHEUNG Chi-kong has the highest attendance rate of 100%. Therefore, I have to praise him merely on attendance rate.
The Hong Kong Government often does things which show a lack of common sense and general knowledge, even high-level authorities such as the Chief Executive's Office and the Executive Council do so, and LEUNG Chun-ying is the best of all in this respect. Let me spend some time to draw a comparison with the Government of last term. In 2011, the Oriental Daily News asked Donald TSANG's Government for the attendance rates of Members of the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10555
Executive Council, it refused to provide the information and claimed confidentiality as the reason. However, when Members asked for the attendance rates of Members of the Executive Council in a meeting to examine the Estimates of Expenditure 2013-2014 held last year, instead of claiming confidentiality, LEUNG Chun-ying's Government said in the written reply that it had not compiled any statistics on the attendance of individual Executive Council Members, and was therefore unable to provide the relevant information. There is a difference between the two replies. Claiming confidentiality indicated that the Government had the records and statistics, but it could not disclose them because of certain reasons. On the other hand, LEUNG Chun-ying's reply was that attendance had not been recorded. Whether Members were present and had spoken in a meeting would be recorded in the minutes, but the reply said that attendance had not been recorded … if the Government is not lying, that means LEUNG Chun-ying has successfully abolished the practice of the Executive Council to record the attendance of its Members. Why is it that while statistics of attendance rates were locked in a safe and could not be disclosed in Donald TSANG's era, attendance was not even required to be recorded during LEUNG Chun-ying's tenure? Members of the public can only draw the only sensible conclusion that the so-called rule of confidentiality is an excuse allowing people to be insolent and waste the hard-earned money of taxpayers. How many cans of mud carp and luncheon meat can that amount of money buy? I do not want to do the petty calculations with those people. Actually, the estimated expenses of the honoraria for non-official Members of the Executive Council was $13,425,000 for 2013-2014 (The buzzer sounded) … but the actual amount was reduced …
DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Your speaking time is up.
MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, in my previous speech, I have pointed out the pledges made by LEUNG Chun-ying in Chapter 1 "Population and Human Resources" and Chapter 2 "Land Planning and Transportation" of his election manifesto which he failed to fulfil as Chief Executive. I will now continue to speak in relation to the pledges made in Chapter 2 regarding transportation and those in the other chapters, in order to explain why I have proposed in my amendment to reduce six months' emoluments of Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying.
10556 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014
Deputy Chairman, in point number 17 of the part on transportation arrangement of Hong Kong on page 21 in Chapter 2 of the election manifesto, LEUNG Chun-ying proposed to "accelerate the pace of implementation of all transport items of the 10 major infrastructure projects". However, the truth is that the Hong Kong section of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link project (the XRL project), one of the 10 major infrastructure projects, has been seriously delayed and incurred cost overrun.
The Hong Kong section of the XRL project has all along been regarded by the SAR Government as an important basis for realizing the concept of "one-hour living circle". However, two newspapers reported last year that there would be delay in the project, but the allegation has been denied by both the MTR Corporation Limited (MTRCL) and the Government. Yet, after the Rainstorm Black Warning incident in late March this year, the MTRCL was finally admitted on 12 April that there would be a delay of at least 12 months. The completion date of the project will be delayed for 12 months, while the commission date of the rail service will be delayed for at least a year and a half or even two years. Surprisingly, the inter-departmental Project Supervision Committee of the SAR Government, as the important institution to supervise the project, said it was totally unaware of the delay and the Secretary for Transport and Housing even expressed that he was totally caught by surprise. The incident shows that there is a big loophole in the monitoring system established by the Government.
LEUNG Chun-ying's pledge to "accelerate the pace of implementation of all transport items of the 10 major infrastructure projects" has resulted in less speed, information has even been concealed and the dates of completion of the project and the commission of the rail service will be postponed to an indefinite future. Therefore, I have to criticize LEUNG Chun-ying for failing to fulfil this pledge.
Deputy Chairman, in point number 21 on the same page of the election manifesto, LEUNG Chun-ying proposed to "conduct a study on improving the traffic flow of the three cross-harbour tunnels with a view to relieving their respective traffic congestion". However, Secretary for Transport and Housing Prof Anthony CHEUNG announced in February this year that the toll adjustment trial scheme which involves toll reduction at the East Harbour Crossing (EHC) and toll increase at the Cross Harbour Tunnel (CHT) would be put in abeyance because no mainstream view has been clearly identified after the public consultation exercise. He added that strategies on improving the traffic flow of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10557 the three cross-harbour tunnels would be comprehensively formulated after the end of the SAR Government's franchise of the EHC in 2016 and after the traffic congestion at the link road of the Western Harbour Crossing (WHC) has been released with the commissioning of the Central-Wan Chai Bypass in 2017.
(THE CHAIRMAN resumed the Chair)
What did the Secretary mean? He meant that no strategy on improving the traffic flow of the three cross-harbour tunnels would be rolled out during the term of this government. Is that not telling us that LEUNG Chun-ying has again failed to honour his pledge on transportation policies, hence, the people of Hong Kong will be compelled to continue to rely on the MTR to cross the harbour? Since the traffic flow of the three cross-harbour tunnels has not been diverted properly, traffic congestion at the CHT remains very serious. On the other hand, as the toll fees of WHC are high, its usage and traffic flow are too low and have fallen short of the targets set at the start of its construction. These are the things I have to criticize too.
Chairman, the Chief Executive stated his proposals on economic policy under the sub-heading "Guiding Thoughts" on page 23 in Chapter 3 of his election manifesto, which reads, "Economic diversification and thriving industries can improve our job market structure and provide better opportunities and upward mobility to our workers. As well, a diversified economy will give rise to a stronger middle class and better employment opportunities for our grass roots."
Nevertheless, the objectives of "thriving industries" and "economic diversification" have not been achieved in the two years in which Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying has been in office. The economy of Hong Kong is still predominated by the financial and real estate industries. Besides, the planning of the Government only focuses on tourism development and the tourism industry only serves Mainland tourists. Hence, the tourism industry is becoming homogenous and its business development plans are very different from those in the past which welcomed visitors all over the world and were diversified.
In the proposals on economic policy stated in LEUNG Chun-ying's election manifesto, he repeated that we have to attract more visitors from around the world. But what are the facts? In comparison with the time before the 10558 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 introduction of the Individual Visit Scheme in 2003 and the arrangement of multiple entries under one endorsement in 2009, visitors to Hong Kong have not become more globalized; they have actually become more mainlandized and homogenous. Seven or eight out of 10 visitors to Hong Kong came from the Mainland.
According to the statistics of visitors to Hong Kong for 2013 released by the Hong Kong Tourism Board, the respective numbers of visitors from some countries have decreased when compared with the figures in 2012. The sharpest decline of 15.7% was recorded with visitors from Japan in Southeast Asia. The number of visitors from North America and Canada dropped by 10% and rates of decrease were also recorded with visitors from the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, the Netherlands, Australia, Singapore, and so on. On the contrary, the number of Mainland visitors has increased by as much as 16.7%, which is 600 000, and Mainland visitors accounted for 75% of the total number of visitors. Do these figures not show us that the development of our tourism industry is relying solely on Mainland visitors? That is definitely not a healthy situation.
During the Labour Day Golden Week, we have noticed a decline in the number of Mainland visitors (particularly the big spenders). In response, a representative of the Travel Industry Council of Hong Kong came forward and blamed the "anti-locust campaign participants" or the "anti-locust campaign" as the cause. However, many more people of the tourism industry, including owners of goldsmith shops, watch shops and international brand name stores, said the decline in the number of lavish Mainland visitors was actually caused by the economic contraction of the Mainland.
If our tourism industry continues to rely on an homogenous market, Hong Kong will surely be affected when that market suffers cyclical economic contraction. Hong Kong will certainly be directly hit as the reliance is strong. That is not a complicated economic theory at all. Why can't LEUNG Chun-ying understand? Why did he make the pledge to attract visitors from all round the world in his election manifesto but fails to fulfil it? This is one of the things which I have to criticize him strongly.
Chairman, I will now turn to the chapters of the election manifesto on social services, including housing, education, social welfare and medical and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10559 health services. First, I will talk about housing policy. In the recently published Director of Audit's Report No. 62, the Director of Audit quoted the Housing Department's anticipation that the average waiting time for Public Rental Housing applicants would further increase this year. Hence, the Chief Executive has been stalling in fulfilling his pledge to assist grass-roots families in moving into public housing as soon as possible.
Regarding education, the Chief Executive promised to "begin work on the introduction of 15-year free education as soon as possible" in point 2 on page 40 of his election manifesto. However, in the 24 months since he assumed office, he has only established the Committee on Free Kindergarten Education to study the matter over and over again. How many meetings have the Committee held in a year? The answer is 30, and no conclusion has been reached yet.
As far as social welfare is concerned, the Chief Executive has not fulfilled his pledges of enhancing the Mandatory Provident Fund scheme and developing dental service for the elderly in the past two years.
LEUNG Chun-ying discussed policies on environment protection and conservation in Chapter 10 of his election manifesto. When he was running for the election, he said in a high profile that Hong Kong did not need any incinerator, thus indirectly making the previous Government shelve the incinerator programme. However, he reneged on his promise. After he has assumed office, he breached his pledge and bundled up the plan of building an incinerator with the plan for extending the three landfills and submitted the proposal to the Legislative Council. The costs for building an incinerator also went up by $3.2 billion as a result. Therefore, LEUNG Chun-ying should bear unshirkable political responsibility in this matter.
Chairman, the South-east New Territories Landfill has been in operation for a long time. It has been polluting the environment for more than 25 years (almost 30 years) and residents of Tseung Kwan O can no longer tolerate the situation. However, the Chief Executive has done nothing to reduce the pressure of extending the landfills or building an incinerator. Talking about reduction of waste at source, the most appropriate reduction to make is to remove the Chief Executive himself, thus saving expenses on his salary which amounts to as much as $5 million.
10560 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014
Chairman, the Chief Executive discussed the administrative and political system in Chapter 11 which is the last chapter. He set out a number of objectives on page 74 of his election manifesto, including: first, "uphold the core values of Hong Kong, namely, human rights, liberty, rule of law, democracy, equality and justice". Second, "respect press freedom and support independence of the media and unbiased journalism". Third, "implement the concept of 'One Country, Two Systems' and follow the principle of 'Hong Kong people administering Hong Kong' with a high degree of autonomy. Whilst safeguarding our country's interests, we should properly address the relationship between 'One Country' and 'Two Systems' and promote the common development of Hong Kong and the Mainland". Nevertheless, according to the experience of Neo Democrats and many Hong Kong people, there is such a huge gap between what the Chief Executive has done and these three objectives that we do not think he can ever achieve them.
Since LEUNG Chun-ying assumed office, the core values of Hong Kong have been seriously eroded. In the face of the demand for equal rights for people of different sexual orientations, the Government is not even willing to conduct a consultation. It has turned a blind eye to the fact that people with sexual orientation for the same sex have been ostracized and their human rights have been trampled upon.
Furthermore, our freedom of demonstration, which is one of the core values of Hong Kong, has been curtailed. The Government has been setting increasingly unfair restrictions on demonstrations and it often uses excessive force against demonstrators unnecessarily. Two or three days ago, "Long Hair" was pepper-sprayed with his hands held by police officers. Chairman, we are not blind and we saw what happened on YouTube and other video networks. What is the police's explanation? What is the Commissioner of Police's explanation? Is that an appropriate use of force? As the Government will use excessive force against demonstrators, the freedom and right of demonstration enjoyed by the public have been restricted. Voices opposing the Government will be silenced and eliminated.
Regarding the second objective of respecting press freedom, the Chief Executive has even breached the pledge himself. In late January 2013, commentator Joseph LIAN published an article entitled "Integrity is no longer an issue; LEUNG's suspected links with triad gangs warrant detention and interrogation" in the Hong Kong Economic Journal. LEUNG Chun-ying then LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10561 issued a lawyer's letter in his personal capacity to the Hong Kong Economic Journal, claiming that he might sue them for defamation. He intended to use this as an exemplary case to teach everyone to be submissive, to silence the media and stop others from criticizing the Government. He has seriously jeopardized the freedom of the press and the freedom of speech of Hong Kong.
Chairman, another recent example is the attack on Kevin LAU Chun-to, former chief editor of Ming Pao Daily News. The police has still not found the mastermind of the crime and LAI Tung-kwok, Secretary for Security, has refused to set a detection deadline for the incident and to submit an investigation report to the Legislative Council by a certain date. The people Hong Kong cannot see any determination of the Chief Executive and the SAR Government to safeguard press freedom at all.
Chairman, as I have only 30 seconds left, I do not think I can finish my speech. Therefore, I will continue with my arguments in the next speech. I would only reiterate that I am speaking to demand for reducing six months' emolument of the Chief Executive. I will speak on the other amendments in this joint debate.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?
(Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung raised his hand in indication)
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Please do a headcount.
CHAIRMAN (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)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, please speak.
10562 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Mr Gary FAN wishes to continue to speak.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Gary FAN, please continue.
MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): Please pardon me, Chairman. Just now, I did not have enough time to finish one part of my speech. It is related to my criticism about the Chief Executive's pledge made in the last chapter of his election manifesto to implement the concept of "one country, two systems", follow the principle of "Hong Kong people administering Hong Kong" with a high degree of autonomy, and safeguard our country's interests. The practical actions of the Chief Executive are inconsistent with his pledge about the implementation of the concept of "one country, two systems" and "Hong Kong people administering Hong Kong".
In the consultation on constitutional reform, the act of the Chief Executive has obviously upset the relationship between "one country" and "two systems". Why do I say so? That is because in this consultation exercise, it seems that the Chief Executive does not have a role to play. The Government's work in this respect has all been handled by the "three-member team for constitutional reform", comprising Mrs Carrie LAM, Mr Rimsky YUEN and Mr Raymond TAM. At the same time, the Beijing Government has, through the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in Hong Kong, taken the initiative to meet with Legislative Council Members. Before the completion of the first step of the "five-step mechanism" of the constitutional reform, that is, before the Chief Executive submits a report to the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress, the Beijing Government has tried, under the pretexts of communication, discussion, duty visits and seminars, to interfere with the internal affairs of Hong Kong, and downgrade the role and power of the SAR Government in the public consultation exercise on the constitutional reform. What has LEUNG Chun-ying done? He is completely indifferent and even encourages Members to go to Shanghai to exchange ideas with the Beijing officials. As a result, some pan-democratic Members could not even manage to attend the meeting with the Beijing officials. I have repeatedly cited the incident involving "Long Hair" as an example.
The incompetence and weakness of Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying in the consultation on constitutional reform is inconsistent with his high emolument. Hence, in this joint debate, I propose to cut the annual estimated expenditure for LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10563 the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau for carrying out the public consultation exercise on the methods for selecting the Chief Executive in 2017 and for forming the Legislative Council in 2016, so as to express the Neo Democrats' resentment against the conducting of the consultation on the constitutional reform with a predetermined position by the SAR Government of this term.
Chairman, I so submit.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I now speak on Amendment No 714 involving "Head 142 ― the Government Secretariat: the Chief Secretary for Administration's Office and the Financial Secretary's Office", with an aim to reduce head 142 by $105,004,000 in respect of subhead 000, which is roughly equivalent to the annual estimated operational expenditure for the Central Policy Unit (CPU).
At one time, the CPU was a very important body under the British Hong Kong Government to assist the colonial governor in governing Hong Kong. What has it become today? It has been proven by a lot of evidences that the CPU, originally intending to help LEUNG Chun-ying in his governance, has gone contrary to one wishes and degraded into a political reward which is neither fish nor fowl and can achieve nothing.
There are comments about the relationship within the CPU to share the political reward. I am not the one who make such remarks and I quote their words. The incumbent part-time members to the CPU are mainly divided into three groups. Those belonging to the offspring of the rich include Mathew LAM Kin-hong, nephew of LIM Por-yen, founder of Lai Sun Group, Clarence LEUNG, the eldest son of Mr Andrew LEUNG, Member and also the Deputy President of this Council, and Brian LI, who has lost his influence but he is the son of David LI, our former colleague, Chairman of Bank of East Asia, and so on. However, I will stop here, lest you will criticize me for being too thorough.
The aforementioned people are only the offspring of the rich but the members from the pro-establishment camp are more interesting. Chairman, I believe you also know them. They include Ivy CHAN Ka-man, Jonathan 10564 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014
CHAN Pok-chi, Witman HUNG Wai-man, KWAI Ting-kong and Alice MAK. As Miss Alice MAK is our colleague in this Council, I will not comment on her. I will talk about the other four. Ivy CHAN is the Vice-Convenor of the New Youth Forum. Jonathan CHAN is more formidable. He is an appointed member of the Sai Kung District Council and also a member of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB), you fellow party member. Witman HUNG and we always meet because he attends every public hearing on whatever topics held by the Legislative Council. He is a member of the Standing Committee of the All-China Youth Federation. As for KWAI Ting-kong, he is the Communication & PR Manager of a listed company and also a member of the DAB. Buddy, almost everyone is related to the DAB. But I will not continue reading out the names; otherwise you will censure me again.
Chairman, as part-time members to the CPU are not highly paid, it is hard to say whether there is a transfer of benefits, but it would not be wrong to say that it is a kind of political reward. It does not matter what those members know but rather what people they know. In respect of this, the CPU spends huge sums of money to recruit these people to provide advice to LEUNG Chun-ying, making LEUNG Chun-ying look so pathetic. Why not find someone more useful to help LEUNG? Therefore, I suggest uprooting the CPU, wipe it out. This is to throw out the baby with the bath water because since the situation is so rotten that it cannot be rectified.
The political reward for these so called "young talents", the offspring of the rich and those in the establishment camp, is to secure for them a certain job in the Government or public bodies, so as to pave their way for getting more power in future. Besides, the CPU can also take this chance to favour their cronies or friends, including Mr CHEUNG Chi-kong, someone we all know. Chairman, I believe that you also know SHIU Sin-por and know him well. SHIU Sin-por, a keen supporter of LEUNG Chun-ying, has become the Head of the CPU. In April this year, he broke the news to the Legislative Council that the CPU had granted a total of $2 million to the One Country Two Systems Research Institute (OCTSRI) to study public opinions. This is truly interesting. And what is the OCTSRI …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, the information you are giving has been mentioned by other Members. Please do not repeat too much.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10565
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I did not hear it.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): The fact that you have not heard about it does not mean other Members have not mentioned it. Please listen carefully to other Members' speeches as I am also listening very carefully when you speak.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Even though the information is the same, can there not be different analyses?
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): If you repeat what others have said, I will point that out. Please do not repeat.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): If somebody has already censured SHIU Sin-por, I will not censure him anymore. But I do not know whether he has truly been censured. So be it. If you are sure, I believe you, but do not let me find out this is not true because in fact I have not listened to all the speeches.
Since you have heard those facts, I will give you an analysis. SHIU Sin-por admitted to Legislative Council Members that the OCTSRI was paid to study public opinions. He said that the Government had to conduct a study on public opinions. Therefore, the role of the CPU was substantially changed, because in the past it did not need to do such things or it did not need to state explicitly that it had to do such things. Now they pay others to do these tasks. They are actually favouring their cronies. But since someone has already pointed this out, I will say no more.
However, there is another saying that the Chairman should not have heard before. I am quoting from our colleague, Mr Frederick FUNG of the Hong Kong Association for Democracy and People's Livelihood. He once said that those organizations engaging in the Study on Trend of Discussions on Social and Political Issues in the Mass Media have in fact kept a group of hatchet men to counter the attack of public opinions. I agree with Mr Frederick FUNG. The Government's real intent is not to study public opinions. Its main purpose is to counter-attack the public opinions which are unfavourable to the Government. This is a waste of the public money.
10566 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014
Moreover, has anyone mentioned the appointment of KAO Ching-chi to the Honours and Non-official Justices of the Peace Selection Committee; has anyone mentioned that she has been assigned with multiple tasks? Chairman, have you made a ruling on such an object known as KAO Ching-chi?
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, if you digress or repeat the same topics again, I will have to discontinue your speech.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I am now talking about KAO Ching-chi.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, if you ask what other Members have said, I will not answer you for it is your responsibility to listen to other Members' speeches. If you digress or you keep repeating when you speak, I will have to discontinue your speech in accordance with Rule 45(1) of the Rules of Procedure. Hence, please refrain from repeating or digressing.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Then you can point it out. Since you have not pointed it out, I consider that no one has mentioned the problem about KAO Ching-chi. Regarding the issue about KAO Ching-chi …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, other Members have brought up the issue about KAO Ching-chi. Please do not repeat.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Since you say so, I cannot talk about it any longer. But how do I know if some Members have talked about it already?
Then, has anyone mentioned about the associate members of the CPU? I also wish to discuss the issue about the associate members of the CPU. The Chairman may also know these persons, including Mr Paul CHAN Chi-yuen, Mr Johnny CHAN Kwong-ming, Dr Thomas CHAN Man-hung, Mr CHANG Ka-mun, Dr CHEUNG Kwok-wah, Dr Witman HUNG, him again …
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10567
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, how is your speech related to the Amendment in question?
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): The appointment of these associate members is a waste of money. They do not have any use. Buddy, as I aim at cutting the funding, how are the two not related? Why is it so strange?
As regards Dr Thomas CHAN, I have criticized him many times in this Council, pointing out that his position as Director of the Public Policy Research Institute of The Hong Kong Polytechnic University is only a scam and he must also be a crook. For example, Dr Thomas CHAN has made certain projections about the Express Rail Link but all those projections turned out to be wrong. I already told Eva CHENG on that day that hiring Dr Thomas CHAN would only waste money. I will stop talking about others, lest the Chairman will scold me again.
All these are nothing but political reward. The Chairman must understand that these associate members are advisors to the Chief Executive but they may also be crooks. Are these associate members chosen through a selection process? Without a selection mechanism, the appointment will only be a tool to hand out political reward. I can cite a very simple example, Chairman. Mr Poon Kai-tik was a very popular figure in two dynasties and is now the Director (Government & Community Engagement) of The Link Management Limited (Link REIT). Under him, the Link REIT has run into all kinds of trouble. What good advice can he offer the Chief Executive?
Dr TIK Chi-yuen is another example. He was once our colleague and is also a member of the Democratic Party. Was he appointed on account of this? These are the questions that we are unable to get to the bottom. But since the Chairman does not look too pleased today, I will refrain from speaking anymore. Mr Albert CHAN also wishes to speak anyway …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, if Members violate the Rules of Procedure when they speak, I will certainly stop them.
10568 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): All right, stop me now. I am stopped. I will let other Members speak. Thank you, Chairman.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): It does matter whether you like it or not. I just remind you not to digress or repeat.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I get it. Please let "Hulk" speak.
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, there are many topics for discussion, but owing to the intricate relations between some topics and provisions, our remarks may sometimes digress from the topics. I hope Mr WONG Kwok-hing would listen carefully to the remarks made by other Honourable colleagues, so as to avoid fabrication and smearing.
Chairman, I have already commented on the poor performance of "689" and the Chief Executive's Office (CEO), I am now going to talk about the Executive Council. This is Amendment No 5: … that head 21 be reduced by …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Which amendment are you referring to?
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Amendment No 5 relating to the CEO, it seeks to reduce the annual expenditure estimates for the CEO by around $52 million, roughly equivalent to the annual expenditure estimates for salaries of CEO staff. I would also like to talk about Amendment No 7 because these two amendments are interrelated. I would give the reasons for proposing amendments on these two interrelated matters. Amendment No 7 seeks to reduce the annual expenditure estimates for the CEO by around $20 million.
The Chief Executive is the highest leader of the Government, and of course the operation of the entire team, comprising three Secretaries of Departments and 12 Directors of Bureaux, is also very important. Although he wanted to have "five Secretaries of Departments and 14 Directors of Bureaux", the proposal was not approved back then for some reasons. As the Chief Executive, he has to formulate many policies for governance and has to deal with crises. His team LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10569
(three Secretaries of Departments and 12 Directors of Bureaux) is certainly important but the CEO and the Executive Council are also crucial and inseparable. The CEO officers have contacts with him day and night and night and day.
Chairman, the person who "stays up day and night and night and day" is not in his seat again; Mr WONG Kwok-hing is a wanted man again. Chairman, I request a headcount.
CHAIRMAN (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).
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN, please continue.
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I would like to thank Honourable colleagues for returning to the Chamber to continue with the discussion. Chairman, I have just discussed the financial provisions for the Chief Executive's Office (CEO) and the Executive Council, and so on. These organs are responsible for assisting the Chief Executive in administrative management and arrangements. When the Chief Executive makes major decisions and deals with strategic or operational issues, the Executive Council shall be an organ for assisting the Chief Executive in policy-making according to Article 54 of the Basic Law. However, in looking back, in the past year, problems, arguments and divisions have arisen in the Executive Council in assisting the Chief Executive to make policy decisions. Of course, no Executive Council Members will admit that there are serious divisions in the policy-making process because the collective responsibility system and confidentiality system are involved.
However, when some major policy decisions have caused public controversies, we seldom see Executive Council Members coming forward to speak for the Government. Perhaps they have learnt from LEUNG Chun-ying's attitude in the past; that is, he would get the applause but would not bear the 10570 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 responsibility for any mistakes. I remember most vividly that in the TUNG Chee-hwa era when LEUNG Chun-ying was still the convener of the Executive Council, he discussed with us the "85 000" housing policy and lobbied our support. He was the authoritative spokesman of the Government policies. It appeared that he was more authoritative than TUNG Chee-hwa because old TUNG was not clear about the policies. Thus, in his capacity as the representative of the Executive Council, he lobbied major political parties and Members at that time. LEE Wing-tat and I were Members of the Democratic Party; he was responsible for housing matters while I was responsible for land use planning, and the Democratic Party was regarded as the largest party in the Legislative Council at that time. Mr James TO also joined in the discussion with us. Mr James TO may later recall how LEUNG Chun-ying explained to us the need to implement the "85 000" housing policy.
If the Executive Council has disagreement with the Government in respect of policy implementation, and if Executive Council Members do not come forward to speak for the Government and explain to the public when problems have arisen, the fundamental spirit and principle of the collective responsibility system of the Executive Council has been violated, as Executive Council Members do not want to bear responsibilities for any blunders. When the Chief Executive's popularity is getting lower and lower, though being on the same boat with distinctive roles, Executive Council Members should use their influence, networks and abilities to discuss with the public and explain to them, so as to reduce the public's dissatisfaction with government policies. For some outstanding Executive Council Members, they should lead the Government out of the crisis.
Members may recall that, when there was a confidence crisis in Hong Kong, Sze-yuen CHUNG and Lydia DUNN, Members of the then Office of the Members of the Executive and Legislative Councils, played a leading role in helping various political groupings and members of the community to face up to the confidence crisis and tide over the difficulties.
Today, we cannot find any Executive Council Members who have such intention, not to mention the resolution and capability. Of course, some Members put up a good show on certain occasions. I would give further explanations when I discuss later the amendment on deducting the remunerations of two Executive Council Members. In my view, some individual Members are unworthy and unsuitable to continue to serve in the Executive Council. Since LEUNG Chun-ying has been elected, it can be said that all Executive Council LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10571
Members have been negligent in the performance of their duties. They can certainly give explanations but their explanations and the current political situation and needs are completely different issues. Even if their explanations are fully justified, claiming that LEUNG Chun-ying has made all the mistakes. The Executive Council may say that their views on all policies, in particular the licence application by the Hong Kong Television Network Limited, are correct, only that LEUNG Chun-ying has not listened.
The Basic Law stipulate that the Executive Council shall be an organ for assisting the Chief Executive in policy-making. Should Executive Council Members collectively resign if most of their views are not listened to? They can no longer play the roles of advising the Chief Executive on policy-making or influencing his policy-making decisions. They cannot do anything and the popularity of the Chief Executive has become lower and lower. In addition, the Government keeps making disastrous mistakes; for example, it made mistakes in housing, in identifying sites, in handling the licence application of the Hong Kong Television Network Limited, as well as in old age pension. Coupled with LEUNG Chun-ying's failure to fulfil the pledges made in his election manifesto, and his frequent contradictions and repeated blunders, the Executive Council can no longer perform effective functions.
Perhaps, that is because the chemistry of Executive Council Members does not mix well with that of the Chief Executive: one is going east while another is going west. LEUNG Chun-ying may prefer constantly going west. However, when the policy-making organ loses the function of exerting influence and cannot help the Government (especially the Chief Executive) solve problems and tide over difficulties, its Members should collectively resign. Since they are not going to resign, I thus propose to reduce the annual expenditure estimates for the Executive Council by $20 million, so as to help them take a step forward. Many Executive Council Members are sentimentally attached to their positions; and though they are Members of the Executive Council, they do not intend to participate in policy-making owing to various reasons; they are just hitchhiking for the sake of getting some benefits. They make use of their status as Executive Council Members to achieve personal goals, obtain political or economic interests or satisfy their personal desire for power. There may be many such people. For example, I often describe a certain government official a "political appendage". I have known him for more than 20 years, and he has drawn close to any camp from which he can get benefits throughout the years …
10572 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, you have strayed away from the question.
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I am saying that some Executive Council Members have such behaviours, and this is related to the reduction of expenditure; thus, there are justifications for the amendment.
Some Members have just mentioned about the black-box operation of the Executive Council. In fact, it is understandable why the minutes of meetings are not disclosed and even the attendance rates cannot be disclosed. Perhaps it is because the performance of the Executive Council has been deteriorating, which is worthy of concern.
Furthermore, I also proposed Amendment No 10, which reads, "Resolved that head 21 be reduced by $12,221,000 in respect of subhead 000". The amount reduced is roughly equivalent to the annual expenditure estimates for the honoraria for non-official Members of the Executive Council. If the amendment on reducing the honoraria for all Members is not passed, Amendment No 10 would only reduce the honoraria for non-official Members. Some people are already worried … Frankly speaking, official Members most deserved to have their emoluments reduced. Some Members may think that the emoluments for official Members should not be slashed. The reason I have just given is that non-official Members have basically failed to perform their functions. As a compromise, we should reduce the honoraria for non-official Members.
Let us consider the composition of non-official Members of the Executive Council, five to six Members are from the business sector and five other Members are described by some people as having the "red background" that is, having been associated with the Chinese Communist Party or the Central Government. As compared with the past, the number of such Members is now relatively larger. During the TUNG Chee-hwa and Donald TSANG eras, there were Members with the communists characteristics, but when compared with the LEUNG Chun-ying era, the current Executive Council comprises relatively more Members having the "red background".
I am not sure if this is the reason why many policies made by the Executive Council appeared biased. Political needs, the instructions of the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government or the Central Authorities frequently override LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10573 the views of Hong Kong people or the interests of Hong Kong, resulting in frequent mistakes made in policy formulation. On deeper consideration, we may be able to solve the problem if we can reduce the honoraria for these five Members. Nonetheless, as the Executive Council is a big black box, we cannot fully grasp the situation. So, we can first reduce the honoraria for non-official Members. Since there are 13 official Members, reducing the honoraria for non-official Members only account for a smaller portion of the overall expenditure of the Executive Council.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I continue to speak on the amendment of reducing subhead 000 for the purpose of reducing the honoraria for Members of the Executive Council under "Head 21 ― Chief Executive's Office". However, before I continue, I would like to rectify an oral mistake I made just now. Just now I mentioned that in response to the Legislative Council's enquiry to the Chief Executive's Office (CEO) on the attendance rates of Executive Council Members, government officials advised at the special meeting of the Finance Committee that no information was available. I also pointed out that the CEO, unable to stand the pressure from the media, has subsequently disclosed the attendance rates of Executive Council Members and it was found that Prof Arthur LI has the lowest attendance rate of 61%. However, Dr Kenneth CHAN has just reminded me that this is not the fact.
The truth should be: when Dr Kenneth CHAN raised a written question on this matter for the first time at the special meeting of the Finance Committee, the Government advised that no record was available. I was present too. The Government replied at the special meeting of the Finance Committee: "As we do not keep statistics on the attendance rates of Executive Council Members, we are unable to provide the requested information." This is the reply from the Government in the first instance. On the second time, an oral question was raised but the Government kept saying that there was no record. When the question was raised again for the third time by Dr Kenneth CHAN who put forward another written question, we finally got an answer, which was the table showing the attendance rates of Executive Council Members as reported by the media earlier. That table was in fact reported by the media after they read the reply on the Legislative Council website.
10574 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014
In other words, the Legislative Council still has its role in accountability, just that it was unable to get the answer to its written or oral questions in the first two instances. Members never gave up and they pursued with another written question until they finally got the answer. A lot of efforts have been put in obtaining these figures. Of course the pressure exerted by the media is also crucial. I must thank Members for their perseverance in asking questions.
Nonetheless, I would like to raise a crucial question and hope that the CEO or government officials can respond at the end of this debate session so as to tell the public and the Legislative Council clearly what the matter is. Is it the case that the Executive Council has only kept minutes of meetings and attendance records, but no statistics on the attendance rates of its Members? Subsequently the Government, being fed up with the repeated questions from Members, made an exception move and compiled statistics on the attendance rates for submission to Members. Or is this in fact an established practice? The Administration is required to explain to the public whether the attendance rates of Executive Council Members in previous terms of Government are to be kept confidential under the confidentiality system. If so, why can an exception be made on this occasion by breaking the intent of Donald TSANG about keeping the attendance rates confidential? In this regard, the Administration must clarify with the Legislative Council on the question.
I would like to point out that the Legislative Council has the power to approve funding proposals, including the power to approve the remuneration of Executive Council Members. However, we should not exercise such approval power if it is not accompanied with the power to monitor. The rationale is very simple. When we approve the use of a sum of public money, it is just like signing the cheque on behalf of the public. But it turns out that we do not have the default power to monitor the Government, as it can refuse to provide the relevant information despite our repeated requests. In this case, the Government is like granting condescending mercy by giving the answer. But is this just an exceptional case or the Government will release the attendance rates of Executive Council Members quarterly from now on? If the Government is unable to answer this question, I think we should support the harshest amendment, that is, Amendment No 7 proposed by Mr Albert CHAN on reducing the Executive Council's annual estimated expenditure. By paralysing the whole Executive Council, we can then live up to the expectation of the public. Of course, the solution to the problem is that the Government should not wait until Members have pushed for more than 10 times before it is willing to give an answer. It will LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10575 be desirable if the Government takes the initiative to release such simple information quarterly.
Amendment No 10 proposed by Mr Albert CHAN is to reduce the annual estimated expenditure for the honoraria for non-official Members of the Executive Council. I would like to point out an error Mr Albert CHAN made just now. He said there are only 13 official Members in the Executive Council but according to the information I obtain, there are a total of 15. To my understanding, government officials who serve on the Executive Council as official Members will not be given additional remuneration. As such, there is no need to propose reducing their remuneration. In other words, if the honoraria for the 16 non-official Members of the Executive Council can be reduced, theoretically the Executive Council can still operate, but just that the number of non-official Members will be reduced to zero. The Chief Executive plus 15 official Members can continue to run the Executive Council. Of course, if we would like to completely paralyse the Executive Council, we should support the harshest amendment, that is, Amendment No 7 which slashes all the annual estimated expenditure of the Executive Council.
As far as the systems of accountability and confidentiality are concerned, this speech is not targeted at the dereliction of duty on the part of, or the unsatisfactory performance of, or blunders made by a particular Executive Council Member. Instead, as we often say, there are drawbacks in the systems of confidentiality and accountability of the Executive Council. Certainly, if the Administration is unwilling to disclose the attendance rates of Executive Council Members, it is not fulfilling the principle of collective responsibility but "collective evasion of responsibility". This is of course not acceptable by Hong Kong people or Legislative Council Members.
Let us go back to the system of confidentiality. The issues discussed by the Executive Council are mostly major policies and political decisions. But this is my pure conjecture since we are indeed not very clear about what is going on at the meetings of the Executive Council. As there is no access to the agendas or minutes of the meetings, all papers for its meetings and the details of its discussions must be kept confidential. However, there have been incidents of suspected leakage in recent years but the leakers are not identified nor punished. For instance, in the incident of Antony LEUNG who jumped the gun in buying a car years ago, the media reported that this information was leaked by Members of 10576 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 the Executive Council who alleged that Antony LEUNG had failed to declare his purchase not out of negligence but a deliberate attempt to conceal it. This has caused the principle of confidentiality to be open to question.
Collective responsibility means that Executive Council Members cannot openly oppose decisions that have already been made by the Chief Executive-in-Council. They must remain silent even if they do not agree with the decisions. Even Legislative Council Members serving on the Executive Council will often vote in support of government policies. However, the principle of collective responsibility actually existed only in name in the last term of the Executive Council, as some of its Members had criticized government policies on public occasions. Some Members even indicated in the Legislative Council that they did not support the decisions of the Executive Council. This obviously violated the spirit of collective responsibility.
I am not targeting at the appropriateness of what individual Members have done, but the failure of the Administration to punish Members who have violated the system it has established. As a result, the system has become a display only. When the principles of confidentiality and collective responsibility fit the case, the Government will apply them; but when these principles are not applicable, a discretion will be made to relax the restriction such that Members will be allowed to speak on their own or even make remarks contrary to the Government's stance. The most typical example is certainly former Convenor of the Executive Council, LEUNG Chun-ying. But I do not intend to trace back his comments on housing and poverty alleviation policies. With the presence of the principles of confidentiality and collective responsibility, the Executive Council has become a black hole. There is no way for us to know whether the Government has taken action, whether it holds discussions without making decisions, takes no action after making a decision, or even whether it has made a decision. Once an item is put under discussion by the Chief Executive-in-Council, we will not be able to open the box to take a glance.
The incident of free television licence (free TV licence incident) has certainly aroused the most concerns. In this Council, pan-democratic Members or some of the Members of the pro-establishment camp have expressed different views on the free TV licence incident, querying why the number of free TV licence to be granted was subsequently reduced from three to two. They expressed their disagreement with what the Government did. The Legislative Council has carried out a number of motion debates on this incident and I am not LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10577 going to repeat this anymore. During the debate on reducing the expenditure of the Executive Council Members in May last year, we also cited the example of the free TV licence incident. Under the system of the Chief Executive-in-Council, Secretary Gregory SO could evade his responsibility or the question only because he was not allowed to answer any questions. Finally, everyone is dissatisfied with the outcome and even some Members of the pro-establishment camp have indicated to take action due to their discontent, although no action has been seen so far.
Regarding the confidentiality system of the Executive Council, before the reunification, if the Governor did not concur with the decision made by the majority of Members of the then Executive Council, he must put the reasons on record. What does it mean by "to put on record"? To my understanding, it means submitting it to the British Foreign Ministry to explain why the Governor was bent on having his own way and made a decision contrary to the majority of the Executive Council Members. However, the role of the present Executive Council has changed from the Government think tank in the past to purely advisory. In the free TV licence incident, "一男子"jat1 naam4 zi2" (one single man)" ― instead of "jat1 laam4 zi2" (a basket of) ― LEUNG Chun-ying could decide to go against the views of the Executive Council or even ignore the advice of the Office of the Communications Authority and subsequently refused to grant the much-anticipated licence to the Hong Kong Television Network Limited.
As the Chief Executive acts in a hegemonist and arbitrary manner without offering any explanation, the confidentiality system of the Executive Council has become an excuse for the clandestine operation by "one single man". The system of collective responsibility of the Executive Council has become the system of "collective evasion of responsibility". As such, we support the proposal of reducing the expenditure for the Executive Council. If all the expenditure for the Executive Council is slashed, which means Amendment No 7 is passed, the effect is that no decision will be made by the Chief Executive-in-Council; all the decisions are made by the Chief Executive and the Government. By then, when LEUNG Chun-ying responds to our questions during the Question and Answer Session in future, he can no longer evade our questions on the excuse that the decision of the Chief Executive-in-Council must be kept confidential and that no papers can be disclosed for our reference. By then Hong Kong may be in good luck and the outlook may not be as gloomy as perceived by many people at the moment.
10578 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014
Next I would like to discuss Amendment No 30 proposed by Mr Albert CHAN which aims at reducing the expenditure for the Executive Council. It reads, "Resolved that head 21 be reduced by $1,680,000 in respect of subhead 000." This is already the "minimum charge". I intend to spend some time on promoting this amendment in the hope of getting support from more Members. This amendment is to reduce an amount equivalent to the annual estimated expenditure for the honoraria for two non-official Members (excluding the Convenor) of the Executive Council. Of course we know that under the system, even if the amendment is passed and the honoraria for two non-official Members can be cut, the salary cut may not be subsequently effected on our two targeted Members. It may turn out that the two affected Members are those who have the best performance but least obedience to LEUNG Chun-ying, or the salary cut may be borne by all non-official Members such that each of them will be paid less.
However, in supporting this amendment, I am obliged to say out which two Executive Council Members whom I think should get a salary cut. The first one is CHEUNG Chi-kong, who has been criticized for being the principal "hatchet man" of LEUNG Chun-ying and has defended this poorly-rated Chief Executive on a number of occasions. Being a "hatchet man" to defend his master is itself no easy job. As the saying goes, if you cannot stand the heat, you have to get out of the kitchen. If he decides to sacrifice his credibility and integrity for this job, he has the right and freedom to do so as long as he does not harm others or affect the well-being of the public. However, we can cite a lot of examples to illustrate that many people and Members do not accept what he did (The buzzer sounded) …
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I am also going to discuss the honoraria for non-official Members of the Executive Council … I also wish to discuss this matter. Chairman, I do not worry about making comparison …
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Which amendment are you going to talk about?
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): … the four amendments I proposed. Please wait a while and I am going to read them out. Amendment No 13, proposer: Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, head 21, subhead 000: Resolved that LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10579 head 21 be reduced by $10,920,000 in respect of subhead 000; the reduction is roughly equivalent to the annual expenditure estimates for the honoraria for 13 non-official Members of the Executive Council (excluding the convener).
Chairman, one can stand up to comparison, but cannot stand bad assessment. Anyone can check if Legislative Council Members have attended meetings and we can in no way conceal the facts. People know if we Legislative Council Members are absent at meetings as statistics will be compiled. However, when we discussed just now whether Executive Council Members have attended meetings, no answers have been provided despite repeated requests. Two conclusions can be made: such information is available, just that they are not released to us, or such information is not available. Simply because of this reason, we should not pay them honoraria. Is it so difficult to provide the answers? How difficult is it to prepare an attendance record? But two answers were given to this question asked in the Legislative Council. They even replied that there was no answer when we asked a further question. Were they lying? Why answers are sometimes provided and sometimes not provided? Sometimes, we are told that such information is available but we cannot get it, and sometimes we are told that such information is not available. Chairman, frankly speaking, when you were a teacher and the principal of the Hong Kong Pui Kiu Middle School, if a student gave you an answer like that, would you immediately punish him?
I am not talking about the attendance record of Legislative Council Members. The Legislative Council is just a little brother in our constitutional system. How about the Executive Council? According to the Basic Law, the Executive Council shall be assisting the Chief Executive … the Executive Council shall be an organ for assisting the Chief Executive in policy-making. The Executive Council normally meets once a week and the Chief Executive presides over its meetings. The Chief Executive shall consult the Executive Council before making important policy decisions, introducing bills to the Legislative Council, making subordinate legislation, or dissolving the Legislative Council. The Chief Executive must do so. However, we even do not know if the Executive Council has held meetings. What should be done then? How can I pay them honoraria? Another thing is that Executive Council Members expressed views in their personal capacity, but all resolutions made by the Executive Council are made collectively. In other words, what they said should be put on record for resolutions are made collectively. What should be done when we do not even know if the Members have attended meetings?
10580 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014
Another issue is Members' withdrawal from meetings. According to the information we obtained from them, 26 Members withdrew from meetings when discussing a total of 247 topics. Among these 257 topics for discussion, more than one Executive Council Members withdrew when 79 topics were discussed, Members had withdrawn for a total of 218 times. Chairman, what should be done when Executive Council Members are involved in significant conflicts of interest? I propose the having an Executive Council with a very large membership, and we should ask Executive Council Members to specify in advance if conflicts of interest are involved. That would be a bit better. If this approach is not adopted, how can they really perform their duties and advise the Chief Executive on numerous issues?
Chairman, the premature death rate of non-official Members of the Executive Council … the premature death rate of Executive Council Members appointed by LEUNG Chun-ying is known to all. I need not make any calculation, for we all know the rate in the past year and that is the problem. If non-official Members of the Executive Council often have to resign because of integrity problems, how authoritative will the Executive Council be? What is more, some Members have only resigned after we have repeatedly asked them to do so. For example, Barry CHEUNG only resigned because someone disclosed certain things about him which he could not explain. In fact, the Government had firmly held on till the last minute.
In fact, this encourages non-official Members of the Executive Council to act shamelessly and resign at the last minute. There was also an example a few years ago ― as I just said, one can stand up to comparison but cannot stand bad assessment. You might also be a Member of the Executive Council at that time and you probably knew this inside story. Antony LEUNG … according to him … after he remembered that he had forgotten to report his purchase of a new car, he submitted his resignation to "Uncle TUNG". But "Uncle TUNG" asked him to remain in office. How can these people at present be compared to Antony LEUNG? They only agreed to resign after their misdeeds had come to the light and their reputations ruined. On this point, Antony LEUNG's conduct was much better because he tendered his resignation to the Chief Executive who asked him to stay in his post and be a scapegoat until the end of the SARS outbreak. Although I do not like him, I must say, as compared to these people, Antony LEUNG can even be the chairman of a moral reform committee. Therefore, I can only say that the situation has gone from bad to worse.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10581
Second, after LEUNG Chun-ying was elected, he stated that he would introduce some new initiatives to the current-term Executive Council. What are the new initiatives? He would ask Members of the Executive Council appointed by him to travel around and explain publicly the Government's policies. While this is still ringing in our ears, let us consider the Hong Kong Television Network incident. Those people are in such an awkward predicament ― Mrs Regina IP and Ms Starry LEE are not present ― every Member of the Executive Council said that the Chief Executive had made a mistake. What kind of system is this? They are opposing the Chief Executive publicly. Does LEUNG Chun-ying still have any use? Everybody … First, they have to keep things confidential; second, they cannot publicly express opposing views on the Government. However, these Members of the Executive Council have failed to perform these two tasks. Their remarks are still ringing in our ears but they have left the ship in their capacity as Members of this Council, saying that the ship is sinking because of the Chief Executive. So, the Chief Executive should be thrown into the sea while they stay on board. These people are utterly shameless.
In this connection, the misconduct, incompetence and immorality of the non-official Members of the Executive Council are well evident. Do Honourable colleagues agree that we should reduce their honoraria? In reply to the question of this Council, LEUNG Chun-ying said that he could not tell us the contents of discussions of the Executive Council because of the confidentiality system. What is the purpose of the confidentiality system? The purpose of the confidentiality system is to allow Executive Council Members to speak freely within the Executive Council. Now that they have freely expressed their views in public, what else should they protect?
Second, in dealing with this group of people appointed by him, LEUNG Chun-ying used confidentiality as the reason for not disclosing the contents of his discussions with Executive Council Members. But his purpose is to avoid public disclosure of his secrets. This is clear enough. Honestly, the Chief Executive absolutely has the freedom to express his views on issues with significant public interest, and he needs not mention other people's views. He needs not mention other people's views and he only needs to express his views. I have not done him wrong; for example, in the Hong Kong Television Network incident, I asked the officials concerned at a Legislative Council meeting which countries will have the licences issued by the heads of state. Naturally, there are no such countries. If there are no such countries, Hong Kong will be very special as there is a system under which licences are issued by the head of state. 10582 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014
The head of state relies on the help of a group of people who, as I mentioned earlier, openly oppose him … they have publicly disclosed their views while the Chief Executive has said that he cannot disclose the secrets. Is this extremely absurd? This means that he has no grounds for maintaining confidentiality. So long as these people do not maintain confidentiality, the Chief Executive will be no grounds for maintaining confidentiality, and he can tell us his personal decisions.
So, in my view, 13 non-official Members of the Executive Council … let me read out their names: CHENG Yiu-tong, Laura CHA, Anna WU, Arthur LI, Andrew LIAO, CHOW Chung-kong, CHEUNG Hok-ming, Fanny LAW, Barry CHEUNG, Franklin LAM who already left office, Bernard CHAN, Starry LEE, Regina IP and Jeffrey LAM. This group of people should not receive honoraria. If they do not receive honoraria and do not have meetings with the Chief Executive, it would be more conducive to the Chief Executive's giving an account to the Legislative Council or the public.
Honourable colleagues may think that I am going too far to reduce the honoraria of 13 non-official Members of the Executive Council. Then, let me propose another amendment. Chairman, I am a reasonable person and I am a revisionist. Please consider Amendment No 15, which reads "Resolved that head 21 be reduced by $5,880,000 in respect of subhead 000". The reduction is roughly equivalent to the annual expenditure estimates for the honoraria for seven non-official Members of the Executive Council (excluding the convener).
Honourable colleagues can choose one of these two amendments. Honestly, it is not to be determined by throwing darts or turning the roulette. First, CHENG Yiu-tong should be deleted as we definitely should not pay him honoraria. The next person is Arthur LI and he should also not be paid honoraria. CHENG Yiu-tong should not be paid honoraria because he has a working-class background, and he will fall ill if he becomes too rich and he will make "stinky" comments.
There is also a reason why we should not pay Arthur LI honoraria. It is because he is the Secretary who played computer games at Council meeting. This is a well-known fact. As it turns out, he not only likes to play computer games, he is also lazy. His attendance rate is very low. He gives an excuse that he cannot often attend meetings because he has to take care of his mother. Arthur LI, you might as well resign. His resignation will not stop the Earth from LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10583 spinning. Filial piety is certainly important but, as I have said many times, loyalty and filial piety may not co-exit. This is what my mother has taught me. He has given such an absurd reason for failing to attend meetings as he has to take care of his mother and he requests to retain his position without getting honoraria. Can he simply resign? This may not have anything to do with honoraria; he said he did not want money, yet we should reduce his honoraria as a punishment.
Next, CHEUNG Hok-ming. Obviously, his appointment is a kind of political reward and he is an Executive Council Member representing the rural faction and the DAB. I would like to delete him. As Barry CHEUNG has left office, he would not be counted. However, I must talk about Fanny LAW. As I have mentioned before, without Fanny LAW, we would not have LEUNG Chun-ying. LEUNG Chun-ying has deceived us, saying that he would not appoint Fanny LAW to any public office. Nevertheless, is an Executive Council Member not holding a public office? She assists the Chief Executive in governance under the Basic Law and she is subject to our supervision, therefore she is obviously holding a public office. What is it if this is not a public office? Buddy, she should not have held the public office. But since pledges can be made lightly and the offer given by one is gladly accepted by another, she can continue to hold the public office. I really want to ask: if an Executive Council Member is not holding a public office, what exactly is a public office?
Next, I am also going to delete Mrs Regina IP, and she should certainly be deleted. Ms Starry LEE and Mr Jeffrey LAM should also be deleted. What are the reasons? Just see if they are present at the meeting to listen to my remarks. They basically do not have time. Buddy, if they do not have time, they should not take up so much work, right? These three Members represent the Government to get information from us, and to find out which Members from the opposition camp are abusing others. Yet, they are not listening now. Chairman, let us give them a chance to perform their duties. Please call Ms Starry LEE, Mrs Regina IP and Mr Jeffrey LAM, the three Members who will obtain information for the Government, to return.(The buzzer sounded) …
We are now having a headcount but they are not present, what else can we do …
10584 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014
CHAIRMAN (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)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, are you going to continue to speak?
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Has the Member whom I am looking for returned to the Chamber?
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): You still have a few seconds to speak. Are you going to continue to speak?
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): I am not going to speak now that he has not returned to the Chamber. Thank you.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Mr Jeffrey LAM has returned. You are amazing.
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Mr Jeffrey LAM has come back. Do not say that he has not come back.
Chairman, I have also prepared the same information on what Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung has said just now. Since he has talked about it, I will not repeat. This shows that we have no intention to stall as there are many items to cover.
Chairman, just now we mentioned about dissolving the entire Executive Council. If this is not feasible, just eliminate the non-official Members. We LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10585 can make a comparison in this respect. Chairman, you can notice that since LEUNG Chun-ying assumed office, those Members who have caused major trouble were non-official Members, namely CHEUNG Chun-yuen and Franklin LAM. Of course, there were problems with Directors of Bureaux too, like "Sub-divided units Paul" and the Panel on Development of the Legislative Council also passed a motion to request for his resignation. However, in terms of the seriousness of the problems and the impact on the Government's prestige in its governance, CHEUNG Chun-yuen and Franklin LAM left a more disastrous impact. All three of them should resign or be dismissed but Paul CHAN is shameless and remains in his post.
In the past, when TUNG Chee-hwa was the Chief Executive, he was in favour of such a practice: when a major incident or an important policy decision was to be announced, to fully manifest his leadership, TUNG Chee-hwa would, after the Executive Council meeting, lead the Members of the Executive Council to go on stage. The Executive Council Members would fan out in a line behind TUNG Chee-hwa when he spoke. This could create a strong visual impression of the image of a leader but it was hard to assess whether the people were impressed. However, when the people saw such a scene on television, especially such a scene during the news report, of the Chief Executive leading the Members of the Executive Council in explaining or announcing a policy, first they would get the impression of their unity; second, it showed that the Chief Executive was leading the Executive Council. However, since LEUNG Chun-ying assumed office, such scenes were less often seen, but more frequently, various Executive Council Members are seen expressing their own views or acting in the way contrary to their words every time after a disaster happens. Therefore, it is necessary to dissolve or eliminate the composition or part of the composition of the Executive Council.
Chairman, another point I wish to mention is about Amendment No 11. Let us jump from the part about the Executive Council to … Because the part that I wished to bring up have already been mentioned by "Long Hair", I will not repeat. I wish to speak on Amendment No 11, which reads "Resolved that head 21 be reduced by $11,658,000 in respect of subhead 000" which is roughly equivalent to annual expenditure estimates for special appointments of the Chief Executive's Office (CEO).
10586 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014
Chairman, such special appointments have been strongly criticized by many Members over the years because they do not follow any systems, giving people a strong impression of nepotism. Many of those appointments in the past also gave people the impression of a waste of public fund or that they are a kind of political reward. What are the justifications of those appointments? They are hardly convincing to the public. Very often, the Government, especially the Chief Executive, does not even give an explanation. As regards the appointees, the public have, more often than not, a negative impression of them. Consequently, these appointments jeopardize the Government's prestige in its governance; and the morale of the civil servants is further and more gravely affected.
I have expressed this view to many Administrative Officers, those I am more familiar with, and whenever I talk to government officials, I talk to them about various problems. Of course, we will certainly talk about the policies. But when we talk about the special appointments, for Administrative Officers with high calibre, regardless of their seniority, whether they have served for five, seven, one or two decades in the Government, in general I can tell by their facial expressions that most of them do not accept this kind of appointments and most of them have a strongly negative response towards the people so appointed. Of course, they will not openly criticize these appointments but their words and facial expressions fully show their resentment against the appointment of such people and of many posts in the past.
Given that civil servants, especially the elites in the entire civil service team in Hong Kong, that is, the officials of the Administrative Office rank, are extremely resentful against the CEO's operation mode of appointing such people, the whole team and the Government's governance are affected.
Regarding such appointments, someone criticizes that many of the appointees lack experience, the education level of some is unconvincing and their language proficiency untested. Very often, people get the impression that some of those special appointees have certain special or close relations with some people or certain departments in the Central People's Government. To a certain extent, such appointments have caused the deterioration of the entire bureaucratic culture. We can reflect on the history of Hong Kong. Although Hong Kong was a British colony, in the many decades under the British rule, what was worth commending about the Government was the civil service system, the appointment criteria and mechanism, which we took pride in. Many university graduates also LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 10587 took pride in joining the Government. Of course, this has been changed recently. In the past, the occupation as a civil servant was well respected. But now, the bureaucratic culture has been affected by these special appointments and the harm caused is worrisome and saddening.
Therefore, the Government must abolish such a practice to do justice to the 180 000 civil servants, especially those who have advanced to a higher rank as they have all undergone all kinds of gruelling and stringent tests. Of course, one's decision to join which "stable" will also have some impact sometimes, but one has to start from a lower rung of the ladder and grab every chance to show off his calibre. Even if one does not have good performance, he will have to avoid at all costs any blunders or poor performance or mistakes that would affect the Government. Basically, one has to prove his real calibre and talent step by step in order to gain a firm footing in the bureaucratic structure, and move up gradually. However, regarding the special appointments, no criteria or system applies. As long as the Chief Executive thinks someone is the right candidate, he can just give a small hint, or through certain political groups, especially the No. 1 powerful political party in Hong Kong, the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong, which is the political party whose members receives the most special appointments, to do the job. All of these people obtain special posts through political nepotism, thereby receiving handsome incomes.
Therefore, this will only foster the mentality and values of political opportunism. This negative system is detrimental to the overall political development in Hong Kong because the younger generation will think that it is most important to fawn on the rich and powerful and in order to attain certain positions, what is required is not his own capability or the proof of his competence but rather, his befriending certain influential people to get some advantages. Try to imagine how the civil servants would feel when they learn the mentality of these people. It cannot be denied that there is a connection between their low morale and these special appointments.
The CEO is just the same. Some officials of the CEO may have worked for two or three decades in the Government but are only paid between $50,000 and $60,000 a month but those who are appointed to special positions can easily fetch $70,000 to $80,000 and some of them are not even 30 years old. To ask an official with high calibre and good performance who has worked for 10 or 20 10588 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 7 May 2014 years to work with these special appointees, frankly speaking from the heart, it will never boost their morale but only lower it. They would think, "You are the one who hold this office. You should do the work. Why ask us to do it?"
Therefore, purely from the perspective of people's mentality and natural response, one would think that these posts should be scrapped. Hence, I propose that head 21 be reduced by $11,658,000 in respect of subhead 000 to do justice to the civil servants and stop this group of rich and powerful people from brandishing their fangs and claws, swaggering around, and through nepotism making a further caricature of this entire bureaucratic operation mode.
Chairman, Mr WONG Kwok-hing is absent from this Chamber again. Please hunt for Mr WONG Kwok-hing. I request a headcount.
CHAIRMAN (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)
SUSPENSION OF MEETING
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now suspend this meeting until 2.30 pm tomorrow.
Suspended accordingly at nine minutes to Ten o'clock.