LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12395

OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Thursday, 23 June 2016

The Council continued to meet at Nine o'clock

MEMBERS PRESENT:

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

THE HONOURABLE ALBERT HO CHUN-YAN

THE HONOURABLE LEE CHEUK-YAN

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

THE HONOURABLE LEUNG YIU-CHUNG

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

12396 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016

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 CYD HO SAU-LAN, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE STARRY LEE WAI-KING, 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 WONG KWOK-KIN, S.B.S.

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

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

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

THE HONOURABLE LEUNG KWOK-HUNG

THE HONOURABLE ALBERT CHAN WAI-YIP

THE HONOURABLE WONG YUK-MAN

THE HONOURABLE CLAUDIA MO

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

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

THE HONOURABLE FRANKIE YICK CHI-MING, J.P.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12397

THE HONOURABLE WU CHI-WAI, M.H.

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

THE HONOURABLE GARY FAN KWOK-WAI

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

THE HONOURABLE CHARLES PETER MOK, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHI-CHUEN

THE HONOURABLE CHAN HAN-PAN, J.P.

DR THE HONOURABLE KENNETH CHAN KA-LOK

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

THE HONOURABLE KENNETH LEUNG

DR THE HONOURABLE KWOK KA-KI

THE HONOURABLE KWOK WAI-KEUNG

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

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, S.B.S., J.P.

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

12398 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016

THE HONOURABLE TANG KA-PIU, J.P.

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

IR DR THE HONOURABLE LO WAI-KWOK, S.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, B.B.S.

THE HONOURABLE ALVIN YEUNG NGOK-KIU

MEMBERS ABSENT:

THE HONOURABLE JAMES TO KUN-SUN

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

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

THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG KWOK-CHE

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

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

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

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

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

THE HONOURABLE DENNIS KWOK

DR THE HONOURABLE FERNANDO CHEUNG CHIU-HUNG

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12399

PUBLIC OFFICERS ATTENDING:

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

PROF THE HONOURABLE K C CHAN, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY

MR RONALD CHAN NGOK-PANG, J.P. SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS

THE HONOURABLE LAI TUNG-KWOK, S.B.S., I.D.S.M., J.P. SECRETARY FOR SECURITY

MS CHRISTINE LOH KUNG-WAI, J.P. SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT

THE HONOURABLE LAU KONG-WAH, J.P. SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS

MR JOHN LEE KA-CHIU, P.D.S.M., J.P. UNDER SECRETARY FOR SECURITY

CLERKS IN ATTENDANCE:

MS ANITA SIT, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

MS DORA WAI, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

MR MATTHEW LOO, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

12400 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016

GOVERNMENT MOTIONS

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Good morning, Members. Government motions.

The Secretary for Transport and Housing will move two proposed resolutions under the Public Bus Services Ordinance.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): First motion: the new franchise granted to Citybus Limited.

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

I now call upon the Secretary for Transport and Housing to speak and move the motion.

PROPOSED RESOLUTION UNDER THE PUBLIC BUS SERVICES ORDINANCE

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): President, I move that the first motion under my name and proposed pursuant to the Public Bus Services Ordinance (the Ordinance), as printed on the Agenda, be passed.

The Chief Executive in Council granted new ten-year franchises to Citybus Limited (Franchise for Hong Kong Island and Cross-Harbour Bus Network) (Citybus) and New Lantao Bus Company (1973) Limited (NLB) on 22 September 2015. The new franchise of Citybus will commence on 1 June 2016 while that of NLB on 1 March 2017.

All new bus franchises granted since 1992 are not subject to the Profit Control Scheme (PCS) and neither of the two aforementioned new franchises consists of any PCS arrangements. In keeping with the established practice, we propose that the motions on the Agenda be passed to exclude the application of the PCS to the two new franchises.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12401

In this regard, I would like to thank the Subcommittee formed by the Legislative Council for scrutinizing the resolutions. The Subcommittee had completed its work and had no objection to the resolutions.

President, under section 5(3)(b) of the Ordinance, a franchise shall be subject to the PCS under the Ordinance unless the Legislative Council by resolution excludes the application of the related provisions.

Under the PCS, bus fares of a franchised bus company are to be set at a level which allows cost recovery plus a predetermined level of profit. This in effect links the level of bus fares directly with the profit level of the franchise. Bus fares would thus have to be adjusted according to the predetermined level of profit.

In the past, the then Legislative Council and the community had strongly criticized that the PCS would guarantee the franchised bus companies a profit level irrespective of their performance, thereby reducing the operators' incentive to enhance cost-effectiveness and minimize expenditure. This in effect encouraged the franchised bus companies to over-expand and inflate their asset values. In view of this, the then Executive Council decided in 1992 that the PCS would not be applicable to new bus franchises granted thereafter. Since then, the Government would, after granting of each new franchise, move a resolution in the then Legislative Council and the current Legislative Council upon our return to China to exclude the application of the PCS to the franchises. A total of 20 such resolutions had been passed in respect of franchises granted since then. Meanwhile, the Government would take into account a basket of factors (which include public acceptability and affordability) in assessing franchised bus fare adjustment applications.

At present, the PCS is not applicable to any bus franchises. When negotiating with the Citybus and the NLB on the new franchises, the Government has made it clear that there would not be any arrangements on permitted return and neither of the new franchises contains any such arrangements. Moreover in the Legislative Council Brief issued on the day the new franchises were granted, the Government had indicated clearly that it would seek the Legislative Council's resolution to disapply the PCS to the two new franchises.

12402 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016

In this regard, I move that the first motion to disapply sections 27, 28, 29 and 31 of the Ordinance to the new franchise of the Citybus be passed so as to exclude the application of the PCS to that franchise. Thank you, President.

The Secretary for Transport and Housing moved the following motion:

"RESOLVED that the franchise granted on 22 September 2015 under section 5 of the Public Bus Services Ordinance (Cap. 230) to Citybus Limited (城巴有限公司) and published in the Gazette as G.N. 7692 of 2015 is not subject to sections 27, 28, 29 and 31 of that Ordinance for the entire period of the franchise."

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

MR CHAN HAN-PAN (in Cantonese): President, I will now report to this Council in my capacity as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Two Proposed Resolutions under Section 5(3)(b) of the Public Bus Services Ordinance (Cap. 230) (the Subcommittee). The Subcommittee has held one meeting to examine the two proposed resolutions put forth by the Administration under section 5(3)(b) of the Public Bus Services Ordinance (the Ordinance).

The two proposed resolutions mentioned above seek to disapply the Profit Control Scheme (PCS) by excluding the application of sections 27, 28, 29 and 31 of Cap. 230 to the new 10-year franchises granted to the Citybus Limited and the New Lantao Bus Company (1973) Limited (the new franchises) by the Chief Executive in Council on 22 September 2015.

Section 5(3)(b) of the Ordinance provides that a franchise shall, except where the Legislative Council by resolution excludes the application of all or any of the provisions of the PCS, be subject to the PCS as defined in section 2 of the Ordinance. The motions, if passed by the Legislative Council, operate to exclude the application of the PCS to the new franchises during their franchise periods.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12403

The Subcommittee supports the two proposed resolutions and will not propose any amendment. The Subcommittee agrees that the PCS will reduce the franchised bus companies' incentive to enhance cost-effectiveness and reduce expenditure, which will in effect encourage the franchised bus companies to over-expand and inflate their asset values. The Subcommittee notes that the PCS is not applicable to all new bus franchises granted after June 1992, and that the Government has stated clearly the new franchises of the two bus companies are granted on the basis of no permitted return.

Noting that the Administration will move a resolution in the Legislative Council to exclude the application of the PCS to each new franchise granted under Cap. 230, questions have been raised by the Subcommittee why the main provisions in the Public Bus Services Ordinance (Cap. 230) relevant to the PCS have not been amended since the aforesaid Executive Council's decision in 1992. If so, the Administration could have dispensed with the need to move such resolutions at the Legislative Council.

The Administration has advised the Subcommittee that moving the resolution is an effective legislative avenue to achieve the purpose of disapplication and such a disapplication exercise will need to be conducted only infrequently, for normally, a franchise for a bus network is granted once every 10 years. Nonetheless, the Administration will consider amending the relevant provisions of Cap. 230 as and when an opportune opportunity arises, such as when amendments are also required to other provisions of the Ordinance.

The Subcommittee has also urged the Administration to encourage the franchised bus operators to improve their service performance, which include the improvement of bus-bus interchange facilities and fare concession arrangements, the provision of real-time bus arrival information to passengers via mobile applications or display panels at the bus stops/termini, as well as the deployment of environmentally-friendly buses and low-floor buses as far as possible.

The Administration has explained to the Subcommittee that it will examine the role and positioning of franchised bus services under the Public Transport Strategy Study. Issues to be covered will include bus-bus interchange arrangements for strengthening the role of franchised bus services. Regarding 12404 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 the provision of real-time bus arrival information to which the two bus companies have committed under their new franchises, the Administration will closely monitor the implementation progress.

Regarding a Member's question on whether franchised bus fares should be reduced so as to benefit the passengers in view of the recent considerable drop in oil prices, the Administration has advised that there is a Passenger Reward Arrangement under the Fare Adjustment Arrangement for Franchised Buses. Under the arrangement, any return achieved by a franchised bus operator exceeding the rate of return on average net fixed asset of 9.7% will be shared on a 50:50 basis between the operator and passengers. The passengers' share maintained as "passenger reward balance" will facilitate the offer of bus fare concessions. Passengers can then benefit in the case of reduction in the overall operating costs of bus operators due to factors such as a drop in fuel cost.

A Member has also enquired about how the triggering point of 9.7% under the Passenger Reward Arrangement was decided and requested the Administration to review the threshold in view of the prevailing economic environment. The Administration has explained that the level was set in the past with reference to statistics and data of bus operation, and it will review the threshold under the Public Transport Strategy Study.

President, I support the proposed resolutions in my capacity as Chairman of the Subcommittee.

MR WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese): President, I rise to speak to point out that even if the motions are passed today, I urge the Government to enhance as a must its monitoring role to protect the rights and interests of the public and passengers. I mainly request the Secretary and the Transport Department to discharge their monitoring duties in the following aspects.

First, it is about the frequency of bus services. At present, the problem of lost trips is very serious in the bus services provided by the Citybus Limited on Hong Kong Island. Since the franchise granted covers a very long period, it is a very important duty for the Government to monitor the frequency of bus services during the period.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12405

Another point is about the enhancement of frequency and bus routes. More often than not, the bus company does not respect the aspirations of the public and properly honour its undertakings, as it often procrastinates in implementing improvement measures in the consultation with District Councils. In view of this, I strongly urge the Government to discharge its monitoring duty properly. It should urge the bus company to improve the frequency of its bus services and minimize the occurrence of lost trips while ensuring that bus captains have adequate time for rest for the provision of safe and efficient services. This is the first aspect.

Second, I implore the Government to urge the bus companies to provide a timetable on the implementation of measures to provide bus arrival time forecast at bus stops. We note that Hong Kong is lagging behind in the provision of bus arrival time forecast at bus stops, and in actuality, no such service is provided at present. As an elected Member of Hong Kong Island, I am extremely disappointed about the lack of a timetable and a road map for implementing measures on bus arrival time forecast. In this connection, I strongly demand that the Secretary must request Citybus to submit a timetable and a road map on implementing the bus arrival time forecast initiative.

Honestly, the New Lantao Bus Company is the only company providing bus services on Lantau Island. Both the residents on Lantau Island, as well as visitors, will need to know the arrival time of buses, so that they do not have to endure the scorching heat on sunny days and be soaked to the skin on rainy days. The Government has proposed to develop Hong Kong into a Smart City. I think Hong Kong is fully capable of achieving this target, but why has it not yet been done? In my view, after the motions on the franchises of the two bus companies are passed by the Legislative Council, though the law does not include explicit provisions on the specific details of the statutory requirements, the Government is duty-bound to urge the bus companies to implement measures to provide real-time bus arrivals forecast. Otherwise, bus services in Hong Kong will be extremely outdated.

Third, I urge the Government to maintain as a must close liaison with the two bus companies in implementing the provision of simple seats for passengers waiting at bus stops. We notice that the population in Hong Kong is ageing. Actually, many elderly people prefer buses to the Mass Transit Railway (MTR), for they often have to take the stairs to enter and leave MTR stations, which is quite difficult for them. As I said earlier, since passengers do not know the 12406 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 arrival time of buses and the problem of lost trips is serious, they usually have to stand for a long time at bus stops, particularly at bus termini, to wait for buses. This is torture to the elderly. Therefore, I think the Government must urge bus companies to provide simple seats for passengers at bus termini and other bus stops.

As we look at the situation in cities in the vicinity of Hong Kong, particularly cities in the Mainland, we will note that it is common these days that simple seats are provided at bus stops for passengers. All these are people-oriented measures. I hope that upon the passage of the motions on bus franchises today, the Government must urge the two bus companies to provide both "a roof" and simple seats for passengers waiting at bus termini and bus stops for the convenience of passengers.

Lastly, the Secretary pointed out in his reply to my question at the meeting of the Legislative Council yesterday that the fares for cross-harbour buses after crossing the harbour should not exceed the fares of local routes travelling the same journey. However, according to the reply of the Secretary yesterday, we are not sure how many cross-harbour routes run by the Citybus will take part in this pilot scheme after the Citybus is granted the franchise. Therefore, I also urge the Secretary to urge the Citybus as a must to arrange for more or all bus routes to take part in the scheme. The Citybus should not think that it can remain indifferent after achieving its target, that is, after the passage of the motion on franchises today. I hope the Secretary will pay attention to this, and I hope the Secretary will respond to the four requests mentioned earlier.

Thank you, President.

MR TANG KA-PIU (in Cantonese): President, Mr WONG Kwok-hing said just now that this resolution proposed once in a decade purely as a matter of procedure gives people the impression that the Government may wash its hand of everything after the passage of the resolution. It is because this opportunity, which comes only once in a decade, allows both the Legislative Council and the District Councils as well as concerned organizations and the public to put forward specific demands to the Government in relation to the negotiation over the bus franchises for the next decade. So, the public have the feeling that they can have this opportunity only once in a decade. Certainly, the realignment of bus routes in the interim is often carried out with consideration given to the Government's policies and the interest or commercial viability of the bus companies and may LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12407 not be directly related to passengers' interests and aspirations. Therefore, even though this resolution carries no substantive content, the negotiation on the renewal of the bus franchises for the next decade ― I dare not say that there is no negotiation ― should be taken as an opportunity for Members to put forth more suggestions on the operation of these several bus companies.

First, as a trade union representative, I am consistently concerned about the occupational safety of bus drivers and their dignity at work. Bus captains are often subject to assaults. Is the Secretary aware of this? There was a case concerning the Citybus Limited (Citybus) that happened on Hong Kong Island in which a passenger beat three bus captains and one terminus supervisor in a fight, and the latter were all sent to a hospital. Is there special protection provided for them? Had it been members of the cabin crew being attacked on a plane, the assaulter would have to face a particularly heavy penalty, but there is no such protection for bus drivers. If a bus driver is disturbed or even attacked by uncivilized passengers in the course of driving to the detriment of the safety of all the passengers on board, how will such a case be handled? We do not see that the Government, be it the Hong Kong Police or the Transport Department, has taken specific actions to pinpoint this problem.

Some union members have proposed that assault on bus captains be subject to the same heavy punishment as that for assault on police officers. I think this is right to a certain extent. The Government should introduce legislative amendments to specifically target this problem because even though there are indeed by-laws prohibiting passengers from causing nuisance to bus captains, the punishment is only a fine of a few thousand dollars, and I have never seen the police invoking these by-laws for enforcement. Therefore, I very much hope that the Secretary can particularly look into the proposal of equating assault on bus captains with assault on police officers for the sake of public safety.

Moreover, dignity at work is another problem. Many bus captains said that they are often disturbed by other people at work. Those people may not have attacked the bus captains but they would video-tape the driver while he or she is driving with their mobile phones. Are they allowed to do such a thing? Will it distract the driver's attention? All of these actually warrant a review and what I mean by review is not purely making an appeal openly. In fact, it may be necessary to introduce legislative amendments.

12408 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016

Another problem is that drivers are not covered by the protection afforded by the existing Occupational Safety and Health Ordinance. It means that when drivers fall victim to occupational diseases, sorry, they are not protected by law. Then the Government will say that it is because drivers are protected by the relevant traffic legislation. What particular provisions are there in the traffic legislation that provide protection for the occupational safety and health of drivers? There is none. Therefore, I call on the Secretary not to conduct negotiation as a routine only once in a decade and then continue to use the obsolete legislation for regulation of bus companies and protection of bus captains.

Secondly, Mr WONG Kwok-hing mentioned the advertising revenue just now. I have particularly noticed that The Kowloon Motor Bus Company (1933) Limited (KMB) has adopted a more aggressive practice by installing large display panels at bus interchanges to show the waiting time for buses, which is very good. But if we take a closer look at these panels, say, the one at the Tuen Mun Road Interchange, we will find that four fifths of the display panel is used for advertisements with only one fifth of it showing the timetable for buses. May I ask the Secretary of his view on this? I believe the Secretary has never expected that advertising revenue can be generated in this manner, especially as the Government is going to expend $80 million out of public coffers to subsidize the bus companies in installing these display panels. We in the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions were among those who championed for such installation, because if we rely on the bus companies to do it, we may as well refuse their applications for fare increases. But the problem is that if four fifths of the panel is used for advertisements, what does the Government think about it? Is there any regulation?

Thirdly, the real-time bus arrival system. Mr WONG Kwok-hing also mentioned this point earlier on. A real-time bus arrival system, be it in the form of a mobile application or hardware installation, is what the public would wish to see. In this connection, we welcome efforts made to address this issue whether through the negotiation on bus franchises or the provision of $80 million proposed in the Policy Address this year. However, we consider the progress too slow and particularly, the performance of Citybus has been most disappointing. As of now, the Citybus can only provide through a mobile application real-time bus arrival information for its Cityflyer routes or the "A" routes but not for the other routes. Never would I have expected that while the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12409

Citybus stressed comfort and quality in its solgans when it made a debut in Hong Kong back in the 1980s, its service has degenerated to be the most backward and even more backward than the KMB nowadays.

Besides, there is also the question of barrier-free access. As it was also mentioned earlier on, the New Lantao Bus Company (1973) Limited (NLB) is serving the entire Lantau Island. Many rehabilitation organizations have said that the scenery on Lantau is beautiful and the Government has also proposed development projects on Lantau. But even now, passengers still have to climb one step in order to board a bus of the NLB. We do not support the opening of roads on Lantau for easy access by private cars but the problem is that if people can rely only on the NLB for travelling on Lantau, how can wheelchair users get on and off a bus? Why is this not resolved technically even nowadays? Is the Secretary aware of this? If he is, why would he allow such a backward situation to exist? Therefore, I appeal to the Secretary not to carry out negotiation merely as a routine upon the expiry of a bus franchise because there is still plenty of room for improvement in the existing legislation and also in the service quality which is a more fundamental issue.

Lastly, the issue of bus fares, and my speech will not be too long. We have raised the fare issue many times. Of course, we consider that the existing bus fare mechanism is fairer than that of the MTR Corporation Limited because the Government has the vetting and approval power. However, while the fuel price has obviously dropped considerably and despite the fuel cost accounting for 20% to 25% of the operating cost of a bus company, it is still unlikely for the fares to come down. What is the problem? The problem again lies in the mechanism per se because the mechanism merely focuses on inflation and the fuel price carries a weighting of only a few percentage points in inflation and therefore, the fuel price is not duly reflected and yet, it represents 20% to 25% of the operating cost of buses. Of course, as some academics have asked, what if the fuel price increases? An increase in fuel price will indeed impose pressure on the bus companies in operation and so, they will have a reason to apply for a fare increase, subject to vetting and approval by the Government. Therefore, even if the fuel price does not rise, the bus companies may likewise apply for a fare increase.

12410 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016

The problem now is why the bus companies still do not lower their fares in spite of a significant fall in their operating cost. Even though the bus companies have offered concessions, frankly, the concessions are not enjoyed by all the passengers. For instance, the Citybus have always claimed that they have provided a lot of concessions for the airport routes but these concessions are not enjoyed by residents in Tung Chung who still have to put up with expensive fares because only the airport staff can take the "A" routes for the fares of "E" routes. What kind of concessions are these? The Citybus said that the surplus profit would be injected into the provision of these concessions but they are utterly not enjoyed by all the passengers. Therefore, I hope that the Secretary can look into and find out about these concessions. As to what the bus operators will do to return their profits to the passengers, the Government does not have the power to require the bus companies to provide concessions in a particular way, which can otherwise ensure the provision of these concessions in a fairer manner for all members of the public to enjoy.

In any case, we consider it inadequate for Members to be given the opportunity to put forward their views only through the negotiation on the bus franchises conducted once in a decade or the current consultation on the franchise of the KMB. We hope that the Government will conduct a review of the entire Public Bus Services Ordinance, rather than invariably carrying out negotiations as a routine. I so submit.

DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): Today, we are discussing the franchise of the Citybus Limited (Citybus) granted at an interval of 10 years under the Public Bus Services Ordinance. I wish to take this opportunity to express on behalf of the public their views. There are actually a lot of problems but I think the problems that have to do with respect for the elderly are more important. First of all, many elderly have reflected to me the problem they face when waiting for a bus on rainy days or under the sun. At present, many bus stops do not have any canopy. If it rains out of a sudden and there is nowhere nearby where people can take shelter from the rain, what should they do? If the passengers do not have an umbrella with them, how can they take shelter from the rain? The situation could be quite distressing and embarrassing. Can the Citybus review the situation afresh and build canopies at bus stops where it is difficult to find shelter from rain in the vicinity?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12411

Besides, in respect of some other bus stops, they are problematic not because passengers cannot take shelter from rain but because some unsheltered bus stops are located at west-facing points where the solar heat can be very intense particularly when the sun is going down. After 2 pm every day, passengers who are waiting for a bus there are directly exposed to the scorching sun. I once stood there on a day which was quite hot as it is now with a high temperature of over 30 degrees Celsius. I felt dizzy standing there for two minutes, not to mention waiting for a bus there for five or 10 minutes. For these locations, I hope that the Citybus can increase the provision of canopied bus stops. That place where I was standing is the bus stop near Pei Ho Street in Sham Shui Po. I can provide details of its location to the authorities.

Moreover, there is the problem of lost bus trips. As we all know, traffic in Hong Kong is sometimes not fully under control as we are not too sure about when and where there will be traffic congestion or sudden traffic incidents that make it impossible for buses to arrive at the bus stops on time. Many members of the public actually understand this, but it has been the wish of the public that the bus companies can provide electronic display panels showing the arrival time of the next bus. In fact, similar display panels can be found in many Southeast Asian cities and even in the neighbouring Shenzhen, these facilities are also provided at many bus stops. With these facilities, the public can at least know that they have to wait for 15 minutes and so, they can choose to go into a shopping mall to take shelter from the elements, and the public can be psychologically prepared. I hope that the Secretary can urge the bus companies to step up efforts to improve these measures on behalf of the public.

Thank you.

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

MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): President, I notice that the several Honourable colleagues who spoke earlier all mentioned the wish of members of the public to have access to bus arrival information while waiting for buses. I have repeatedly raised this issue on other occasions, including panel meetings. Originally I was not really prepared to speak here, but I feel that I have to say a few words as the subject of this discussion is the extension of the 12412 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 franchise of Citybus Limited (Citybus) granted once every 10 years. Recently, we have also discussed the franchise of the Kowloon Motor Bus Company (1933) Limited (KMB) at panel meetings, on which the Government has conducted a consultation exercise.

Over the past few years, we have been seeking public access to such data from the Government. In addition to government data, we certainly also ask for public access to data of other private companies, especially public corporations or companies to which the Government has granted franchises, particularly transport information. It is because as far as people's clothing, food, accommodation and transport are concerned, the most important thing is to provide information pertinent to their needs, so that they will lead a more convenient life. However, a company reflected to me last year that they had set up branch offices in the United Kingdom, dedicated to providing real-time interchange information in a few dozen cities around the world. Their company was able to obtain real-time information from local bus companies and metro companies in a few dozen cities, most of them developed, in Europe, Asia and America, and so on, around the world. However, no company in Hong Kong was willing to provide such information. I thus studied this issue, and found that the Government had actually done nothing.

While the Government claims that it aims to develop Hong Kong into a "Smart City", there is no matching measure at the policy level. Hence, I have repeatedly suggested to the Secretary whether clauses can be included to require bus companies to provide and allow public access to such information, taking the opportunity of franchise extension, instead of providing more information at bus stops or through mobile applications as suggested by some Members earlier. Why is it not an effective solution? If a member of the public learns about such information and realizes that he has to wait for 15 or 20 minutes only after arriving at a bus stop, what can he do? He has already arrived at the bus stop. The information should enable me to know whether I should take the MTR, minibuses, buses or other means of transport, and how to make interchanges among different modes. If all such information is made public, people in the market can then use it to teach members of the public how to live smartly, thereby turning our place into a "Smart City". But such information is not available now. In that case, how can we do that?

What irritates me most is that the Government actually has to give bus companies $70 million or $80 million for the installation of display panels. Bus companies are supposed to provide such information, but they fail to do so and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12413 ask the Government to give them money to do what they are supposed to do in the first place. Nevertheless, concerning our call for provision of information by bus companies, the Government has done nothing. President, we have to wait for yet another decade. As Hong Kong is so backward, how can it be developed into a "Smart City"? The Government has even stated that the Innovation and Technology Bureau will conduct a consultancy study in the latter half of the year. But what will happen after the study? The Government will have granted franchises to the bus companies, so why does it not take this opportunity to require them to provide such information?

At a panel meeting several days ago, I provided some information showing that in Singapore, not only buses but also taxis will provide the public with information real time. The same also applies to ferry services and buses in London. While the Queen's Speech, the equivalent of a policy address in the United Kingdom, has even pointed out this year the need to implement such measures nationwide, Hong Kong is lagging so far behind. Nevertheless, what irritates me most is the Under Secretary's reply to me that day, to this effect, "Mr MOK, you cannot compare Hong Kong with London and Singapore as their governments have a shareholding or even a major shareholding in bus companies, enabling them to have a say." This implies that the Government has no say. Now I have realized that those measures cannot be implemented in Hong Kong, and there is no way for the Government to supervise those companies.

At that time, the Under Secretary did not tell me that "Actually such information should not be accessed by the public because as what they say, it is their personal assets. We should allow them to continue to use it for commercial uses instead of allowing public access." This is not what he said. Instead, he said that public access to such information was impossible as they were private companies, and the Government simply could not help it. What is wrong with him? It is precisely in this period of time when the application for franchise extension is being processed that the Government has a say. Since it can make such requests as introducing environmentally-friendly buses, and funding has been provided to them, why can it not require them to do this now? The authorities attach no importance to it and wish to do less, thereby delaying Hong Kong's progress for another decade.

At that time, I also asked the Under Secretary what about the MTR? The Government has a 75% shareholding in the MTR Corporation Limited (MTRCL). Have the authorities required it to allow public access to such information? The 12414 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016

MTRCL has not done so. In other words, it is actually an excuse. No matter whether the Government has a major shareholding or control, it is reluctant to introduce measures and address the issues.

Hence, President, I would like to take this opportunity to briefly express my views. The measures taken by the Government and franchised companies with respect to public access to information, especially information of the transport industry, are utterly inadequate, lagging far behind the whole world. If both the Citybus and the KMB are granted franchises, it will eventually delay our progress for another decade. Thank you, President.

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

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): President, Hong Kong is such a dense city, and public transport is like a game of chess as all of its components are inter-connected and closely related to each other. As I said in this Council before, in a place with such a scale of urban development and a closely-packed population, an operator of public utilities can always enjoy an unrivalled advantage. Of course, in respect of mass transport, we have the MTR, buses, minibuses and taxis providing services in the territory, and they are all chess pieces in a game of chess. Today we are here to discuss the franchise of the Citybus Limited (Citybus). As Members may still recall, the reason for the Citybus to come into being was that the service of the China Motor Bus Company Limited (CMB) was very bad. The Government, therefore, terminated the franchise of the CMB and the CMB's franchise to operate bus services was then awarded to the Citybus.

Several decades have passed in a flash, and how is the service of the Citybus now? Just now Mr Charles Peter MOK or other Members said that insofar as buses are concerned, one of the simplest service indicators is time, which means that before a passenger makes a choice among different modes of transport, he should know exactly for how long he has to wait if he chooses to take a particular means of transport. If he takes the MTR, he can find the timetable after passing through the turnstile, so he can roughly estimate the waiting time but it is relatively difficult to do so if he takes a bus. In fact, the problem lies in the unwillingness rather than inability to do it. First, President, if it is stated in the agreement that a bus arrives in two or four minutes, what if a bus does not come in four minutes? In fact, the bus schedule is also available LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12415 and passengers can call the bus companies to make enquiries. I have called them a few times before because the other day when I was waiting for a bus, there were problems with two successive bus trips as one "skipped the bus stop" whereas the other was far behind schedule. I, therefore, called the company to make enquiries and when my call was answered, I told the staff the situation and the staff said that he would follow it up.

Why can they not provide real-time bus arrival information? It is because bus trips are always delayed. Think about this: If the real-time bus arrival information is given to everyone, it means that everyone knows at the first instance the extent of delay of bus trips that day or within a certain hour, and I think nobody could prevail over this challenge as it means that all the people of Hong Kong would know that I wasted 10 minutes waiting for a bus today. If this system can be put in place, together with the use of the big data, we will know the actual situation of how much time a Hong Kong citizen has lost that day in choosing to travel by bus, be it the Citybus or the KMB, and how much work time he has lost if he is in employment, buddy.

You people always say that filibustering by Members has slowed down the development of Hong Kong. If these statistics or big data are made available every day to reflect, among others, the delayed trips by the MTR and buses, the corporations concerned would not be able to make a defence, and had such data been made available, we could have read out these data to give an account of the number of hours or time that we lost last year as we discuss this issue here today. So, this is not a technical problem; and a technical problem can be resolved quickly. Nor is it the case that the problem cannot be resolved for geographical reasons. The fact is that the Government does not wish to resolve it because if the Government should impose this requirement on a franchised bus company, the Government would have to discharge the responsibility of making the franchised bus company … President, I am referring to franchised buses that the public must take if they travel by public transport. If the Government should really impose such a requirement, how could these companies defend themselves? So, on the point put forward by Mr Charles Peter MOK or other Members, the Government will not give any response. The Government will only say that they cannot do it.

At the very least, as I have all along proposed, in the mass transport system of Hong Kong, buses and the railway should be operated by the Government. President, if these means of public transport are not publicly-run, actually it 12416 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 would be impossible for the public to have any say through the Government's negotiation with the operators on their franchises every 10 years. Come to think about this: If, today, the Secretary is the highest person-in-charge of the railway and buses, or under the Transport and Housing Bureau there is a dedicated department responsible for handling these services, the question of accountability would be very clear. But now, it is impossible to hold anyone accountable.

There is yet another problem. Why has it become increasingly difficult to introduce reform? We all understand that in the wake of the financial tsunami, a large amount of capital has been created through quantitative easing and such capital will flow into Hong Kong. In fact, the public transport system of Hong Kong nowadays has already carried a lot of capital from the Mainland, whether in respect of bridges, tunnels, or buses. Think about this: Such capital comes from the Mainland, and capital is used to make money, not to take responsibility. The nature of capital is to keep making money, not to take responsibility. If the buses in our public transport system are controlled by these consortiums, Members can thus imagine how difficult it is to carry out reform.

The current policy is to give priority to the railway. After the privatization of the railway by the Government, the Government always uses the market as the reason, telling us that it has to make decisions in the best interest of the small shareholders. So, the Government said that it could not do anything and that if priority should be given to the overall interest of society, it would face lawsuits instituted by the small shareholders of the MTR Corporation Limited (MTRCL) because since the MTRCL is a listed company, the Board is required to work in the best interest of the corporation, rather than its service targets. Therefore, from this we can see that the privatization of the MTRCL has caused the leverage effect to vanish in its entirety. Had the MTRCL not been privatized, the Government could at least have performed a certain role on one side of the lever by creating a more competitive environment for the bus companies through reform of the services of the MTRCL, whether in terms of its fares or service, but this is not the case now.

President, speaking of data or information, it is most outrageous that the MTRCL has sold to a company the data or information of all Hongkongers, and this is most scandalous. Think about this: The Citybus does not collect any data, or in other words, the Government has not imposed a requirement to make it statutory for the Citybus or other bus companies to provide information on their LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12417 services, especially information on the routes and journey time. As such, I would like to ask this: Where is the database? Our database would be flawed as a result. I do not know if the Secretary has these data, or will the Secretary collect them. If he will collect these data, it means that while these data could have been made readily available, the Government has to collect them by itself now because it has not imposed such a requirement. These may be commercial secrets to the Citybus as they cannot reveal how much time of Hongkongers is wasted by them every day. This is a most obvious fact. So, on this issue, if, in this modernized city of ours, the public transport system is not wholly owned by the Government, it is actually impossible for us to have a basis on which overall arrangements can be made for the transport service in a reasonable manner.

For instance, President, if we can have a publicly-run transport system with a high coverage, like that in other major cities, we can certainly introduce season passes, monthly passes or other electronic payment methods to give the public better choices. For example, if you know that you will be caught in a traffic jam if you take a bus of route 1A, will you still take it? Or, if you know that when you change to another bus at a certain stop, the bus trips may be more frequent and better still, there will be empty seats on board, President, will you choose to do this? The situation now is that apart from the elderly who can enjoy a concessionary fare of $2, other passengers would not choose to do this even if they know the advantages. Many members of the public would prefer to stand and wait in loneliness because they cannot afford the fares.

Let me cite a simple example. When you see a cross-harbour tunnel bus, the fare of which is more expensive than other buses serving the Kowloon side, and if you know that their routes are all the same but the cross-habour tunnel bus charges $2 more, will you be willing to take it? Most people are unwilling to take it. In other words, if we do not adopt the model of operation by the Government to manage the bus and railway services comprehensively, firstly, we would not be able to provide reasonable information, which is part of the service; and secondly, there is no way for us to enable ordinary citizens who rely on public transport to commute to work or for travelling to enjoy reasonable services. The reason is that on some buses the seats are all empty because their fares are expensive and these buses are described by some people as "ghost buses", whereas the buses of some other routes are very crowded. President, another example is that at the bus stop downstairs of my home, I can take routes No. 11B, 11C and 11D. These are all bus routes often patronized by the poor 12418 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 people because their journeys are shorter and they are not served by too many air-conditioned buses. Therefore, the elderly and the poor will wait for these buses in loneliness. Even though air-conditioned buses pass by, they prefer not to board them. What kind of service is this?

The Government has not fully discharged its responsibilities. The point is that it is actually not the case that a certain bus company under discussion has not fully discharged its responsibilities but the Government has failed to do so. While the Government has such a huge fiscal reserve, it has nevertheless wasted a large amount of public money on developing the Belt and Road Initiative in advance. The Belt and Road Initiative seeks to promote connectivity with other areas. The Government's claim is simple. It said that when these connections are established, we can have more business opportunities and save time. I wish to ask this: The wage earners of Hong Kong have to get up half an hour earlier every day in order to travel by the means of public transport which they consider affordable. Is this not a loss? We have over 3 million labourers whose daily working hours are the longest in the world, and worse still, they are tortured day in day out by franchised transport service operators and public utilities which only care about making profits because the Government has refused to assume its responsibilities. Tell me, is this fair?

Therefore, my view is that the only solution to the problem is for the Government to drum up the resolve to use the $200 billion or $300 billion earmarked for the development of "white elephant" projects to operate (The buzzer sounded) … the MTR and other …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, speaking time is up.

MR LEE CHEUK-YAN (in Cantonese): President, there are many structural problems in Hong Kong, one of which is the problem of public transport service. Actually the Government has created these structural problems itself, thus tying its own hands. I am referring to the listing of the MTR Corporation Limited (MTRCL). Ever since its listing, the MTRCL has been raising the fares under the Fare Adjustment Mechanism. Despite having made a profit of some $10 billion, it has raised the fares all the same. What does this have to do with bus service? Today I am not talking about the MTRCL. I am talking about the bus service.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12419

If we request the bus companies to reduce or freeze the fares while the MTRCL does not do so, it is unfair to the bus companies, is it not? What is more, the bus companies are private operations. Hence, the MTRCL has acted at the expense of the common people and at the expense of the entire public transport system, resulting in a lack of transport modes which can alleviate the heavy burden of transport costs on the public. Yet there is no way we can make the MTRCL reduce the fares. If we compare the fare hikes of the bus companies with those of the MTRCL, we will find that the latter are actually greater than the former. As the Government is the biggest shareholder of the MTRCL, when the increase in fares by the MTRCL is greater than that by the ordinary commercial or private bus companies, how can the Government be in a position to request the bus companies to effect fare increases of not too big a rate? Certainly, the Government says a "cap" has been put in place to monitor the bus fares, but the bus companies can also challenge the Government, though they may not dare do so openly. Given that the fare increase rate of the MTRCL is greater than that of the bus companies, how can the Government request the bus companies not to impose such a great fare hike? I think this is outrageous. When the fare increase rate of the MTRCL, a public organization, is greater than that of the bus companies, how can the Government tell the bus companies to take the overall situation into account and give consideration to the burden of transport costs on the public?

Hence, all in all, the first major problem is that if the Government does not untie this knot, the problem will remain unsolved. To untie this knot, we will certainly demand a buy-back of the MTRCL, but now there is an interim proposal for the Government to use the dividends distributed by the MTRCL ― but now there is the need to pay $20 billion for no reason to meet the cost overrun of the Express Rail Link with the special dividends ― actually the annual dividends distributed to the Government can be contributed and evenly shared by all the bus companies, the MTRCL and operators of all the other modes of public transport as subsidies for lowering the fares. This is the only method. Certainly, in the long run, we hope the Government will buy back the MTRCL, but during the interim period when such a buy-back is still not practicable, this is, in our view, a feasible approach which can at least lower the bus fares. This is the first point I would like to make.

The second point is, regarding the bus services, President, just now many Honourable colleagues talked about the problem of frequencies. We often receive complaints from members of the public in the districts. They have 12420 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 complained to us about the bus routes one by one, saying that the service is inadequate. There should be a bus every 10 or five minutes as originally scheduled, but in the end, having waited for 20 to 30 minutes, they did not see any bus arrive at the bus stop. They are fed up with the situation of lost bus trips. After all, did the bus companies do anything to reduce the number of lost trips? The figures provided to us by the bus companies look pretty, but sometimes those figures are in fact created by the bus companies because it is easy to make the figures look good by adopting the average numbers. For example, there are lost trips for some bus routes, whereas some other bus routes are easier to meet the target. So the bus companies work on these routes which are easier to handle or which do not warrant frequent service, making all these buses arrive at the bus stops on time. However, regarding those routes which really warrant frequent service in view of the long queues of passengers during the rush hours, the situation cannot be improved. This is indeed terrible because very often, members of the public can lose no time on their way to work or back home. How upset they will be!

For this reason, we hope the Transport Department (TD) will closely monitor the problem of lost bus trips and ensure that there will be no lost trips. Once we have received a complaint, we will definitely refer it to the TD, but what did the TD do to make the bus companies keep their promise? What we have seen is a "black hole". Did the bus companies ever make any response? Was there any improvement after making responses? We can only rely on the collection of data by the TD. We complain about a particular bus route, but the TD may reply to us with average numbers of the whole territory. That is meaningless. Every time we lodge a complaint, we hope the bus company can improve its service during the rush hours. Certainly, the bus service during non-rush hours has to be improved too, but members of the public are most anxious about the rush hours. Hence, regarding the problem of lost bus trips, we hope the Government can see to it that the buses of all the routes can travel on schedule.

Another problem is the failure of buses to travel on schedule. One of the reasons is the difficulty to recruit manpower. This is actually an issue of working conditions. Members of the pro-establishment camp in the business sector love talking about the market. If manpower is short in the market, they should raise the salaries. Then they will be able to recruit manpower. Now there is an unhealthy way of recruiting manpower, which is the so-called "rehiring", hiring former employees aged above 60 to work as bus drivers again. They are physically fit to deal with the work, but their salaries are much lower. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12421

Why do they discriminate against bus drivers aged above 60 and pay them lower salaries? Having served the companies for years, they retired at the maximum pay point, but when they are employed again, their salaries are reduced by about one third. Certainly, the bus companies can refute by saying that they are still willing to do the job. Yet why is that always the case in Hong Kong? The wage earners never get a reasonable reward for their contribution. If the bus companies adopts this method owing to the difficulty to recruit manpower, of course they will be able to save money, but the price will be paid by the workers.

That is also the case with working hours. So far the Government has not dealt with the problem and does not review the maximum daily duty and driving duty of bus captains again. What is their maximum daily duty now? It is 14 hours. Come to think about this. How long is 14 hours? And what is their maximum driving duty? It is 11 hours. It is 14 hours and 11 hours. Why can they not be reduced to 13 hours and 10 hours? Why can there not be any improvement? Secretary for Transport and Housing Prof Anthony CHEUNG has not dealt with the issue of working hours for the transport service. He has not dealt with the issue of working hours not only for bus drivers but also for other drivers. For instance, what is the maximum working hours of coach drivers? I have heard some cement mixer drivers say that they have to work 24 hours before driving the vehicles away from the sites. How do Members feel about it? As a matter of fact, all modes of transport have this problem of long working hours. If the workers are exhausted, it will give rise to safety and health problems. It will also pose a threat to the safety of members of the public. The Government, however, does not have the slightest care for these two issues. It just casually regulates the maximum daily duty in bus companies, setting it at 14 hours, but why does it not regulate the other modes of transport? Moreover, why do the bus companies still adopt 14 hours and 11 hours, rather than 13 hours and 10 hours, as the maximum daily duty and driving duty? At least they should be reduced by one hour to strike a balance, should they not? We often discuss work-life balance and have proposed the formulation of standard working hours. The bus is such an important mode of transport that any accident it meets will seriously affect members of the public and the passengers. Why has the Government done nothing? In our view, it is irresponsible. This is the second point on working hours which I especially wish to raise.

Thirdly, I would like to ask the Government a question about how it conducts tender exercises because we have asked the Government a question before and received a very strange reply. The question concerns two bus routes 12422 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 to the airport, respectively run by Long Win Bus Company Limited (Long Win) and the Citybus Limited (Citybus). The Citybus route travels from Lam Tin to the airport without passing through any tunnel. The fare is $18-odd. The other bus route is E34, which travels from Tin Shui Wai to the airport. It needs to pass through a tunnel, but the fare is only $13-odd. As Members can imagine, the cost of the route which needs to pass through a tunnel should be higher, but Long Win can operate it by charging only $13-odd. Why does the Citybus charge $18-odd? Its route does not need to go through any tunnel. Surprisingly, when we asked the TD, its reply was that it would not care whether the relevant routes had to pass through any tunnel or pay any toll. It would only care about one point, that is, it would give the bus companies a ceiling on the fares. Then it would just let them set the price below the ceiling themselves.

I find this most strange. Why does the bus company charge $18-odd for a route which does not need to go through any tunnel, while the other company can charge only $13-odd for a route which needs to pass through a tunnel and pay a toll? Why does the Government not let the company which charges only $13-odd operate the route whose fare is $18-odd? They may as well bid for it themselves. Why can the Citybus monopolize the route and then charge a fare of $18-odd? Why does the Government not check each route? If it is found that Long Win can charge a lower fare, why not let Long Win operate it? Long Win can charge only $13-odd despite the need to pass through a tunnel. Moreover, the journey distances of the two bus routes are almost identical. The distance from Lam Tin to the airport is very close to that from Tin Shui Wai to the airport. Why is there such a fare difference? Hence, I hope the Government can explain the entire tender system and the system for each bus route. Why has such an abnormal phenomenon arisen now? I consider that the Government should conduct a review of this.

The last point is about another type of service with which we are greatly concerned. It relates to "living with innovation and technology" and "Smart City", which is often mentioned by the Government now. Every time smart city is mentioned, one of the things which come to our mind is territory-wide Wi-Fi coverage. However, is Wi-Fi service currently available on all the buses and at all the bus stops? It is not available at the MTR either. Perhaps it is the MTR which has spoiled the matter. The MTR does not provide any Wi-Fi service. We have to use our data plan to connect to the Internet along the whole railway. After all, does the Government have the vision of providing territory-wide Wi-Fi LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12423 service, covering bus stops and buses? To my knowledge, Wi-Fi service is currently available on some buses, but the number of these buses is small. Frankly, I have never travelled on a bus with Wi-Fi service, but I have been told that there are such buses.

Why does the Government not make some efforts in this regard? For example, will it require the bus companies to provide territory-wide Wi-Fi service? As a matter of fact, a lot of things are closely related to our daily life. Maybe the Government is unwilling to do these things because it just wants us to be fleeced by the consortiums, since telecommunication network operators definitely do not hope that the Government will implement territory-wide Wi-Fi coverage. Come to think about this. How expensive is the data plan of everyone here? What are the fees we pay each month? If territory-wide Wi-Fi coverage is available, we will have no need to use any data plan. Wherever we go, we will be able to connect to the Internet through Wi-Fi. The fees will be much lower, and our daily expenses will be reduced. However, the Government is unwilling to do anything. It merely makes slogan-like remarks on providing territory-wide Wi-Fi service, developing an innovative and smart city and living with innovation and technology, but fails to realize them in the end. Actually, in my view, such service can be implemented on buses to facilitate the provision of territory-wide Wi-Fi service, allowing members of the public to use Wi-Fi service wherever they go and thus save a lot of money. However, is it because the Government has colluded with the business sector or is under pressure that it has done nothing? We hope the Government will conduct a review and really give an account of the development in this regard to members of the public.

Thank you, President.

MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): President, the resolution simply seeks to ensure bus companies granted with bus franchises will not, as in the past, be subject to the Profit Control Scheme, or profit guarantees, when they make fare adjustments in the future. Instead, a host of factors have to be taken into account.

From this angle, it is one of the ways to restrict the rates of bus fare increases. We can see from the previous several fare adjustments that although there is still dissatisfaction with the adjustments, the existing arrangement helps reduce bus fare increase rates compared to fare adjustments made by the MTR 12424 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016

Corporation Limited (MTRCL). This reflects that this arrangement is better than previous profit guarantees as well as the arrangement for the MTRCL to be not subject to the checking by the Executive Council as the ultimate gatekeeper.

Nevertheless, we can also see a realistic problem. The people of Hong Kong, especially those living in the remote districts, face an extremely heavy burden of travelling expenses due to their need to traverse out of their districts for work. Furthermore, Hong Kong's economic structure tends to go from north to south. In other words, most of the jobs are concentrated on the south tip of the old areas of Kowloon and Hong Kong Island. This is an objective fact that cannot be denied. Nevertheless, more than a half of Hong Kong's population is living in the remote North District, including New Territories East, New Territories West and New Territories North. These residents have to commute from the North District to the urban areas by bus. The fare for a single bus ride ranges from $15 to $30. From this angle, we can see that their burden is far heavier than that of the wage earners living in the urban areas. What methods will the Government adopt to enable wage earners living in the remote districts but have to go to work in the urban areas to receive a reasonable transport subsidy, so as to ensure that their livelihood will not be affected due to the heavy burden of travelling expenses? Frankly, the income of people living in North District or other remote areas will not be adjusted just because they are living in remote places.

We understand that population relocation often coincides with land development needs in society and population growth. As such, I think that the Government is duty-bound to consider ways to alleviate the burden of travelling expenses borne by people living in the remote areas. Is it reasonable to solely use distance as the criterion for determination of transport fares and is there a need to review this method? Is there any other criterion that can be used to replace the existing one? In my opinion, the Government should give this consideration since the travelling distance is generally used as the benchmark at present, with higher fares for long bus trips and lower fares for short bus trips. From the operational perspective, although this criterion is fair and reasonable, it seems to be open to question when the affordability of the public is affected by public transport fares. For this reason, we think that the Government should adopt a macro perspective in considering these issues.

Nowadays, more than 40% or even 50% of the people in Hong Kong travel on the Mass Transit Railway (MTR). Moreover, the number of MTR commuters is rising steadily because the MTR is more punctual and its standard LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12425 of service is more reliable than that of buses as well as trustworthy. It is precisely for these reasons that MTR fare adjustments often lead to overall public transport fare adjustments. In other words, not only do MTR fare increases directly add to the financial burden of MTR commuters, but since MTR fares serve as an indicator, the fares of other public transport modes will also be adjusted upward accordingly. As the most prominent example, the fares of public light buses, especially red minibuses, are often adjusted in tandem with MTR fares. I understand that, on the operation front, MTR fares are regulated under a Fare Adjustment Mechanism that allows fares to go upward or downward. However, its fare adjustments will simultaneously create a vicious circle in society. As a result, the overall public transport fares will rise accordingly.

The MTRCL has been granted many concessions through the Government's public transport policy, including a competitive edge in land development and the policy of giving priority to railway. As such, it should not solely emphasize that it is a listed corporation and forget about its due responsibility. Meanwhile, the Government should cease allowing the MTRCL to shirk its responsibility on the excuse that it is a listed corporation since it is also an enterprise engaging in transport and real estate development. Quite many members of the public share the view that the MTRCL has reaped huge profits by taking advantage of the Government's biased policy and allocation of resources without returning some of its profits to the public. As a result, its profits have mostly fallen into the hands of its shareholders, even though 75% of the profits for shareholders will ultimately go to the Government coffers.

Should money taken from public transport be spent on public transport? Since the general public faces such a heavy burden of travelling expenses, should a structural solution be adopted to help provide relief to the general public? Can the Government rely solely on the Cross-district Transport Allowance to provide relief?

Should the Government not encourage members of the public to scatter and live in various districts, even though it means they have to spend a longer time on commuting to and from work because of the greater distance between their homes and workplaces, in order to achieve the Secretary's goal of improving the public's space and living environment? Certainly, this should also be the policy direction of the Secretary and the Chief Executive. If improvements are to be 12426 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 made, all people in Hong Kong must scatter and live in various districts, rather than living mainly in the urban areas. Nevertheless, if residents in the remote areas are required to bear the heavy burden of travelling expenses due to the Government's failure to provide them with policy support in respect of travelling expenses, they will naturally raise many questions about the impact of this item of recurrent expenditure on their living. Both the Secretary and I can see from the public housing policy that people waiting for public rental housing (PRH) allocation usually prefer to wait for PRH units in the urban areas. As a result, their waiting period will be even longer. This also reflects the burden imposed by travelling expenses on the daily life of the general public. Owing to the need to encourage the outward relocation of the population, many countries have adopted similar methods. So, will the Secretary consider lowering travelling expenses in the remote areas by all means to prevent such expenses from posing an obstacle to the outward relocation of the population?

Furthermore, since public transport modes have to compete with other transport modes for limited road surface, their services have been criticized for lost trips, inadequate frequencies, and so on. Insofar as these problems are concerned, the Secretary should actually give holistic consideration to the functions served by public transport modes from the perspective of overall public transport management, as well as giving priority to public transport modes in road use.

Giving priority to public transport modes and using public transport modes as reference are two completely different approaches. Should the authorities recognize the significance of public transport and regard public transport modes as the most important consideration in the design of the entire road network, their overall mindset will be completely different. But now, we are often at the follow-up stage only. In other words, at the time of road construction, the authorities have not made consideration from the perspective of enabling public transport modes to gain the greatest advantage on newly built roads, with a view to first properly dealing with issues related to design when overall road planning is made.

In my opinion, Hong Kong can make reference to the experience of Seoul, South Korea. Seoul used to encounter problems similar to those in Hong Kong. Since the vast majority of its public transport modes were operated by the private sector, competition was extremely keen. As a result, the best efficiency could LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12427 not be attained in road use. Neither could members of the public enjoy satisfactory public transport services. After being elected mayor of Seoul, LEE Myung-bak demonstrated his extraordinary boldness in the handling and integration of the overall operation of public transport modes to enable mass transit railways, buses, minibuses and taxis to serve their desired functions in the public transport network, thereby enabling the utilization of the overall road system to achieve maximum effectiveness.

Nevertheless, what measures are adopted by the Government? The Government has merely conducted individual studies on different transport modes in a superficial manner. Has the Government carried out the integration of various transport modes? Has the Government accorded priority to integration in road design and management overall? According to my observation, the Government has not acted in this manner. Let me cite a simple example. Over the past decade, private vehicles have become the fastest growing transport mode on road surface, with their number increasing by more than 100 000, from 400 000 in 2003 to more than 500 000. Should the pressure and impact brought by the growth in private vehicles on roads be made a subject for consideration by the Government?

If the Government thinks that the problem can be resolved by the construction of more roads without considering this subject, public transport modes naturally have to face competition from other road users. This will make it even harder for the existing problem to be resolved. Moreover, the deadlock thus created will make it impossible for the performance of public transport modes on road surface to meet standards. For instance, many buses often run behind schedule during rush hours because of on road congestion, but why does on road congestion occur in the first place? Firstly, road surface is occupied by many private vehicles; and secondly, since the use of roads by public transport modes has not been integrated properly, long queues of buses are often seen on roads.

Does the Government have the boldness and what mindset will it adopt to address this situation? The Government must remain unwavering in order to triumph against all odds. Otherwise, like the submission of some bus route rationalization plans to the District Councils, the Government will usually encounter many thorny issues, such as the request made by local residents for the Government not to cancel bus routes near their homes, and so on. The 12428 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016

Government should give holistic consideration to the overall utilization of public transport modes to enable them to maintain an edge similar to the use of tracks by the MTRCL, with a view to ensuring that public transport modes can provide comfortable, punctual and effective services.

Nevertheless, I have not seen any demonstration of great determination to promote the whole exercise by the Transport and Housing Bureau or the relevant authorities during discussions with the District Councils. The Government's failure to rise to the challenges and get this job done properly will only render us entangled in the problem. For instance, the general public has expressed great dissatisfaction with the problem of lost bus trips. So, what will the Government do to resolve the problem? Even if the Government requests bus companies to increase frequency, the problem can still not be resolved because the crux of it lies in traffic congestion. In order to resolve the problem, the parties concerned have adjusted their bus frequency from probably 10 minutes to 12 minutes for the purpose of maintaining the frequency, so to speak. This practice is actually like muffling one's ears while stealing a bell. The problem basically remains unresolved, for only some window-dressing efforts have been made.

I hope the Government can consider and deal with these issues related to public transport modes from two major perspectives. Firstly, the Government should make vigorous efforts in upgrading the roles and functions of public transport modes and their responsibility to transportation and commuters. In fact, 80% of the people in Hong Kong have to make use of public transport modes daily to go to their workplaces or leisure places. Such efforts are therefore in line with public interest considerations.

Secondly, the Government should make bold arrangements in respect of travelling expenses. Given its intention to encourage the outward relocation of the population, the Government should set up a regime to enable public transport fares to be adjusted downward, so that members of the public need not first take into account the exorbitant travelling expenses in giving consideration to their homes. This will in turn encourage the people to live in the more remote districts, so that the policy of distributing the population evenly can be implemented. Otherwise, we will only remain entangled in these problems. This Council will then be unable to resolve through these resolutions the problems faced by the public in relation to inadequate public transport services, the related criticism and exorbitant fares. Thank you, President.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12429

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

(No Member indicated a wish to speak)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): If not, I now call upon the Secretary for Transport and Housing to reply. The debate will come to a close after the Secretary has replied.

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): President, today I have proposed a technical motion which, in keeping with the established practice, seeks to exclude the application of the Profit Control Scheme (PCS) under the existing Public Bus Services Ordinance (the Ordinance) to the new franchises. Therefore, if we concentrate our discussion on this then many questions raised by Members just now are not directly related to the motion. However, I understand that Members wish to take the opportunity to express their views on current bus services and so I would try my best to respond to them. But in fact, it will become a very lengthy motion if all related issues are discussed.

As regards reviews of bus services, I wish to clarify that we do not wait for 10 years to conduct discussions. It is true that it is a 10-year franchise but the review is not conducted only once in 10 years. In the Legislative Council Panel on Transport, many agenda items discussed at meetings were pertinent to public transport, including bus services, and many associated problems were resolved outside of the franchises. For this reason, members of the Subcommittee formed for this motion had asked why amendments are not simply made to the Ordinance to abolish the PCS. If we really do so, it does not imply we are deprived of the opportunity to discuss bus services in the Legislative Council. I need to make this point very clear.

Several Members have mentioned fare adjustments and bus services, to which I would like to give a combined response. Regarding the fare adjustment of franchised bus services, we have adopted a comprehensive Fare Adjustment Arrangement. First, the arrangement contains a fare adjustment formula, similar to that under the Fare Adjustment Mechanism of the MTR Corporation Limited (MTRCL), which comprises the change in nominal wage index for the 12430 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 transportation section and the change in Composite Consumer Price Index, less a productivity gain factor. Therefore, generally the formula alone gives some objective data which may indicate cost increases while greater productivity gain reflects higher efficiency. At the same time, it is not a direct-drive formula as it also takes into account factors like changes in the operational costs and revenues since the last adjustment, future costs, revenue and return forecasts, the public's acceptability and affordability, as well as service quality and volume. Moreover, whenever a franchised bus company applies for a fare adjustment, we will solicit views from the Legislative Council Panel on Transport. As such, we have spared no efforts in striking a balance among all aspects: on the one hand the public's affordability and on the other the need for reasonable returns for the operators to cover cost and expenses. With respect to costs, as mentioned in my oral reply to Mr Frederick FUNG's question at the Legislative Council meeting yesterday, we do not only consider a single factor, such as the rise and fall of fuel prices, in determining the upward or downward adjustment of fares, because staff cost accounts for the biggest proportion of the operational costs of public transport. And there are other costs such as maintenance and insurance expenses.

The Passenger Reward Arrangement under the Fare Adjustment Arrangement for Franchised Buses (FAA) shares with passengers profits exceeding a certain target level. Under the current share arrangement, any return achieved by a franchised bus company exceeding the rate of return on average net fixed asset, which is 9.7%, would be shared with passengers. The level was set with reference to the recommendation made by expert consultants. Yet, as I pointed out in my reply to Members' questions yesterday, a review of the FAA, including this percentage, is part of the ongoing Public Transport Strategy Study. The current FAA gives regard to a host of factors and we of course have to look at the overall situation. If some citizens have actual needs concerning fares of public transport, the Government will certainly hope to address them through some measures, for example, the Work Incentive Transport Subsidy Scheme which provides assistance specifically to low-income earners.

Mr TANG Ka-piu asked just now why advertising revenue is not counted towards the revenues of franchised bus companies and I would like to give a response here. Advertising revenue of franchised bus companies is totally included in the franchise revenues; it is not excluded. And we encourage operators to try their best to expand the sources of non-fare revenue in order to alleviate the pressure for fare increase.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12431

As regards bus services, many Members have mentioned lost trips. I know that it has been an issue of concern to the public over the past few years but I would like to shed some light on the present situation. The Transport Department (TD) has started taking measures since the beginning of last year to liaise with the operators on ways to enhance the monitoring mechanism for lost trips and lost trip rate. The monitoring basis has been changed from one day to different periods in a day. On the other hand, the TD will also require franchised bus companies to implement measures, to the best of their ability and within their control, to prevent and minimize lost trips, such as improvements on vehicle breakdowns and insufficient vehicles and drivers. The franchised bus companies are capable of implementing these improvement measures, which are also subject to our supervision.

Focusing on the two franchises pursuant to the two motions in question today ― the Citybus Limited (Franchise for Hong Kong Island and Cross-Harbour Bus Network) (Citybus (Franchise One)) and the New Lantao Bus Company (1973) Limited (NLB), their lost trip rates have all along been lower than that of the franchised bus sector in the same period. The figure for the Citybus (Franchise One) is 2.1% while that for the NLB is 0.1%. Generally speaking, we can tell that the lost trip rates for all franchises have been on a downward trend in the past few years. I would like to provide some data, which Mr LEE Cheuk-yan may certainly consider just averages. Anyhow we need to look at the overall picture from a statistical perspective. In 2010, the average lost trip rate for all franchises was 5.5%; the figure rose to 6.3% in 2011 but dropped to 1.4% in 2015, indicating an improvement. Of course traffic conditions, adequacy of vehicles and drivers, as well as whether the franchised bus companies have exerted their best to minimize lost trips are all factors contributing to the problem. However, I hope Members will understand that the situation is improving and way different from the past.

The second issue is bus arrival information, which is a matter of concern to many Members who have spoken. They hope for enhanced dissemination of such real-time information. As a matter of fact, the franchises require the operators to provide sufficient information to the public. What is included therein? It includes the fares, schedule, locations of bus stops, journey time and other relevant information of each route. Hence from this perspective, the TD as the regulator enforces regulation on franchised bus companies. But often what happens is, for example, lost trips still occur even though journey time is part of the route planning, which is affected by on-road traffic conditions. It calls for efforts from all quarters to close the gap between the actual arrival time and the planned schedule.

12432 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016

The two franchised bus companies involved in the motion have undertaken to introduce real-time bus information system in phases within two years after the commencement of the new franchises. While right now various operators are making different progress in providing real-time information, all of them will install electronic display panels at major covered bus stops with electricity supply, involving about 100 display panels at present. The Government understands that society hopes to see the early implementation of the real-time bus information system, particularly the installation of electronic display panels at bus stops to access relevant real-time information. Therefore, employing a matching approach, the Government offers a subsidy to franchised bus companies on prompt installation of display panels at covered and powered bus stops. It is expected that in the first phase, which is within three years (until 2019), 550 display panels will be installed, half of which being paid for by the franchised bus companies and the other half by the Government, in order to speed up the installation progress. In our franchise negotiations with the operators, we had required them to make vigorous efforts to implement the real-time bus information system to meet the needs of social development.

In addition, Members have mentioned installation of bus stop canopies and seats to upgrade the waiting environment. In fact, in the Policy Address presented early this year, the Chief Executive has stated that the Government attaches importance to improving bus stop environment for waiting passengers, and so will speed up the installation of seats while providing subsidies to franchised bus companies. In the first phase, covered bus stops without seats will be installed with seats. The target is to finish installation at 1 500 such existing covered bus stops within three years. However, under the franchise arrangements, the franchised bus companies are obliged to install seats at all newly erected covered bus stops. Regarding covered bus stops, I hope, as far as practicable, all bus stops are covered, but of course it cannot be done 100% as actual conditions may forbid the installation of canopies at some waiting locations. But as a principle our goal is to make all bus stops covered.

Next I would like to give some brief responses to a few questions. Mr WONG Kwok-hing has mentioned fares of cross-harbour bus routes, and I also gave replies to relevant questions raised by Members yesterday. The TD is currently in discussion with a few bus companies, including the Citybus, about a trial scheme to study making appropriate adjustments to sectional fares of cross-harbour bus routes after crossing the harhour. But there are many factors to consider, which cover not just fare revenues, but rather how to avoid affecting road traffic as a result. Why are there differences in fares? It is because cross-harbour bus routes and other bus routes perform different roles. If LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12433 cross-harbour bus routes overlap with other routes after crossing the harbour, will resources be put to the most effective use? Will more passengers be attracted to patronizing certain bus routes, thus lengthening the time for boarding and alighting in turn? These technical issues warrant careful consideration and so we hope to first carry out a trial scheme. The TD is still in discussion with a few franchised bus companies about the details, aiming to rolling out a concrete plan at the end of the year.

Mr TANG Ka-piu has expressed concern for protection of the safety of bus drivers. He has mentioned two aspects. The first is the recent assaults on bus drivers. The Government and the Police take this problem very seriously and will follow up on it as per the established criminal legislation. We consider an assault on any person a serious matter. The second aspect is occupational safety which may involve a wider scope, such as labour policies. And Mr LEE Cheuk-yan has talked about the long working hours of bus drivers, which I think is not just an issue for employees of bus companies. There have been a lot of controversies surrounding standard working hours in society and I will not go into the details here. I know that the Labour and Welfare Bureau attaches great importance to these problems, especially occupational safety, and has been doing follow-up work to hopefully explore ways to address the actual needs at the policy level.

Moreover, some Members have mentioned issues related to bus services and enquired about the possibility of additional bus interchanges and fare concessions. It is one of the Government's goals to set up more public transport interchanges. But what circumstances do we meet in implementation? It is the inability to identify suitable locations, which is a matter of locating actual suitable spots, not a policy issue. We also hope to enhance the effectiveness of the operation of public transport and offer more fare concessions. In my replies to Members' questions yesterday, I stated that currently 70% of the franchised bus services provide sectional fares, which is a fare concession. But of course, whether there are enough sections is open for study.

In respect of the provision of barrier-free facilities inside bus compartments, Members, specifically members of the Panel on Transport, are all aware of a topical study on barrier-free facilities of public transport services under the Public Transport Strategy Study, which includes the possibility of further promotion of low-floor facilities on public light buses, given that those on franchised buses have already become an established objective. Except for physical constraints such as steep roads on Lantau Island or technical limitations 12434 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 in actual operation, it is already a very clear policy direction. Recently I have discussed with the representatives of several franchised bus companies about how best to promote barrier-free facilities on buses, so as to address the needs of the entire society. It is because, first, our society is ageing; and second, indeed a larger proportion of the population requires attention in this respect. Our goal is to create a barrier-free social environment in Hong Kong.

A number of Members have enquired about public transport data. I would like to give a response to such a concern at two levels. First, it is about how to enable passengers' acquisition of more public transport information, such as bus routes and journey time, for better planning of trips and use of time. The Government definitely pays serious attention to taking forward such work. The TD is developing a "e-passengers" application software, which is expected to be able to give convenience to passengers in accessing arrival information by the end of the year. It is an area, we believe, that requires strong promotion. In fact, application of the latest information technology to the realm of public transport is a goal set by the Government not just in recent years. Indeed it was proposed as early as in the Third Comprehensive Transport Study in 1999. However, it involves requests for free data made by commercial organizations and third-party organizations to franchised bus companies for purposes of new business endeavours, giving rise to a relatively complicated issue due to the use of private properties. Yet we would focus on facilitating citizens, as passengers, in obtaining more comprehensive public transport information, which is a goal the Government takes seriously and vigorously pushes forward.

President, I would like to make a last point. Just now some Members have mentioned there is enormous room for improvement in public transport in Hong Kong and pointed out some measures they consider desirable in other countries. As the Bureau Director, I agree that we certainly need to learn the good measures or policies practised by other countries or regions, such as real-time arrival information, and explore the possibility of implementing them in Hong Kong. Many places, including cities on the Mainland, have achieved better development in this regard than us and we should learn from them. However, we cannot belittle the very remarkable public transport services and high management standards we have in Hong Kong. According to a report on international public transport in 2014, among 80 major cities worldwide, Hong Kong ranked number one in terms of quality of public transport. And our metro system operated by the MTRCL has achieved a reliability rate of more than 99.9%, earning international acclaim.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12435

I remember that at the end of last year, after the general election in Singapore, the new Minister for Transport took office. In an open remark to the media, he referred to the MTR system in Hong Kong as a target and benchmark for Singapore, highlighting Hong Kong's excellent performance. Therefore, I hope that on different occasions, when we talk about the shortcomings in various modes of public transport in Hong Kong which need to be redressed ― it is true that we have to keep improving ― please do not think that our public transport performance is poor. As a matter of fact, each year 1.2 million passenger trips (equivalent to 90% of the total) are made on different means of public transport. It illustrates that: first, they deliver great overall services with high efficiency; second, their services carry high accessibility with wide coverage; and third, in general, their fares are affordable to citizens. As a result, I hope the public will not overlook the general performance because of some isolated issues. The operators have done a pretty good job overall. I believe, while discussing these problems, we have to be fair to the front-line staff and management of public transport operators.

Thank you, President.

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

(Members raised their hands)

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

(No hands raised)

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

12436 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Second motion under the Public Bus Services Ordinance: the new franchise granted to New Lantao Bus Company (1973) Limited.

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

I now call upon the Secretary for Transport and Housing again to speak and move the motion.

PROPOSED RESOLUTION UNDER THE PUBLIC BUS SERVICES ORDINANCE

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): President, I move that the second motion under my name and proposed pursuant to the Public Bus Services Ordinance, as printed on the Agenda, be passed to disapply sections 27, 28, 29 and 31 of the Ordinance to the new franchise of the New Lantao Bus Company (1973) Limited so as to exclude the application of the Profit Control Scheme to that franchise. Thank you, President.

The Secretary for Transport and Housing moved the following motion:

"RESOLVED that the franchise granted on 22 September 2015 under section 5 of the Public Bus Services Ordinance (Cap. 230) to New Lantao Bus Company (1973) Limited (新大嶼山巴士(1973)有限 公 司) and published in the Gazette as G.N. 7693 of 2015 is not subject to sections 27, 28, 29 and 31 of that Ordinance for the entire period of the franchise."

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

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

(No Member indicated a wish to speak)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12437

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

(Members raised their hands)

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

(No hands raised)

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

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now suspend the meeting to wait for the arrival of the Secretary for Security.

10.47 am

Meeting suspended.

10.55 am

Council then resumed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The Secretary for Security will move two proposed resolutions under the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Ordinance.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): First motion: To approve the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters (Sweden) Order.

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

I now call upon the Secretary for Security to speak and move the motion.

12438 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016

PROPOSED RESOLUTION UNDER THE MUTUAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE IN CRIMINAL MATTERS ORDINANCE

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): Before all else, President, I would like to tender my apologies for causing the suspension of the Council Meeting just now.

President, I move that the motion, as printed on the Agenda, on the resolution to approve the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters (Sweden) Order, be passed by this Council.

Many crimes are committed across borders. Therefore, it is very important for the international community to strengthen law enforcement and judicial co-operation and jointly combat crimes.

Hong Kong has been actively co-operating with other jurisdictions on criminal matters, and seeking to enter into bilateral agreements on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters (MLA) with them in accordance with Article 96 of the Basic Law to establish strong and comprehensive co-operation relationships. These bilateral agreements provide bases for reciprocal assistance between Hong Kong and the contracting parties, and demonstrate Hong Kong's commitment to the international effort to fight crimes.

The Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Ordinance (MLAO) provides a statutory framework for implementing agreements on MLA signed between Hong Kong and other jurisdictions, enabling the mutual provision of assistance in the investigation and prosecution of criminal offences, as well as ancillary criminal matters. Such assistance includes the taking of evidence, search and seizure, production of material, transfer of persons to give evidence and confiscation of crime proceeds.

Hong Kong has so far signed MLA agreements with 31 foreign jurisdictions, including the MLA agreement with Sweden signed in November 2013, and the MLA agreement with Argentina signed in October 2015. Pursuant to the MLAO, the Chief Executive in Council has made the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters (Sweden) Order and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters (Argentina) Order to implement the two bilateral agreements.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12439

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

As the laws and arrangements of foreign jurisdictions on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters vary, it is often necessary to make modifications to certain provisions of the MLAO to a limited extent for the implementation of the corresponding Orders on the bilateral agreements in order to reflect the differences among the agreements. Such modifications are specifically allowed under the MLAO. The modifications made for the bilateral agreements between Hong Kong and Sweden as well as between Hong Kong and Argentina are specified in Schedule 2 to the corresponding Orders.

The two Orders will come into operation on the 30th day after the contracting parties have notified each other that their respective local legislative procedures have been completed. When such steps have been taken, I will appoint by notices in the Gazette the commencement dates of the Orders in accordance with the requirements of the Orders.

I now implore Members to approve the making of the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters (Sweden) Order. I will in a moment move the resolution to approve the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters (Argentina) Order.

Thank you, Deputy President.

The Secretary for Security moved the following motion:

"RESOLVED that the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters (Sweden) Order, made by the Chief Executive in Council on 16 February 2016, be approved."

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

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

(No Member indicated a wish to speak)

12440 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016

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

(Members raised their hands)

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

(No hands raised)

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

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Second motion under the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Ordinance: To approve the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters (Argentina) Order.

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

I now call upon the Secretary for Security to speak and move the motion.

PROPOSED RESOLUTION UNDER THE MUTUAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE IN CRIMINAL MATTERS ORDINANCE

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I move that the motion, as printed on the Agenda, on the resolution to approve the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters (Argentina) Order, be passed by this Council.

In moving the motion on the resolution to approve the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters (Sweden) Order just now, I explained the purpose and importance for Hong Kong to enter into bilateral agreements on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters with other jurisdictions, as well as the procedural arrangements for implementing such agreements through the making of orders under the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Ordinance (MLAO). LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12441

Pursuant to the MLAO, the Chief Executive in Council has made the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters (Argentina) Order to implement the bilateral agreement on mutual legal assistance in criminal matters signed between Hong Kong and Argentina. In accordance with the relevant provisions of the MLAO, the Order modifies certain provisions of the MLAO to a limited extent. They are specified in Schedule 2 to the Order.

I now implore Members to approve the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters (Argentina) Order.

Thank you, Deputy President.

The Secretary for Security moved the following motion:

"RESOLVED that the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters (Argentina) Order, made by the Chief Executive in Council on 16 February 2016, be approved."

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

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

(No Member indicated a wish to speak)

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

(Members raised their hands)

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

(No hands raised)

12442 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016

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

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Proposed resolution under the Criminal Procedure Ordinance to approve the Legal Aid in Criminal Cases (Amendment) Rules 2016.

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

I now call upon the Secretary for Home Affairs to speak and move the motion.

PROPOSED RESOLUTION UNDER THE CRIMINAL PROCEDURE ORDINANCE

SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I move the resolution standing in my name on the Agenda.

Legal aid is an integral part of the legal system in Hong Kong. The policy objective of legal aid is to ensure that no person with reasonable grounds for initiating or defending lawsuits in the Courts of Hong Kong is prevented from seeking justice because of the lack of financial means.

The Legal Aid in Criminal Cases Rules (LACCR) (Cap. 221D), made by the Criminal Procedure Rules Committee under section 9A of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance (Cap. 221), prescribe the fees payable to solicitors and counsel in private practice engaged acting for legally aided persons in criminal cases. The Department of Justice (DoJ) draws reference to the relevant amounts as set out in the above-mentioned LACCR when engaging fiat counsel in private practice to appear for the Government in criminal cases according to the standard procedure.

In March 2012, with the Legislative Council's support and the collaborative efforts of the two legal professional bodies, we enhanced the payment structure of the criminal legal aid fees system. We also undertook to review the level of criminal legal aid fees in two years' time upon the implementation of the relevant enhancement measures.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12443

The Home Affairs Bureau set up a working group in March 2014 to conduct the review. Members of the working group include representatives from the Hong Kong Bar Association and The Law Society of Hong Kong, as well as government representatives from the Legal Aid Department (LAD) and the DoJ. The working group completed the review in mid-2015 and made the following recommendations regarding the level of criminal legal aid fees ―

(a) increase the criminal legal aid fees by 50% for counsel;

(b) increase the criminal legal aid fees by 25% for instructing solicitors; and

(c) increase the criminal legal aid fees by 40% for solicitors acting as both advocate and instructing solicitor (Solicitor Advocates) in the District Court.

The working group also recommended introducing a new category of criminal legal aid fees for Solicitor Advocates with higher rights of audience for High Court cases.

The Government has also completed the biennial review of the criminal legal aid fees, prosecution fees and duty lawyer fees. The fees are proposed to be raised by 7.7% in accordance with the movement in the Consumer Price Index (C) during the reference period from July 2012 to July 2014. The proposed increase in the level of criminal legal aid fees is inclusive of the 7.7% increase attributable to inflation.

The proposed increase of criminal legal aid fees is agreeable to the two legal professional bodies. The Legal Aid Services Council and the Panel on Administration of Justice and Legal Services of the Legislative Council also support the proposal.

We hope that the enhanced criminal legal aid fees would enable defendants to have better access to more experienced criminal lawyers and criminal justice for the defence of liberty. In the long run, increasing the criminal legal aid fees would also help attract more talented legal professionals to undertake criminal legal aid work, which can enhance the quality of criminal law practitioners in Hong Kong.

12444 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016

In light of the increase in the level of criminal legal aid fees, the DoJ would simultaneously through administrative means adjust its scale of fees for standard briefing-out criminal cases so that the relevant fees are on par with criminal legal aid fees. This is to ensure that neither the DoJ nor the LAD would have an unfair advantage in competing for the same pool of lawyers for prosecution and defence.

The proposal to increase criminal legal aid fees is estimated to incur an additional recurrent expenditure of around $48 million by the LAD in a full year. The LAD has included the necessary provision in the 2016-2017 Estimates and will absorb the workload in effecting the fee changes. As for the proposed increase in prosecution fees, the DoJ has also included the required funding provision in the 2016-2017 Estimates.

Subject to the Legislative Council's approval of the resolution, we will submit the Commencement Notice specifying the implementation date of the revised fees as soon as possible. May I urge Members to support the resolution. Thank you, Deputy President.

The Secretary for Home Affairs moved the following motion:

"RESOLVED that the Legal Aid in Criminal Cases (Amendment) Rules 2016, made by the Criminal Procedure Rules Committee on 4 May 2016, be approved."

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

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

DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, under discussion today is the proposed resolution under the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, which is mainly about raising criminal legal aid fees, namely to increase the relevant fees for counsel by 50%, instructing solicitors by 25% and solicitors acting as advocate solicitor in the District Court by 40%.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12445

Members may query about the seemingly high rate of increase of 50% as proposed in the document. I have even received phone calls from members of the public asking me to oppose it. After making some enquiries, I found that the current criminal legal aid fees are definitely far lower than non-criminal ones for general lawyers. Only then did I realize that many lawyers flock to taking up non-criminal cases while rejecting criminal ones. This is actually unhealthy to the development of legal aid as the foundation of the rule of law in Hong Kong.

Under the spirit of rule of law, why is there legal aid? Legal aid serves the main purpose of helping people being charged, especially in cases handled by the Police where prosecution is instituted by the Department of Justice. How do ordinary members of the public afford defence for themselves? A lot of people may not be eligible for legal aid, particularly when many middle-class people do not meet the threshold for legal aid and it is impossible for them to engage a lawyer for litigation by selling their flats or using up their bank savings. Therefore, we have a legal aid regime in place, and the present thresholds for legal aid have also been relaxed. However, I still hold that the current initiative to raise criminal legal aid fees by 50% is obviously too mild, and is long overdue.

Criminal or civil cases, which ones are more challenging? It is widely known that criminal cases are challenging. Many a lawyer engaged in criminal cases will concur that it is a matter of mental stress rather than just money, because if he fails to help the defendants to reduce their sentence or seek justice for them, especially in cases where justice may not be upheld, he will be under great mental stress. Therefore, I support the current initiative to increase the levels of legal aid fees.

Deputy President, in passing, why do members of the public react strongly to the 50% growth in fees? This can actually be imputed to the abuse of legal aid as a precious foundation for the rule of law in the past. For example, Members are aware that some people may resort to legal aid to seek judicial review. This may not have anything to do with the criminal legal aid fees in question, but it constitutes part of the legal aid regime absolutely. As Members know, it is fine to seek judicial review. As Mr Justice Andrew LI and Mr Justice Henry LITTON said in the past, judicial review allows members of the public to monitor the work of the Government to see if there is any abuse of procedures, 12446 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 violations or deviations from policies, rather than being used by some politicos with ulterior motives to challenge the legitimate policies of the Government. Regrettably, over the past few years, Members could see that a very large number of these applicants accounted for a lion's share of the legal aid for judicial review applications. According to the information, the number of cases granted leave for judicial review and legal aid concurrently has grown from 38 in 2014 to 52 in 2015, accounting for 68% of all the cases of judicial review. This means that an overwhelming majority of such cases were pursued using legal aid or taxpayers' money. Hence, recently, some copycat young students challenged the Government by way of judicial review.

Most regrettably, last week, a young person resorted to judicial review to challenge a Government lot in Tai Po. Given the housing shortage in Hong Kong, the Government has to resort to land sale for housing development. Nevertheless, a great deal of cases have been delayed by judicial review. I refrain from talking about the judicial review in relation to the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge. Ms CHU Yee-wah, the old lady involved in the case, expressed great remorse and sadness afterwards as she said she had been asked to apply for judicial review, and many people in her neighbourhood lost their jobs in the wake of the case, which caused a loss of billions of dollars to Hong Kong. As for the case involving a greenbelt lot in Tai Po, the Judge ruled fairly that the applicant had abused the judicial proceedings and had to bear all the costs. In this connection, former Member Ronny TONG said that the judgement is expected to create some deterrence on people who attempt to stand in the way of infrastructure projects through abusing the judicial proceedings.

Of course, the Legal Aid Department is responsible for vetting every application. Therefore, I express my wish here that friends from all political parties, regardless of how much we disagree with the work of the Government, will bear in mind that judicial review and legal aid constitute the precious assets of our rule of law. Please do not ruin them to project a negative image to the public. For this reason, I support the current initiative to increase the criminal legal aid fees.

Thank you, Deputy President.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12447

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

(No Member indicated a wish to speak)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): If not, I now call upon the Secretary for Home Affairs to reply. The debate will come to a close after the Secretary has replied.

SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I thank the Honourable Member's support for and her views on the motion. Legal aid is an indispensable part of the legal system in Hong Kong. Our policy on legal aid seeks to ensure that no person with reasonable grounds for initiating lawsuits in the Courts of Hong Kong is prevented from doing so because of the lack of financial means.

As I mentioned in my first speech, the motion proposed by me today is aimed at raising the level of criminal legal aid fees to enable defendants to have better access to more experienced criminal lawyers and criminal justice for the protection of personal liberty. In the long run, increasing the criminal legal aid fees would also help attract more talented legal professionals to undertake criminal legal aid work, which can enhance the quality of criminal law practitioners in Hong Kong.

The proposed increase of criminal legal aid fees is agreeable to the two legal professional bodies. The Legal Aid Services Council and the Panel on Administration of Justice and Legal Services of the Legislative Council also support the proposal.

As for Dr CHIANG Lai-wan's remark about whether there is any abuse of judicial review, generally speaking, to qualify for legal aid, a person is required to satisfy both the means and merits tests as provided for by the Legal Aid Ordinance (Cap. 91). As regards the merits test, the Legal Aid Department (LAD) will look into and study the background of the case, the evidence available and the legal principles applicable to determine if legal aid should be granted.

12448 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016

The LAD has put in place a monitoring mechanism to provide against abuse. If anyone believes that an applicant or aided person has given the LAD false information on merits or means, he can provide such details to the LAD. If the case is substantiated after investigation, the LAD will discontinue legal aid and refer the case to the Police for follow-up action.

With these remarks, Deputy President, I urge Members to support the motion.

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

(Members raised their hands)

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

(No hands raised)

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

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Proposed resolution under the West Kowloon Cultural District Authority Ordinance to approve the West Kowloon Cultural District (Public Open Spaces) Bylaw.

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

I now call upon the Secretary for Home Affairs to speak and move the motion.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12449

PROPOSED RESOLUTION UNDER THE WEST KOWLOON CULTURAL DISTRICT AUTHORITY ORDINANCE

SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I move that the resolution as set out under my name on the Agenda be passed. This resolution seeks the Legislative Council's approval of the West Kowloon Cultural District (Public Open Spaces) Bylaw (the proposed Bylaw), which is made by the West Kowloon Cultural District Authority (the Authority) under section 37(1) of the West Kowloon Cultural District Authority Ordinance (Cap. 601).

Stretching across 40 hectares of land on the waterfront of the Victoria Harbour, the West Kowloon Cultural District (WKCD) will provide a total of 23 hectares of public open spaces. The Nursery Park was open to the public last year. Animated by a series of cultural and community events, it has quickly become a popular leisure spot for families and young people.

The Authority endeavours to provide a welcoming environment for the pursuit of a wide range of cultural and leisure activities. To facilitate the effective management of the public open spaces for the safe and enjoyable use of all, the Authority has made the proposed Bylaw. The overall objective is to ensure that activities by any user of public open spaces do not excessively interfere with or disturb other users, with a view to striking a proper balance between the needs of different users.

The Authority envisages that most recreational activities will be permitted in the public open spaces unless otherwise specifically notified. Where it is necessary to restrict some activities in the proposed Bylaw for such purposes as ensuring public safety, order and environmental hygiene, such activities may still take place in a designated area of the public open space as specified by notice, or with permission from the Authority or authorized persons. Pets kept under proper control are welcome to the public open spaces of the WKCD.

The proposed Bylaw is intended to apply to the Park as well as all other public open spaces within the District, including the Artist Square, M+ podium, Xiqu Square, the Avenue and the waterfront promenade. The Authority will publish maps (both online and on notices displayed in the public open spaces) setting out areas where restrictions may apply and where specific activities may take place. The Authority will authorize only properly trained and suitably qualified officers to take enforcement actions.

12450 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016

The proposed Bylaw includes necessary provisions relating to:

(a) access, designation of restricted and closed areas, and conduct of events; (b) domestic animals to be brought into the public open spaces; (c) commercial filming and photography; (d) public conduct and protection of the environment; (e) use of vehicles and access for public transport; and (f) enforcement and penalties.

The Authority has undertaken extensive consultations with stakeholders, including the consultation with the Joint Subcommittee to Monitor the Implementation of the WKCD Project under the Panel on Home Affairs and the Panel on Development of the Legislative Council on 23 March 2015. From May to June 2014, through the Consultation Panel, the Authority conducted a public survey on park management comprising online questionnaires and focus group discussions. In 2015, the Authority has consulted stakeholder groups and concerned professional associations. In drafting the proposed Bylaw, the Authority has taken into account the views collected and management practices adopted by local and overseas parks and cultural areas.

At its meeting on 26 February this year, the House Committee of the Legislative Council decided to form a subcommittee to scrutinize the proposed Bylaw. The Subcommittee held four meetings between March and May 2016. Members suggested incorporating a preamble in the proposed Bylaw in relation to the vision and mission for the WKCD public open spaces. Members also suggested including a defence of reasonable excuse for offences under the proposed Bylaw (except section 15 on "Prohibition of Dangerous Goods and Firearms, etc."). The Authority has adopted the suggestions of the Subcommittee. The relevant amendments have been incorporated into the proposed Bylaw. I thank all the Members of the Subcommittee for their work.

With these remarks, I urge Members to support the resolution. Thank you, Deputy President.

The Secretary for Home Affairs moved the following motion:

"RESOLVED that the West Kowloon Cultural District (Public Open Spaces) Bylaw, made by the West Kowloon Cultural District Authority on 6 June 2016, be approved."

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12451

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

MR CHRISTOPHER CHUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, in my capacity as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Proposed Resolution under Section 37 of the West Kowloon Cultural District Authority Ordinance (Cap. 601) (the Subcommittee), I report on the deliberations of the Subcommittee.

The purpose of the resolution is to seek the Legislative Council's approval of the West Kowloon Cultural District (Public Open Spaces) Bylaw (the proposed Bylaw) made by the West Kowloon Cultural District Authority (WKCDA) under section 37(1) of the West Kowloon Cultural District Authority Ordinance (WKCDAO).

The Subcommittee has held four meetings with the Administration and the WKCDA to scrutinize the proposed Bylaw. The major issues discussed by the Subcommittee include whether it is necessary to include the vision and mission for public open space in the West Kowloon Cultural District (WKCD) in the proposed Bylaw, whether it is necessary to provide a defence of reasonable excuse for the offences in the proposed Bylaw, whether any guidelines should be provided to the authorized persons on the use of "reasonable force", and the events which require the written permission of the WKCDA.

Some members held the strong view that a provision similar to section 4(2) of the WKCDAO should be included in the proposed Bylaw to spell out the guiding principle that use of public open space in the WKCD should be open and accessible wherever possible, and to require the WKCDA to enforce the proposed Bylaw in ways which aim to achieve the mission for public open space to inspire, promote and encourage cultural pursuits for all. After giving detailed consideration to members' views, the WKCDA indicated that as it was not usual to incorporate vision and mission or purpose statements as substantive provisions in subsidiary legislation, the WKCDA proposed to incorporate the vision and mission statement as a preamble to the proposed Bylaw. Having regard to members' suggestions, the WKCDA has agreed to state in the preamble of the proposed Bylaw that the vision and mission of the WKCDA for public open space in the WKCD are formulated in the light of section 4(2), particularly section 4(2)(m), of the WKCDAO.

12452 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016

In response to the question as to why the WKCDA considered it not necessary to provide a defence of reasonable excuse for the offences in the proposed Bylaw, the WKCDA stressed that in the event an offence under the proposed Bylaw had been committed, the WKCDA would still have to consider whether it was in the public interest to prosecute the offender. If the offender had a reasonable excuse such that the public interest was not served to prosecute the offender, the WKCDA would not do so.

Nevertheless, members pointed out that as members of the public might inadvertently contravene the relevant sections under the proposed Bylaw, they should have a right to raise a defence of reasonable excuse. After taking into account the views of the Subcommittee, the WKCDA agreed to provide a defence of reasonable excuse for all offences under the relevant provisions of the proposed Bylaw (except section 15 on prohibition of dangerous goods and firearms, and so on).

Members were also concerned that persons authorized by the WKCDA were empowered to use "reasonable force" to remove a person suspected to have contravened the proposed Bylaw from the WKCD public open space. In its response to whether any guidelines would be provided on the use of "reasonable force", the WKCDA assured members that the use of force was to be avoided except when it was absolutely necessary. In addition, the WKCDA stated that the authorized persons would be trained to de-escalate a situation through communication and to use minimum force to remove a person suspected to have contravened the proposed Bylaw from public open space where the situation warranted. Detailed guidelines and proper training on incident management, including the use of "reasonable force" in different situations, would be provided to the authorized persons.

Regarding the staging of events in the WKCD public open space, the WKCDA stated that, in order to enable it to ensure public safety or order, if an event is an activity of that kind which will occupy such amount of public open space as may present members of the public who are not members of the audience some inconvenience or restrict their free access to the area concerned, the conduct of such event will require the written permission of the WKCDA.

Deputy President, the following are my personal views. Despite the allocation of $21.6 billion by the Government in 2008 to the construction of the WKCD, the project has been dragged on for more than a decade. The first group of facilities, including the performance facilities and the Xiqu Centre, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12453 would not be completed until next year at the earliest. At present, the Park on the WKCD site is the only facility available for use. The WKCDA has hosted a number of major public events in the Park, such as Freespace Happening, Freespace Fest, Nursery Park Tree Tours, outdoor concerts, Mobile M+: Inflation, and so on. Furthermore, some private events, such as wine fairs, concerts, and so on, have drawn quite many members of the public and a large audience. This reflects that the WKCD as a huge green park is very attractive to the people of Hong Kong.

In fact, the design of the WKCD is based on a City Park concept, in the hope of turning the WKCD into an oasis jungle in the city, so that members of the public may engage in a wide range of activities on the lawns or enjoy some quiet moments lying under the trees. The proposed Bylaw is enacted to make rules for the use of public open space for compliance by the public. In my opinion, parks and playgrounds are supposedly places for the public to take a break, relax, have fun and leave their worries behind. Of course, the less regulation the better, so that these facilities can be used freely by the public. Furthermore, the regulations made should most preferably be regarded as mere back-up. Only under special circumstances or when the public's right to access or interest is affected should the authorities concerned act according to the regulations.

Currently, we find extremely lengthy bylaws in the playgrounds and parks under the Leisure and Cultural Services Department prohibiting members of the public from performing different acts. For instance, they are not allowed to tread on the lawns, cycle, bring their pets into the facilities, engage in roller skating, play with balls, eat or drink, behave in a noisy manner, sleep on a bench, taking pictures with a tripod, and so on. Moreover, children are disallowed from running and chasing mates in playgrounds. These prohibitive reminders are really spectacular. When we see these ridiculous and amusing rules, we cannot help asking this question: What are the purposes of the parks? There are even more rules in the parks than schools.

In view of this, quite many members of the Subcommittee emphasized during the scrutiny of the Bylaw that it should be handled with a light hand, respect for freedom and a personal touch. Although the Bylaw has concurrently empowered the security staff to use "reasonable force" to remove offenders, the WKCDA has guaranteed that the relevant power will not be abused. Nowadays, pets are treated by quite many families in Hong Kong as their family members. But unfortunately, pets are generally prohibited from entry into parks. In the WKCD, however, both domestic and "assistance" animals will be welcomed into 12454 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 its Park so long as they are on a leash or otherwise kept under control. We hope that, unlike ordinary parks, the Park in the WKCD can turn into a truly people-oriented public open space. All in all, it is our guiding principle that the use of the Park should be free, open and accessible because the WKCD belongs to every one of us.

The process of scrutinizing the Bill was quite smooth. Not only did people from different political parties or groupings basically manage to reach consensus on each and every stem, the WKCDA was also willing to take on board members' views for improvements to be made. We sincerely thank all colleagues and representatives of the WKCDA for taking part in the scrutiny of the subsidiary legislation.

Deputy President, since joining this Council in 2012, I have kept a keen interest on the development of the WKCD over the past four years. Although the Board of the WKCDA had already been formed when I joined this Council and $21.6 billion in funding had been allocated, the design of this site and its performance facilities blueprint were still being conceived. The progress at that time could be described as "zero". However, we can now see that the WKCD has taken a few steps forward. Although the progress has been a bit slow, we are still pleased deep in our hearts. I hope to see the WKCD develop smoothly. Although the Chairman of the WKCDA Board, Mrs Carrie LAM, considers that planning for the phase three performance facilities can be made later, I think this international cultural community will lose its appeal because of a lack of major music facilities. This is why we hope that the phase three performance facilities can be built and completed as soon as possible to enable members of the public to enjoy this haven for arts.

With these remarks, Deputy President, I support the passage of the resolution.

MR MA FUNG-KWOK (in Cantonese): Before all else, Deputy President, I declare that I am a member of the Board of the West Kowloon Cultural District Authority (WKCDA).

Deputy President, according to its planning, the West Kowloon Cultural District (WKCD) will provide 23 hectares of public open space to accommodate an enormous Park, Artist Square, M+ podium, Xiqu Square, the Avenue and the Waterfront Promenade. As the administrator of the WKCD, the WKCDA is LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12455 required to make the Bylaw under the West Kowloon Cultural District Authority Ordinance to provide for the management, control, operation and use of public open space and the regularization of the conduct of users in the WKCD, with a view to enabling the public to enjoy the public open space while ensuring public safety or order and preventing nuisances.

The public open space is not only a key component of the WKCD, but it also provides a most important green space. Apart from providing leisure space for the public, it should have a cultural ambience to enable them to acquire a richer experience in arts and culture. In order to achieve these objectives, apart from designing the public open space properly, a set of open-minded and user-friendly management policies is very important, too. As a Board member, I have repeatedly requested the WKCDA to formulate policies in this direction.

The Leisure and Cultural Services Department (LCSD) has been criticized for adopting an excessively fossilized policy in managing its parks or public open space. As a result, a wide range of activities are prohibited, thereby imposing many restrictions on the public and stifling room for bringing their creativity into play. In view of this, quite many people and I hope that the WKCDA can rid itself of the management mindset of the LCSD and endeavour to provide convenience to the public to enable them to enjoy the public open space freely.

In my opinion, the WKCDA should enact the Bylaw and handle matters related to the management of the public open space with the lightest hand and open-mindedness, so long as public safety and the order of the WKCD are ensured without causing excessive nuisances to other users. In fact, the WKCDA has repeatedly indicated that it will endeavour to manage the WKCD public open space with a light hand and flexibility to provide a friendly environment for the public to pursue a wide range of cultural and leisure activities, and impose the least restriction on the conduct of the vast majority of the public. So, this policy has my approval. Should the WKCD succeed in implementing an open management policy and acquiring good experience, I believe such experience can be used as reference by the LCSD for the use of public open space in other places, too.

For such reasons, I support the proposed resolution to enable the legislation enacted by the WKCDA to be implemented as early as possible.

I so submit. Thank you, Deputy President.

12456 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016

MS CYD HO (in Cantonese): Deputy President, to date, the cultural policy in Hong Kong is still very backward. The development of hardware has come to a standstill. Discussions on the funding and introduction of legislation for the West Kowloon Cultural District (WKCD) commenced in 2005 or 2006, but so far nothing has been implemented. The Government even has demonstrated all sorts of hesitation in applying for supplementary provision for the construction of various facilities in the WKCD. In this connection, we wonder why the Government spares no effort in seeking supplementary provision for the other projects but can hardly do so for the WKCD which is in need of supplementary provision. Is the Government really sincere in promoting the development of the cultural policy in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR)?

Deputy President, the most important element needed for the organic growth and development of culture is free space. For this reason, during our scrutiny of the West Kowloon Cultural District (Public Open Spaces) Bylaw (the Bylaw), we were worried that the West Kowloon Cultural District Authority (WKCDA) would apply to the WKCD the outdated and absurd legislation adopted by the Urban Council in managing parks and public open space in the past.

As pointed out just now by the Chairman of the Subcommittee, Mr Christopher CHUNG, in the parks currently managed by the Leisure and Cultural Services Department (LCSD), people are prohibited from lying on the lawns, singing, and so on. Even though there is no law prohibiting these acts, the authorities will circumvent the law and adopt administrative means to disallow such acts. An example is adding armrests to benches. According to the logic of the authorities, it is to prevent street sleepers from sleeping on the benches and thus depriving other members of the public of the seating, but actually the lawns can also be made available for people to sit on, right?

All kinds of laws and administrative measures have shown deep mistrust of the Government in the people's civic qualities. However, the greater the mistrust and the more the planning, regulation and prohibition, the more unlikely it is for culture to achieve organic development. Civic qualities will be unable to make any self-enhancement within the restrictive framework of the authorities.

Deputy President, when the Legislative Council scrutinized the primary legislation proposed in the West Kowloon Cultural District Authority Bill, I, being a member of the civil society, did not have the chance to take part in making this ordinance in the Legislative Council. At that time we proposed an LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12457 element which we hoped the authorities would include in section 4(2) of the primary legislation, stating clearly the objectives the WKCDA should achieve in performing its functions. Under section 4(2) there are 14 objectives. At that time we wished to include a provision of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) as one of its objectives, which was to implement equal opportunities for everyone to participate in cultural life. Regrettably, the authorities did not incorporate this provision of the ICESCR to provide for the right of all the people of Hong Kong to participate in cultural life. Which section of the ordinance is the closest to this provision? It is section 4(2)(g): "to encourage wider participation by the local community in arts and culture". This section is somewhat closer, but we certainly consider that it will be more appropriate if the provisions of the international human rights conventions can be incorporated.

On this premise, we have noted that the regulatory bylaw of the former Urban Council actually did not meet the requirements for free activities in the cultural district. The WKCDA had communicated with various political parties and groupings in the Legislative Council and taken on board some suggestions before the formal introduction of the Bylaw to the Council. This is commendable. Hence, there are few areas that warrant debate or change on this occasion. There are mainly the following three points:

Firstly, we hope the authorities will incorporate section 4(2), especially section 4(2)(g), of the primary legislation into the Bylaw, but in this regard, we failed to convince the WKCDA, which only agrees to include it in the guidelines for the use of public open space. Of course, if we later consider that the management of the WKCDA is too harsh, we may invoke the primary legislation and file for a judicial review of its approach, but we think it will be clearer and members of the public will feel more assured if the provisions are incorporated into the Bylaw.

Mr James TO and I have raised another great doubt as to whether the WKCDA, which is not a law enforcement agency, has sufficient manpower to deal with the relevant matters. In particular, since this provision empowers it to use the so-called "reasonable force" under certain circumstances, who will use such reasonable force? There will not be a team of police officers stationed at the WKCD. Neither will there be security officers empowered by the law to use reasonable force as in the Legislative Council. The WKCDA has explained to us that in the event of someone, refusing to heed advice, really makes a scene and 12458 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 even attacks other users in the cultural district, the officers of the WKCDA will stop that person and detain him until the Hong Kong Police come to take him away.

During our discussion, the Subcommittee requested the WKCDA to draw reference from the usual practice of the Legislative Council, since the security staff of the Legislative Council are also empowered by the law to use reasonable force. Of course, our security staff will exercise great restraint. Restraint is the organizational culture of the whole Council. Our security officers will not become the "special police" of a certain place.

Nevertheless, we have also noticed that the WKCDA is a statutory organization with a serious lack of resources. Its personnel from the top to the bottom embraces various ranks. Clerical staff like Cultural Ambassadors may be part-time employees only. Similar to our colleagues in the Legislative Council holding such posts whose entry requirement is an associate degree, they are responsible for conducting guided tours and providing information to visitors. Will it be appropriate for them to be responsible for exercising reasonable force? We certainly disagree. Officers of which rank should be responsible for exercising reasonable force where necessary? The WKCDA needs to explain this to us. This is also our concern. Cultural Ambassadors absolutely should not be given charge of exercising any force to stop troublemakers. Which rank should be responsible? If the security officers are responsible, will they receive sufficient training and know the limit of their authority and under what circumstances they may use reasonable force, so that they will not cross the line to encroach upon Hongkongers' freedom? And how will the management liaise with the Police? Since we believe the WKCDA itself does not have enough staff to deal with certain difficult situations, we have raised questions in this regard. The WKCDA has promised us that this will be handled according to the level and scope of engagement with the public of the staff of each rank. It will clearly set out the scope of duties of the staff of different ranks and provide proper training, telling them when they need to or may use reasonable force. Certainly, our concerns still stand. After the Bylaw has come into operation, we will continue to pay attention to each and every move of the WKCDA in the cultural district and whether our worries will indeed come true.

Moreover, Deputy President, the whole WKCD is in fact a special cultural district. After this Bylaw has come into operation, the WKCDA will have the authority to relax the restrictions on public events in the cultural district. Hence, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12459 as mentioned by Mr MA Fung-kwok just now, actually the restrictions on the public open space under the LCSD should also be relaxed as appropriate with reference to the Bylaw of the WKCDA. Certainly, it is good that the cultural district can have more freedom, but actually the whole territory should be a free place. For this reason, while the Secretary represents the Government in requesting the Legislative Council to pass the Bylaw of the WKCD here today, does he also not have the responsibility to take the lead and initiative to conduct a review of the public open space currently under the management of the LCSD and rescind the outdated, absurd and unreasonable restrictions? Otherwise, we will regard it as dereliction of duty on the part of the Secretary. He has merely allowed more room in the special cultural district, but under the management of the LCSD under his Policy Bureau, there are still so many unreasonable restrictions which are not in keeping with the times. Even singing is not allowed. How will Hong Kong be a place where the public can really rest freely and pursue a cultural life?

Hence, Deputy President, we have also raised our concern about the conduct of events in the WKCD, which involves the Places of Public Entertainment Ordinance. This is another outdated law. The query we have raised is whether this outdated Ordinance will also apply to the WKCD. This Ordinance is outdated in that it is necessary to obtain a licence even for storytelling in a public place. In fact, there is no definition of "public". Two or three people can also be taken as the public. Suppose members of the public group together to tell stories and narrate history, or grandparents tell grandchildren stories about their past. Strictly speaking, family members also fall under the public, and therefore they have to obtain a licence, too. It is so stringent that even the Legislative Council and the Court of Final Appeal (CFA) have to apply for exemption. Why? Because there are many occasions of storytelling in the Legislative Council, on which the docents will explain the history of the legislature to group visitors. This is also a kind of storytelling. Consequently, an absurd situation arises. That is, being a place of entertainment under this Ordinance, the Legislative Council has to apply for exemption. The CFA also has to do so because it has an Exhibition Gallery which is also a place of public entertainment under this outdated Ordinance.

The WKCDA has explained to us that if the events to be held in the WKCD involve cordoning off part of the open space or restricting admission by ticketing or other means, such events will have to meet this Ordinance. However, events without restriction of admission, such as storytelling by grandparents to grandchildren mentioned by me just now, are not subject to this 12460 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016

Ordinance. Nevertheless, this Ordinance also falls under the Secretary's portfolio. Should it not be reviewed as well? It is the Secretary's duty to promote the cultural policy. How can the Secretary turn a blind eye to such an outdated Ordinance? Why does the Government, instead of conducting a review and an amendment exercise, require the legislature and the CFA to put up with such an absurd law and apply for exemption? Why does it allow the continued existence of such absurdity?

Deputy President, the promotion of the cultural policy entails inter-departmental co-ordination. Apart from the Places of Public Entertainment Ordinance, there is also the law concerning the use of industrial buildings. As we can see, the fire brigades have strained their industry to fight the fire for nearly 48 hours over the past two days. Their hard work deserves our recognition. As this matter involves the cultural policy and the use of industrial buildings, it actually warrants a joint review of the existing Fire Services Ordinance by the Home Affairs Bureau, the Security Bureau, the Development Bureau and the Chief Secretary for Administration. On the one hand, the authorities can release land for cultural purposes, but on the other, they should amend the law in response to new hazardous use, making good use of the land while preventing the occurrence of any serious disaster. These several Policy Bureaux need to make cross-bureau efforts and join hands with the Chief Secretary for Administration to protect the freedom and safety of the people of Hong Kong.

Thank you, Deputy President.

DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, all the people of Hong Kong have pinned high hopes on the West Kowloon Cultural District (WKCD) as a public space that will provide a spacious environment with green open space and all kinds of art, cultural and recreational facilities.

However, after reading the West Kowloon Cultural District (Public Open Spaces) Bylaw (the Bylaw) carefully, I note that some of the provisions therein are too harsh while some are too lax. I will first talk about the provisions which I consider too harsh. Some of them are more stringent than those in the Pleasure Grounds Regulation and the Country Parks Ordinance. For instance, from last August to this March, the Freespace Happening activity was conducted in the WKCD, which may be paving the way for the implementation of more stringent regulation under the Bylaw in future. The West Kowloon Cultural District LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12461

Authority (WKCDA) required street performers joining the activity to pay a fee and register, and they would be issued a permit after examination. I think this practice can be regarded as reasonable, right? However, the WKCDA also required people setting up make-shift stalls to submit proposals. Are they intending to make long-term investments? Will they receive subsidies from the Government after submitting the proposals? No. Applicants are required to register and state in detail whether the products offered are original designs and attractive to customers, and so on. Among the various requirements, I only agree with the one requiring the business to match with the theme of the activity, for I think this is an important point. As for the other requirements, I hope they will not be too complicated, lest applicants do not know how to fill in the application form. They may be just selling goods at the make-shift stalls for a few hours, yet they have to spend dozens of hours to fill in the form. I think the application procedures should be kept to the simplest.

Moreover, I would like to draw Members' attention to the point that the WKCD on the whole is not positioned as a park. The term I can think of to describe it is "a park-like town embracing all kinds of art and culture", which offers a relatively large and free space. I would also like to commend the WKCDA for drawing up the Street Performance Scheme and the West Kowloon Street Performers Programme to recognize the contribution and value of street performers and provide them with a lawful platform for performance. This is a good arrangement. However, I notice that according to the requirement for the issue of a Street Performance Permit, performers are prohibited from presenting performances of an indecent, obscene, revolting or offensive nature. I think these terms are ambiguous. Who will be responsible for the examination and approval? If the wording is ambiguous, it will likely arouse disputes in the future. I hope the Bureau will instruct the WKCDA to consider the corresponding measures thoroughly, so that it will not give rise to too many disputes.

On the issue of permits for street performance, I have noted another problem. For certain street performers who prefer to stay for two to three days in a place to perform in some public venues there, will the WKCDA consider granting these performers exemption from obtaining the Street Performance Permit valid for one year? I do not have the relevant details for the moment. Perhaps the WKCDA may make it more convenient for these overseas street performers in terms of the time for examination and approval, for I think the performance of many of them is of high standard. Since they dare tour around the world to perform, their performance should be good. 12462 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016

Next, I would like to talk about the use of the word "force" in the Bylaw, as raised by some Honourable colleagues earlier. For in terms of enforcement, under the Pleasure Grounds Regulation, in general, if anyone contravening the provisions for using the pleasure grounds or parks concerned, the person may be "removed" by the authorized person ― the person will only be "removed" from the venue. However, it is stipulated in the Bylaw that an authorized person may require any person who has contravened the Bylaw to leave, and if the person fails to comply with the order, an authorized person may remove that person with the use of force. Why will such a change be introduced suddenly? I think it is necessary for the authorities to clearly explain the reason behind the change. Certainly, we did ask the authorities about this at the Subcommittee. They told us that the authorized persons will not be equipped with handcuffs or strings, and they will not use any baton to beat people. The authorities said that it would be the case. However, in many circumstances, the use of handcuffs or baton, and so on, is unnecessary. What is the definition of force? I think it is more desirable for the authorities to give a clear explanation of this.

Besides, certain provisions in the Bylaw are very loose, and I am worried about that. Secretary, the Government allows the public to play skateboard, ride bicycles and roller skate and fly kites freely in the WKCD Park, while others may take a picnic on the lawn. The intention of the Government is good. We often see this scene in overseas parks. However, is it suitable for these activities to be carried out in the WKCD Park? Though I welcome one of the activities allowed in the park, I am worried at the same time, and that is, allowing pets to be brought into the park.

I have been asking the authorities if pet owners are allowed to bring their pets into the Park, will the authorities state clearly which type of pets can be brought in. For instance, should large dogs like Tibetan Mastiff be allowed into the park? The authorities told us they would make the decision according to the Dangerous Dogs Regulation. At that time, I did not know the content of that regulation, so I looked it up immediately and found that it is time for that Regulation to be amended. I also urge the Secretary to do one more thing. Under the existing Dangerous Dogs Regulation, dogs subject to the Regulation include known dangerous dogs, large dogs and fighting dogs, whereas fighting dogs are classified into five types. I do not know when the last amendment of that Regulation was made, yet Tibetan Mastiff might not have been imported into Hong Kong back then. Moreover, it is stipulated clearly in the Regulation that LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12463 dogs having a body weight of 20 kg or more are large dogs, and these dogs must be held on a leash in public places. As for fighting dogs, they must be muzzled and held on a leash in public places.

At issue is what kinds of dogs are regarded as fighting dogs. According to the Dangerous Dogs Regulation, there are five types of fighting dogs, namely, any dog of the type known as Pit Bull Terrier, Dogo Argentino, Fila Braziliero or Japanese Tosa, or any dog which is a cross involving the breed of any dog of a type set out therein. We all see that the authorities have only specified these five types of dogs as fighting dogs, which is definitely outdated. Dogs are dogs. Should the authorities stipulate all large dogs as fighting dogs and amend the Regulation according to the actual situation? The authorities should conduct a review of this issue.

Dogs are after all animals and brutal in nature. They may grow angry if provoked and result in unfortunate incidents. Come to think about this scene. When a family which is picnicking in the park suddenly sees a dog running around, they may want to play with the dog. This is particularly so for children in Hong Kong. The children may chase after the dog and when the dog is being chased, will it turn and bite the children? I think the authorities should handle this issue carefully and review the relevant regulation.

Lastly, after the implementation of the Bylaw, I hope the Government will monitor the situation closely and make improvements when necessary. I hope the facilities in the WKCD will be enhanced expeditiously to provide good passive recreational facilities and a cultural and art space. I shall stop here.

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the Subcommittee's scrutiny of the West Kowloon Cultural District (Public Open Spaces) Bylaw (the proposed Bylaw) was comparatively smooth because Members of different parties shared similar views. Therefore, we put forward our demands to the Government and the West Kowloon Cultural District Authority (WKCDA) after reaching a consensus and they were all accepted.

I very much agree with the remarks made by Mr Christopher CHUNG, Chairman of the Subcommittee, that the public open space in the West Kowloon Cultural District (WKCD) is a place where the people of Hong Kong and tourists 12464 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 can visit and relax so the regulations should be kept to a minimum. Even if the Bylaw is enacted, its enforcement should be as lenient as possible. We hope that these rules and regulations will only serve as precautionary measures without enforcement unless there is no alternative. We have noticed that the regulations of many pleasure grounds, as mentioned by the Chairman of the Subcommittee, are extremely lengthy. I believe that among 10 persons who go to a pleasure ground, all of them will not read the provisions because one will only walk away after reading those bylaws carefully. Instead of attracting more visitors, they actually discourage people from visiting.

During the whole process of scrutiny of the proposed Bylaw, one of the points on which we reached a consensus is that we hope the WKCDA can include its vision and mission in the proposed Bylaw. At first, the WKCDA used the Department of Justice (DoJ) as a shield and claimed that according to the advice given by the DoJ, such an approach was not in line with the prevailing drafting convention and there was no need to include such a mission statement in the proposed Bylaw as it was already contained in the West Kowloon Cultural District Authority Ordinance (WKCDAO), implying that as it was already stated in the principal Ordinance, it would be unnecessary to gild the lily and stipulate it in the proposed Bylaw. However, as the scrutiny continued, we were grateful to the Law Draftsman of the DoJ for attending a meeting of the Subcommittee and clarifying that such an approach was not unacceptable and the WKCDA, therefore, should not use the DoJ as a shield. The Law Draftsman gave a clear explanation. He said that if the WKCDA wishes to include a mission or vision statement in the proposed Bylaw, it should be done elsewhere, meaning that it can be stated in other parts. Eventually, the WKCDA proposed to incorporate the vision and mission statement as a preamble into the proposed Bylaw.

Hence, we noted that the most significant amendment to the proposed Bylaw is adding the aforementioned preamble, which is formulated in accordance with section 4(2) of the WKCDAO, at the beginning of the proposed Bylaw. We certainly had some disagreements during the scrutiny process. The major disagreement was that while the WKCDA believed that the aforesaid preamble should be formulated in accordance with section 4(2)(m) of the WKCDAO, which is "to provide or facilitate the provision of free and accessible open space within the leased area to the general public", Mr Christopher CHUNG, Chairman of the Subcommittee, and I both believed that all provisions under section 4(2), that is, section 4(2)(a) to section 4(2)(n), should actually be included in the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12465 preamble instead of merely including section 4(2)(m). In the end, the WKCDA agreed to introduce amendments so as to state clearly that the vision and mission of the WKCDA for the public open spaces in the WKCD are formulated in the light of section 4, and in particular section 4(2)(m), of the WKCDAO. It means that the WKCDA eventually took on board our views.

Moreover, we also had some discussions on the defence of reasonable excuse but I will not go into the details. A defence of reasonable excuse was eventually inserted under more than 10 sections of the proposed Bylaw and I think it can provide more protection to users of the park.

With regard to the proposed Bylaw, I would like to talk about section 23 most which is concerned with enforcement of the Bylaw. Various Members have mentioned earlier that section 23 of the proposed Bylaw stipulates that "an authorized person may require a person to leave a public open space" and "a person … may be removed from the public open space by an authorized person by the use of reasonable force if necessary". Who is actually considered as "an authorized person"? In fact, the staff members of the WKCD, including the Park Ambassadors, are similar to the docents of the Legislative Council and I can hardly imagine what kind of reasonable force will they use to remove visitors. Of course, the security staff who are engaged for the events to be held may also be included but those security staff will be unarmed.

We have also asked about the definition of reasonable force at a meeting of the Subcommittee. As Ms Cyd HO said earlier, it is indisputable that we can use reasonable force if necessary. It is because when a person attacks other users in an open space, I am entitled to using reasonable force to stop him even if I am not a staff member managing the open space or an authorized person. I am entitled to stopping the person from attacking the others regardless of who initiated the attack. However, we will be deeply concerned if the staff members of the WKCD will bear the responsibly of using reasonable force to remove the attacker. Even if the staff members are authorized to do so, it may do them more harm than good because how should they decide whether to exercise the power or not? If they choose not to exercise the power, will it be considered as dereliction of duty?

The WKCDA has assured members at a meeting that the use of force is to be avoided except when it is absolutely necessary, which means the person concerned will only be asked to leave. The authorized persons will receive relevant training in de-escalating a situation through communication and 12466 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 discussion. They will try to communicate first and avoid using force as far as possible by persuading the person concerned to leave or calming him down so that he will stop engaging in aggressive and confrontational behaviour. The authorized persons should let the enforcement officers handle the situation if they consider it necessary. As for whether enforcement officers can handle the situation, it is actually another story. Frankly, if there are 10 persons sitting together hand in hand, it will be really difficult to remove them. If the authorities require the docents, Park Ambassadors or security staff to enforce the provision, it will be really difficult for them to do so. Admittedly, the Government has reserved this power in the Bylaw and, therefore, we think it should only serve as a precautionary measure. As stipulated in the provision, minimum force can be used to remove a person from the public open spaces where the situation warrants. In fact, even if we do not use force, it will take enormous strength to remove a person from the WKCD. We hope that the authorities will gain experience from the training sessions so that they can handle the relevant situations in a better way. We certainly believe that it will be best if this power only serves as a precautionary measure.

I also have many opinions on section 16 which is related to access to public conveniences. The provisions are very simple, which stipulate that a male person must not enter the female toilet and a female person must not enter the male toilet. However, there are some exceptions. A child under the age of five years can enter a toilet of the opposite gender if the child is accompanied by a person of the opposite gender who is in charge of or supervising the child. For example, a five-year-old girl can enter the male toilet if she is accompanied by her parent while a five-year-old boy can enter the female toilet if he is accompanied by his parent. During the discussion on this provision, I asked whether the WKCDA will provide unisex toilets. I would like to tell the Secretary that I hope the authorities concerned will take the initiative to provide unisex toilets in the cultural facilities of both the WKCD and the Leisure and Cultural Services Department (LCSD) in the future. A unisex toilet is neither a barrier-free toilet nor a toilet for the disabled.

At first, I would be outraged whenever we discussed whether unisex toilets should be provided at certain facilities because even some officials of the Architectural Services Department (ArchSD) and the Buildings Department (BD) only have an ambiguous concept of unisex toilets. They replied that unisex toilets are already provided because the toilets for the disabled are unisex. However, it is certainly not the case. The ArchSD is currently responsible for LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12467 private buildings and it has stipulated in the Practice Notes that unisex toilets should be provided in newly built shopping malls. The purpose of providing unisex toilets is … my recommendation is certainly addressing the needs of transgender persons but, in fact, it is not only beneficial to transgender persons but also some persons being cared for by the others.

I would like to share an experience. In the male toilet of a shopping mall, I once saw an old man bumping around aimlessly as he could not find the exit. I wondered why he was doing so. If he is blind, he would have used a cane. In the end, he managed to find the way out and it became clear to me why he behaved that way because I saw that his daughter was waiting for him outside the toilet. Usually, his daughter will look after him when he goes out and it is therefore unnecessary for him to use a cane for the blind. However, as his daughter could not accompany him to the male toilet, he had to rely on himself after entering the toilet and he therefore bumped around aimlessly. For this reason, unisex toilets are also known as family-friendly toilets. Some people are very sensitive to the word "sex" and they would say that they do not understand why it is necessary to provide toilets exclusively for transgender persons who are neither female nor male. The mentality of these people may be rather conservative. If we call it a family-friendly toilet, they may find it easier to accept because it means that such a toilet is provided not only for transgender persons but also the aforementioned caretakers. When they have to take care of their grandfathers or grandmothers, they will need such toilets.

While the Government has stated in the Practice Notes of the BD that private buildings are required or encouraged to provide this facility, the leisure and cultural facilities provided by the Government are not subject to this requirement. I think the Government should take the lead to do so. At a previous meeting of the Subcommittee, the WKCDA said that family-friendly facilities will be provided. I hope that such facilities will not be only provided in the open spaces but also in other facilities of the WKCD. If it is not included in the plan when the facilities are under construction, we should see if there is any room for modification. However, for the newly built facilities, I hope this kind of toilets can be provided. With regard to unisex toilets, the provision under section 16 of the proposed Bylaw is not applicable because such toilets are not restricted to male or female and it is not stipulated that entering the toilet of the opposite sex will breach the provision under section 16 of the Bylaw.

12468 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016

Moreover, the last point that I would like to talk about is related to prohibited acts under section 14 of the Bylaw. Some members of the media noticed that under section 14(1)(e) of the Bylaw, it is stipulated that a person must not "distribute any bill, placard or notice, or affix any bill, placard or notice … in a public open space". I know that the wording of this clause is copied wholesale from the Pleasure Grounds Regulation while section 15 of the Pleasure Grounds Regulation also prohibits the posting of bills and notices. Yet, I hope that the authorities can adopt a lenient approach and exercise discretion in actual operation. If someone asks whether a candidate can distribute leaflets in the open space concerned, the answer will certainly be "no" under this provision. However, I think that distribution or display of placards, bills or notices does not necessarily constitute political or confrontational behaviour. For example, if a superstar is going to perform in the WKCD and I have prepared some placards and notices for distribution so as to inform other people of the superstar's performance, this is actually cultural behaviour as well as an interaction between the audience and the performance. If the provision is too rigid and prohibits the distribution of any bills in the site, it means that even the stickers for flag-selling activities or the display of a welcome banner which reads "supporting so-and-so forever" will also be prohibited. It seems to be rather stringent. Clearly, although the Bylaw has stipulated many provisions, most of them only serve as precautionary measures.

As mentioned by Ms Cyd HO earlier, since the Bylaw concerning the WKCD is more lenient than other previous bylaws concerning pleasure grounds or parks, it is hoped that the LCSD can follow this direction during the review of bylaws of other pleasure grounds or parks in the future and avoid introducing provisions under those bylaws which will cause nuisances to the public or discourage visitors. The regulations should be, as I have mentioned earlier, kept to a minimum and be as lenient as possible. Even if the regulations are introduced, they should only serve as precautionary measures. I so submit.

MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I seldom agree with Mr Christopher CHUNG, but it is an exception this time around. Regarding the regulation of the West Kowloon Cultural District (WKCD), it is good to keep it to the minimal. Certainly, it is most desirable that the regulation of the WKCD will no longer be linked with the mode adopted by the Leisure and Cultural Service Department (LCSD). At present, many prohibition signs are placed outside parks, such as "No kite-flying" and "No Dogs", which strongly discourage people from entering the parks.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12469

We hope that the WCKD will become a genuinely free cultural zone in Hong Kong, but not a "Special Cultural District in West Kowloon", for the word "special" carries the connotation of "special issues handled by special means". Why dog-walking is allowed only in the WCKD but not other parks? Why are nearly all activities prohibited in other parks? There are some parks in Hong Kong where a small sandpit for children is built in the middle of the road. These sandpits are not dog toilets, but they are framed in cement. In such circumstance, how can parents rest assured that their children can play safely in the sandpits? It will be serious if children hurt their head inside. Moreover, these sandpits are located in the middle of the road, so the design is completely wrong. Certainly, I have reasons to believe that with the many professionals in the West Kowloon Cultural District Authority (WKCDA), there will not be such strange problems with the decorations or design in the district.

We are worried about one point in the West Kowloon Cultural District (Public Open Spaces) Bylaw (the Bylaw), as pointed out by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen in his mention of section 23 of the Bylaw, that is, an authorized person may require a person causing nuisance or a noisy person to leave. It may be considered acceptable to advise people who are too noisy or using foul language to leave. However, we are doubtful about giving the power to authorized persons to remove a person they consider is causing nuisance, for whether the force used in the course of the removal is suitable or reasonable can only be decided afterwards, and no criteria have been laid down for judging the reasonable level of force used. In the event of a violent scene, the persons involved, though they are just the general public and not officers of the WKCDA or ambassadors of the park in uniform, will also use reasonable force to stop people from beating others, scolding or abusing children, for these acts are considered improper in general. On the contrary, we feel concerned that the power to use reasonable force may be abused. Yet, it is difficult to define the case. Judgment can be made only after the incident, and we can only "trust" the authorized persons. At a meeting of a certain committee, the Secretary implored Members to trust their well-trained officers for they know their duties well and will perform their duties properly. In that case, it is all about "trust", and I feel a bit uncomfortable about this.

(THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair)

12470 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016

Some Honourable colleagues have mentioned the issues relating to places of public entertainment. If no restriction is imposed on entry to the WKCD or other aspects, the Places of Public Entertainment Ordinance will not be applicable, which is the reason for proposing the present amendments. It all hangs on "trust".

Members must still remember that before the 4 June of a certain year, the late SZETO Wah placed the Goddess of Democracy at the entrance of Times Square, and he was subsequently arrested by the Police for failing to apply for the places of public entertainment licence. Now, in the WKCD, the authorities said that activities not subject to restrictions can be carried out, and in areas where restrictions are imposed, it will be alright if the person concerned complies with the restrictions. Though there is no restriction on entry, people may act freely and openly and there is no concern about the places of public entertainment licence. However, as we mentioned earlier, if the ambassador or management officers of the cultural district consider certain people noisy, the hoisting of banners unsuitable, or the attire, the covering of face or the wearing of a mask by a certain person arouses uncomfortable associations, and so on, they will first order the person involved to leave and then remove him if he fails to leave. These are unhappy scenarios and worries just raised will be addressed merely on a "trust" basis. Be it section 23 of the Bylaw or the restrictions applicable to places of public entertainment, I hope the authorities will think about it and examine the case thoroughly to let the public truly enjoy a fully open sky, open lawn and open space in the WKCD, a happy place.

During the discussion of the Subcommittee, I have put forth some of my views, that is, the management approach now adopted for the cultural district as a whole is still adhering to the long-established practice. The WKCDA is a statutory body, but the problem is that its person in charge is Carrie LAM. Whenever she says that she will discuss the issue with the Government at the meeting, it conveys an impression of hypocrisy, for on the one hand, she is representing the WKCDA to discuss with the Government, yet on the other, she is the Chief Secretary for Administration in the Government. She always reminds us that the WKCDA is a statutory body and we should not hold any misunderstanding. I surely understand this, but still, it brings the poor impression of hypocrisy. It seems that her mind and concept will suddenly jump to the opposite side of the Government and express the intention to have discussion with the Government. It is hypocritical. Hence, I implore them to give second thoughts to the impression it conveys to the public, that is, the matter about "trust". They often ask Members not to be worried and express LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12471 understanding of Members' worries about the unforeseeable troubles, yet they will only ask Members to trust them. We also want to trust the Government, but since all issues are handled by the Government and always by the same group of people, it is terribly hypocritical.

There is one issue about which we had been expressing concern during the discussion, and I had raised the question twice to seek an answer but in vain. I asked whether the English name of Xiqu Centre ("戲曲中心"), could be changed to Chinese Opera Centre. The official explanation is that the number one figure in the Chinese opera sector considers there is a semantic difference between Western opera and Chinese opera, for Western opera lacks the unique stage gestures found in Chinese opera. Since the two kinds of performance are not related in any way, the transliteration of "Xiqu" ("戲 曲") should be used. If the term "戲 曲" is to be transliterated according to the Putonghua pronunciation, why can the authorities not use the Cantonese transliteration of the Hong Kong style, that is, "Hei Kuk Centre"? This translation is more direct, yet foreigners may not understand it.

Certainly some may say that Taiwan has also set up a Xiqu Centre, yet the Centre was completed during the times of MA Ying-jeou and LUNG Ying-tai, and they had stated that the use of the Mandarin transliteration could highlight Taiwan's culture. However, in Hong Kong, in this cultural district, our local culture should not be intervened. It is evident that the earlier remark about Chinese opera not being equal to Xiqu is unjustified. If this remark is justified, we should not use "Chinese medicine" as the translation for "中 醫", and due to its uniqueness, it should be renamed as "zhong yi". By the same token, since our calligraphy "書 法" is written with Chinese ink, it is different from "Chinese calligraphy" and should thus be transliterated as "shu fa". Why do the authorities not adopt this approach? It is evident that the remark is unjustified. In my view, the name is not correct and the remark is not justified.

The WKCD should give the highest priority to the representation of the culture of Hong Kong. It is improper to use transliteration based on Mainland pronunciation in such a strange manner merely because of personal preference. The authorities have unnecessarily changed the translation of the name of "Chinese Opera Centre" ( 戲曲中心 ), into "Xiqu Centre" for no reason. Moreover, the Cantonese pronunciation of "Xiqu" carries an unhappy connotation and induces a lot of laughable absurdities.

Thank you, President.

12472 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016

DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, since I started to participate in the work of the Legislative Council eight years ago, the West Kowloon Cultural District (WKCD) has along been one of my key areas of work. When I proposed a motion debate in 2010 on "Territory-wide participation in building the West Kowloon Cultural District", many people not living nearby, such as the elderly residents of Sham Shui Po and even residents of Hong Kong Island, asked whether the WKCD had anything to do with them. Just now, I also heard some Honourable colleagues say that the public's enjoyment of privileges of, for instance, bringing along their dogs, should not be confined to the WKCD.

Back then, the WKCD gave people an impression that only West Kowloon residents could make frequent use of it. However, all Legislative Council Members, who have been making great efforts for years, would not like to see the WKCD used exclusively by nearby residents only. As a Legislative Council Member representing Kowloon West, I certainly hope to see culture everywhere with the WKCD as the cultural hub. Why did I emphasize the WKCD being the cultural hub? It is because the WKCD is open to all the people in Hong Kong, regardless of their age and wealth, with the goal of making visitors feel welcomed and carefree rather than unease in this most attractive place.

I recall a question specifically asked in 2012 by a group of District Council members belonging to the Kowloon West New Dynamic and members of the local community ― the same question was also raised by a colleague just now. The question was: Will the WKCD, which can serve as a central park, be developed into a small town? I certainly hope that the WKCD can be enriched with vitality and cultural elements to make users happier. We made four major requests at that time: Firstly, the public open space in the Park should remain accessible; secondly, as I pointed out just now, the environment and facilities of the WKCD should allow people of different types to find enjoyable space in the WKCD; thirdly, the less regulation the better since the WKCD is open to the public; and fourthly, we hope to encourage social life and mutual acceptance among people. The WKCD is different from the Legislative Council because the latter is a place for discussing political views, and the participants might hold different views. When I attended the event called Freespace Happening upon invitation this year with my dog, I found that there were quite many opportunities of exchange as the participants had common interests and topics related to pets. Furthermore, they would not talk about subjects that might lead to divergent views or heated debates. So, every one of us were truly able to enjoy the whole LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12473 afternoon freely there. Regarding the use of the entire public open space, especially the WKCD, it is our hope that every visitor can feel welcomed in the WKCD for at least a couple of hours.

Furthermore, we very much hope that the public can be encouraged to chill out on the lawn. Every one of us knew when we were small that a warning would definitely be erected on the lawn to remind the public not to trample on it. Let me share some of my work experience with Members. During a discussion held on the type of lawn to be used when the Hung Hom Waterfront Promenade project was launched in 2011, reference was made to the United Kingdom where the public were encouraged to lie on the lawn. The choice of allowing the public to walk on the grass was, in my opinion, hugely successful. Imagine the public are allowed to picnic or admire the moon with their family members in such a relaxed environment as the WKCD to celebrate the Mid-Autumn Festival or on other occasions while getting close to nature. The WKCD provides a total of 23 hectares of public open space, which is even larger than the combined area of three cruise terminals. I think that more views can be put forward on ways to enable more people to enjoy the WKCD facilities with their family members or friends. Although Hong Kong people have been taught not to trample on the grass since they were small, our living environment has already changed gradually. I hope special consideration can be given to this factor during the design stage of the WKCD because its environment is really superb.

Nevertheless, I am really dissatisfied with its accessibility. I have once participated in some events organized by the WKCD. One of the events was attended by up to 20 000 participants intending to break the Guinness World Records. However, elderly participants had to walk 45 minutes before they could reach the WKCD. When I brought along my dog to an event held in the WKCD, I found that there were serious problems with its accessibility, even though we were still young and strong and could go there by car. In fact, the public were not at all encouraged to go there on foot. In particular, visitors would definitely be sweating like pigs when they reached the WKCD should they choose not to take taxis or buses. Therefore, accessibility is a very important consideration. Given that the WKCD boasts such a large area of lawn that it is unmatched by the Victoria Park and Kowloon Park, what can be done to encourage people who are reluctant to take a taxi to go there? I hope consideration can be given to providing coaches in the WKCD in the future to give people with disabilities, elderly persons and children a ride. Alternatively, consideration can be given to installing an electric pedestrian link to relieve these 12474 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 people of the pain of accessing the WKCD. Given the tremendous efforts already made and repeated campaigns to finally ensure that high rises will not be built in the WKCD, I hope every one of us can participate in the events held in the WKCD happily.

Apart from giving consideration to the use and accessibility of the WKCD, I also hope that additional facilities can be provided by all means to encourage participation by the elderly. I have once proposed that more tree-lined tracks be constructed to allow people who do not have to rush to events to go for a stroll in these tracks. Alternatively, additional benches can be provided to allow visitors who reach there by bus to sit down and take time to enjoy the place. Although we proposed at that time the construction of the avenue, I subsequently changed my mind and proposed that the construction of tree-lined tracks would still be entirely acceptable with a view to encouraging people to make more frequent visits to the WKCD.

Of course, I understand that people think differently. Every Legislative Council Member might also give different consideration to the use of space, but I really hope that all Members are conscientious. I have attended a couple of events held in the WKCD. Sometimes I would meet some people with different political views ― even dog owners might hold different views on pet keeping ― but we would still discuss some common topics and enjoy the space provided in the WKCD. Certainly, we do not hope to see any person feel unease here or disturbed, as in the pedestrian zones in Mong Kok, or even lodge complaints ― I have once handled such complaints before. Although I love pets and will take my dog to parks where dogs are allowed, I do understand that some people might dislike or even dread pets, including dogs and other animals. Although I think that the Government should consider ways to deal with the requests made by different persons, I believe the WKCD is capable of providing adequate space. Furthermore, we should learn to respect one another and enjoy nature and the WKCD public open space. Even though we may come from different backgrounds, we should, regardless of our wealth and gender, relax and enjoy quiet moments in our extremely busy daily life, so that we can enjoy the space provided in the WKCD.

I will definitely support the proposed resolution and hope that the Government can continue to make active consideration. In my opinion, many facilities are still inadequate and substandard. Even though the Government has reduced its control, some facilities are still not put to good use. Moreover, the public still finds it inconvenient to use them. I hope the Government can inject LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12475 more resources other than allocating 23 hectares of land and ensure that the West Kowloon waterfront can be developed into a world-class public open space, a pride of Hong Kong.

Thank you, President.

MS EMILY LAU (in Cantonese): President, I rise to speak in support of this proposed resolution under the West Kowloon Cultural District Authority Ordinance.

President, we have waited for the West Kowloon Cultural District (WKCD) for decades. Now most of the site is still barren land, indicating how Hong Kong has lagged behind in various aspects such as efficiency. Someone told me that at first it was Chris PATTEN who talked about developing a cultural district. Of course, Chris PATTEN did not say he wanted the construction of the WKCD. Chris PATTEN wished to have Aida, a large-scale opera, staged in Hong Kong, so he asked what venues were available, but there was no suitable venue in the whole territory. In the end the opera was staged in the University of Hong Kong. He questioned why there was no theatre for the performance of large-scale operas and proposed constructing one in the reclamation area. Later, he added this piece of land should not be wasted to serve only this purpose and proposed establishing a tourism area or cultural district. Our discussion has been going on, and Chris PATTEN has already left for a decade or two. Now that place is still a barren lot.

Moreover, President, sometimes some people put the blame on others. In particular, the authorities claim it is most outrageous that Members have filibustered, thus obstructing the progress. Back then, I voted against it, but many Members supported the construction of the WKCD. When the authorities applied for funding, most Members voted for it, and some $20 billion was allocated to this project. Members have supported whatever requests made by the authorities. Even Ms Cyd HO has been asked why she has expressed such strong support. But now what has dragged down this project? It is the Express Rail Link, because a station will be built there with the need to fix this and that. Consequently, we have no idea when such key facilities as the concert hall and the grand theatre will be completed. Hence, we certainly support this resolution now proposed for setting out how to manage this place for public recreational and leisure purposes.

12476 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016

I concur with Ms Claudia MO's view. We support Mr Christopher CHUNG. It is not because Mr Christopher CHUNG has been weeded out that we support and sympathize with him. Sometimes, be it Christopher CHUNG, Christopher CHAN or whoever it is, we will render him our support as long as we consider it reasonable to do so.

We hope members of the public will find the future management of this place open and pleasant. Just now some Honourable colleagues asked whether the authorities will use any force against someone who does not comply with the Bylaw. We certainly do not hope to be presented such a need, since we live in a civilized place.

Nevertheless, President, speaking of civility, I think we ourselves have to be civilized too. First of all, do not litter. Although the Government has now used new litter bins with smaller openings to discourage the dumping of large-size rubbish, some people place their rubbish next to the litter bins. Such an act is certainly not civilized. Moreover, some people may make noises or talk loudly. I hope members of the public will behave in a civilized manner and will not affect other visitors using the facilities in the cultural district. Do not force the officers of the West Kowloon Cultural District Authority (WKCDA) to resort to force. We certainly do not support the use of force. We do not wish to see any quarrel or confrontation happen either. We hope members of the public will respect each other, behave themselves and keep the place clean.

Of course, some people may wonder if I am speaking in never-never land because at present, be it in the Legislative Council, in court or at other places, such confrontations and such behaviour and language which we consider uncivilized have happened from time to time. Nevertheless, I very much hope that we will calm down and express our views in a peaceful and rational manner without resorting to violence and vulgar language. I hope we will be more civilized especially in the WKCD, where we will have fun with family members and friends. Otherwise, it will be difficult to deal with either party.

Moreover, just now some Honourable colleagues mentioned the mission and vision. President, one of the objectives is to inspire, promote and encourage cultural pursuits. Talking is easy, but how can it be achieved? I believe this is a very tall challenge. I hope the WKCDA and the authorities will make an enthusiastic effort in their work and can really inspire, encourage and promote public engagement in various kinds of cultural activities during which there will LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12477 be no disturbance or dispute among them. I hope Hongkongers, foreign tourists and Mainland visitors will all enjoy themselves when they go to this place. On the question of whether this can be achieved completely, I am not at all optimistic, but I hope each party can act with mutual respect.

Furthermore, just now an Honourable colleague mentioned the need to make a comparison with the Leisure and Cultural Services Department (LCSD). In our view, the approach adopted by the LCSD in a lot of cases is too rigid or backward. If the WKCD can be more open with a cheerful atmosphere, and members of the public will not break the rules and mess up the place, then I hope this management approach can be applied also to other playgrounds and parks so that the public can use the facilities freely and openly.

Talking about the LCSD, I would like to raise a point. Although it does not fall on the scope of today's resolution, I still hope that they will talk with the WKCDA about ticketing. The Secretary must have heard that sometimes members of the public wish to book tickets for certain performances, but the system of the LCSD is not convenient to the public. I have had discussions with the WKCDA to exchange views and identify a ticketing system which is in line with the international standard and convenient to members of the public. The example of a gymnastic performance several years ago was simply appalling. Tickets had long been withheld, but no one showed up. All the best seats were vacant. So some members of the public intended to walk in to watch the show, but it turned out that they had to walk six or eight blocks and then take a number of turns before they could reach the place to collect the tickets. I wish to ask the Secretary to look into this matter. I hope everything can be kept abreast of the times.

Moreover, I concur with Mr CHAN Chi-chuen's point just now about the issue of toilets. Now the authorities say they are going to provide family-friendly toilets so that wheelchair users and their carers can go into the toilets together, and transgender persons can use the toilets regardless of gender. I think this is a very good approach. However, President, there should certainly be a sufficient number of toilets because people (especially women) often have to wait in long queues for their turns. I hope a sufficient number of toilets can be provided in the design. Actually, when the women wait in the queue, do the men need not wait? They have to wait all the same, though they are not queuing up for the toilet. It makes no sense, does it? I hope the authorities will address this problem and also install baby changing stations in which babies can be laid down in the toilets. Such facilities are provided at many places now. Very 12478 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 often, mothers will go to the toilet with their babies. If this facility is available, they may put down their babies when they use the toilet. I hope the authorities will take forward the construction of various facilities.

President, actually these matters are the urgent concerns of the public, but numerous examples have shown that the Special Administrative Region Government is not anxious about these concerns at all. Why? Because they do not need to go to these toilets, especially those in the New Territories. Every time I see a public toilet, I will go inside it for an inspection. When members of the public see me, they will say, "Ms LAU, it is really good to see you. Come for a look. There is no flush water again." I have seen some aqua privies which are really very dirty. If I chance to see a clean toilet, I will immediately take a photo and commend it, but some toilets are indeed horrible. The question of toilets should have nothing to do with the Secretary. It should fall on Secretary Dr KO Wing-man's portfolio, but never mind. I have raised this issue in passing for the hope that the authorities can deal with it properly.

Regarding animals, as mentioned by Ms Claudia MO, since we hope members of the public can go there to have fun and some of them like pets very much, I hope we can make a civilized arrangement. I personally do not see any problem in allowing the public to bring along their pets, and I greatly support it. I used to keep a dog. I love dogs, but some dogs are very big in size, and some people may feel frightened when they see them. Hence, we have got to understand that some members of the public are afraid of animals. How can we deal with both parties appropriately so that members of the public may bring along their pets while those who are afraid of animals will not be scared off? I hope the authorities will endeavour to do a good job with the management in this regard.

President, as regards the park, we have held meetings for years, but to date, it has yet to be named. The then Chief Executive Officer has already left. His suggestion of naming the park "Great Park" was questioned by me, and after that, no one has brought up this matter again. We need to give the park a name after all, do we not? President, there is no reason to call it "Victoria Park", right? Because there is already one in Causeway Bay. I once asked if the park could be called "Harbour Park" in English, which means a park next to the harbour. Perhaps the authorities can choose a better name for the public.

Lastly, I concur with Dr Priscilla LEUNG's point about accessibility. In fact, to many members of the public, that place is like inaccessible. They do not know how to get there. For this reason, I hope the WKCD can be made as LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12479 accessible as possible. Moreover, more road signs should be placed not only inside but also outside the district so that people travelling on foot, by MTR or by any other means will know the easiest and the most convenient route to get there. Of course, I further hope that barrier-free access facilities will be provided in the cultural district.

President, we have waited for the WKCD for decades. We have no idea when the ribbon-cutting and inauguration ceremonies can be held. Now the Government keeps asking us to go there. They have cultivated a few plants on the barren lot, and they say we may go cycling there. We really hope that in the future, we can have a joyful and beautiful place in which Hongkongers can take pride open to the public. There we may read books ― of course, I do not wish to see anyone arrested. Now even booksellers will be arrested ― and we may listen to music and have fun with our families. I hope this day will come soon.

With these remarks, I support the resolution.

MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): I have heard a number of Honourable colleagues speak on the proposed resolution under the West Kowloon Cultural District Authority Ordinance (WKCDAO). Members are eager to see that the management approach for the West Kowloon Cultural District will be more relaxed than the existing venue management approach of the Leisure and Cultural Services Department (LCSD), and that freer space will be provided. However, I consider it necessary for Members to squarely address a number of fundamental issues as the WKCDAO has stated that the West Kowloon Cultural District Authority (WKCDA) will be given more flexibility, and set out its management approach.

If Members can still remember, the LCSD actually adopted a relaxed venue management approach a long time ago. But it has become increasingly stringent as circumstances change over time. I remember that when I was small, no one would stop me even if I ran, jumped or sat on the lawn in parks. Nevertheless, as time goes by, the community has higher and higher expectations of park management. This is the fact, but an important point has been missed, that is, should park users also be held responsible? Should the management party be held fully responsible? If park users hold such an attitude, even if the WKCDA intends to adopt an open and free management approach, at the end, it will gradually become more and more stringent due to the community's call for safety and accountability in management. I think we need to take this issue seriously 12480 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 because as our society progresses, people place increasing emphasis on their own rights. And if we require the WKCDA to adopt a lot of measures and a stringent management approach because of that, it will easily result in a loss of the due flexibility and freedom in the use of venue. This is the actual situation observed by me at the LCSD venues.

I have repeatedly raised this issue here. For example, when we were small, we would go to play on swings. Below the swings were sandpits, which certainly posed some sort of danger. But those swings did not adopt an underwear-like design. Nevertheless, swings nowadays are different, which are easy to ride on. Children aged above six will not find such swings interesting. If you ask why the LCSD has to do so, it will reply that in the absence of such regulation, venue users will bring cases against it for failure to discharge management responsibility. Actually should we set such a high standard for management responsibility? Does such a yardstick serve to ensure absolute safety for every user? Or do both parties actually need to be held responsible? If this is not how we see things, even if the resolution in relation to the WKCDA is passed today, the relaxed management approach expected by the community will only become more and more stringent in the days ahead.

Hence, I subscribe to Ms Emily LAU's remark that all public spaces are places where there are many interactions among people. People may meet one another, and even conflicts are possible. Those conflicts may take place between individuals, or between individuals and venues. If people cannot demonstrate mutual tolerance and accommodation, it is actually difficult to keep things going. Hence, I fully endorse the relaxed management approach proposed in the legislation. Mutual respect is the basis of practical and effective implementation. This is the first point.

Second, I hope Members will think clearly whether we should take it for granted after securing a right. What do I mean? For example, we wish to get some space for activities and our request is granted. Then, we consider the venue ours, allowing no possibility for others to have access to it through mutual co-ordination. Do we need to occupy the venue like this? I recall that I once followed up on a case of this nature in a local district, in which several groups sought approval to use a venue for exercise in the morning at the same time. They felt that the right of use belonged to them once they had secured approval from the Government, and others could not do morning exercise there. I handled it by saying that I had sought approval to use the venue after filing such a request, but I hoped that all parties could effect co-ordination in the use of the venue. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12481

This example serves as a reminder to us that we should turn back the clock so that people in the community can again talk things out, instead of thinking that there is only one option after being granted the right of using the venue. In fact, this has also got something to do with the Government's attitude in handling the venues. As I grow up, I have had some experience. When we were small, we never had any attempt to occupy a football pitch to play, and would just wait for our turn to use it. But things are different now. We have to sign a form to acknowledge the use of the pitch when playing football. The Government or the community at large do not encourage people to just wait for their turns to play football. We are not quite sure whether these may be changes that occur over time. But under this subtle influence, the whole community will only think about how to achieve effective management, governance and control of our society from a management perspective.

These are several phenomena of the LCSD's venue management observed by me, which are far different from what I saw when I was small. It has stirred me quite deeply. Now we expect much from the WKCDA, hoping that it can provide free and open space. For this reason, I really hope that in the future, the WKCDA will bear in mind why the LCSD's relaxed management approach has turned stringent. If the WKCDA does not squarely address this issue, even if it has adopted a relaxed management approach today, it may not be able to keep going the same way due to irreversible changes to social culture five or 10 years later.

Hence, I hope the WKCDA will apply the free and open principle in its management in future. I also hope the LCSD, which has control over most public spaces and parks in Hong Kong, can get this message and adopt a more relaxed attitude in venue management. Maybe I am the kind of person who clings to the old days. I consider the past environment in which management was more relaxed better as children were given more space for activities. In fact, the primary elements of most creativity, cultural heritage and arts performance germinated in such an environment. We must never take the creativity nurtured in freespace lightly. If we do not think in this way, we will completely forget that room for us to touch, try and feel without limit or regulation so as to know what is going on around us is fundamental to creativity. Only in so doing can new ideas be nurtured.

With these remarks, President, I support the motion.

12482 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016

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

MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): President, concerning the West Kowloon Cultural District (WKCD), actually I have to make a declaration for I jog there often and love the natural environment there. And I am not alone, since many joggers also find the place very beautiful and hate to see the environment damaged. In fact, we have been jogging there for years, having met many jogging buddies. I used to not jog there but some jogging buddies told me the beauty of the area and encouraged me to change my jogging route, and so I started jogging from Tsim Sha Tsui East promenade to the WKCD. On holidays or normal weekdays, many jogging buddies do exercise there. The environment is quiet, lined with a gorgeous sea view and filled with fresher air.

Therefore, first, I reckon that the natural environment and scenery there really cannot sustain any damage. Same as the Tai O bus stop improvement works which we discussed a few days ago in the Council, we fear that some people would rather prefer building landmarks or facilities there, ruining the environment and views. I hope the West Kowloon Cultural District Authority (WKCDA) will not construct too many artificial facilities in the WKCD because the public go there to experience the nature ― they do not exactly return to the nature but do want to be close to the nature. On this count, I do not wish to see a lot of man-made structures erected there. I appeal to the WKCDA to accept this viewpoint. President, this is the first point.

Second, Mr WU Chi-wai has just said that the WKCD should be put under relaxed management, which is a notion I consider most correct. The authorities should note that currently the booking of venues managed by the Leisure and Cultural Services Department (LCSD) is often subject to political considerations made by the Government in the application process. Frankly, most of the time the process is politicized. I hope it will not happen again. When dealing with arts and cultural venues, be they facilities inside certain venues or museums, I hope the Government can do so with genuine respect for arts and culture as well as freedom of individual creation. Meanwhile, the Government should make good use of these venues and facilities to bring arts and cultural groups from other countries together. I wish we will all stay committed to this ideal.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12483

In recent years, a group has been lodging complaints about their having made countless applications for many venues, which were originally approved by the Government but rejected later on the grounds of political pressure. The LCSD has been following the same approach. There have been instances in which the Department had promised to lease or even had leased the City Hall and other arts and cultural venues but eventually reneged due to political factors. President, activities organized by the applicant groups were purely artistic, such as those by Shen Yun Performing Arts, which has staged performances, including arts, dance and opera, in other countries. But it was not allowed to perform in Hong Kong.

Moreover, not long ago New Tang Dynasty Television has made an application to host a world dance competition in Hong Kong but has not yet been able to secure any venue. It even had secured one, but the venue operator eventually succumbed to pressure and broke the contract. President, in view of these circumstances, I believe if we pass the motion today, a similar outcome will repeat that such kind of competitions and shows will be rejected due to some absurd reasons or unreasonable hindrance imposed out of political considerations. If so I think it would be a great shame, because for what purpose have we spent considerable resources on building such a sizable structure? It is to allow or even facilitate exchange and learning between arts and cultural crowds from Hong Kong and other places. It is our expectation. But now such kind of exchange is being hindered or even crippled by the penetration of political considerations in the process. It is a most pathetic scene. In this regard, I urge the Secretary to bear in mind that no such situation can be allowed to recur to hamper these activities.

In addition, I also hope the authorities will pay greater respect to public views in the management of these venues. I consider their views very important, so is their participation. In my recent jog I ran past the vicinity of the Cultural Centre, where many small booths have been set up to sell artworks crafted by people. I jogged early in the morning so I did not know the flow of visitors there. But as I have seen more and more booths being set up, I assume it must be a result of growing popularity.

Therefore, I believe the Government, in managing these venues, can allow more folk art or handicraft works to be hawked or exhibited. I think it is very important. In fact, Hong Kong has often been criticized as a desert of arts and culture. I long to see the development of the WKCD being able to dispel the 12484 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 impression which Hong Kong has been giving the world. It is not just about dispelling such an impression; I hope the Government will take concrete and specific actions to promote the development of folk arts, which, President, is mutually beneficial as I believe the availability of more venues, spaces and favourable circumstances for exhibitions and hawking will greatly boost students' interest in and opportunities of learning arts.

Nowadays, the promotion of arts and culture, such as dance and music, in schools often meets with difficulties which lie in whether students will have the opportunity to bring their talent into play, showcase their works or give personal performances. For this reason, I think these venues offer a very good platform. I also notice that many community groups usually perform in the vicinity of the stone steps near the Cultural Centre in Tsim Sha Tsui East, attracting many visitors to stop and watch; and these performances are all free. It is such a pleasant setting that visitors can enjoy the performances whereas performers can fully show off their talent. It would be great if the authorities can expand such arrangements and allow more people to do the same. Unfortunately, we are worried that often those so-called "rules" will stand in the way to create difficulties and obstacles for the development towards such a goal.

It has also come to my attention that on holidays, some voluntary organizations have arranged for racial minorities to hawk at places such as the Victoria Park. It is similar to the approach which I have just mentioned. Allowing greater participation in such kind of open activities will not only boost the economy of the relevant districts but also further the development of various, unconventional or not overly restrained folk cultures. I hope more progress will be made in this aspect.

Furthermore, I have talked about political restrictions. Indeed the Hong Kong Alliance in Support of Patriotic Democratic Movements of China (the Alliance) is often subject to many restrictions and obstacles in its application for hosting the 4 June Vigil at the Victoria Park. I believe not only the Alliance, other political groups usually want to organize activities at these venues. I likewise stress that such spaces are for the free use of all organizations and people. I hope the authorities can provide more opportunities for such purposes. And international conventions also stipulate that freedom of speech and freedom of assembly are basic human rights. At present, such venues can provide a very LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12485 good platform for some groups or the public to gather together and engage in certain activities. In this regard, I think the Government must uphold and adhere to its position so as not to misuse these spaces.

Lastly, I very much agree with Ms Emily LAU's view on toilets, which is a matter of grave concern for her. People may think toilets mean no big deal but in fact it is a huge problem, especially when the location is quite remote. I do not know the future development but the public's need for toilets is a critical issue. I do hope the authorities can do better to not only maintain good environmental hygiene but also provide an adequate number of them, since it is truly undesirable that visitors are exposed to the elements while waiting to use the toilets. Citizens visit places like the WKCD to relax and enjoy leisure time. It is not satisfactory if they have to go through such trouble for their personal needs. I also hope that the authorities can do better on this.

In addition, this kind of places are for families to visit and parents may bring their children along. Therefore, just as Ms Emily LAU has mentioned, a better nursing environment has to be provided as breastfeeding is now a well-known social advocacy. Without even a space, such advocacy will only be futile. Therefore, in this regard, I hope the authorities will pay more attention and the WKCDA will exercise proper management to improve the operation.

President, I so submit.

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

(No Member indicated a wish to speak)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): If not, I now call upon the Secretary for Home Affairs to reply. The debate will come to a close after the Secretary has replied.

SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): President, I thank Members for their support for and opinions on the resolution. Under the West Kowloon Cultural District Authority Ordinance, the West Kowloon Cultural District Authority (WKCDA) is responsible for providing, operating, managing and maintaining arts and cultural facilities as well as related facilities, including the public open spaces within the West Kowloon Cultural District (WKCD).

12486 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016

As I mentioned in my opening remarks, the objectives of the WKCDA in making the West Kowloon Cultural District (Public Open Spaces) Bylaw are to facilitate the effective management of the public open spaces and ensure that activities by any user of public open space do not excessively interfere with or disturb other users, with a view to striking a proper balance between the needs of different users and enabling the safe and enjoyable use of these places by all.

Various Members have put forward views in respect of administration, management and design. I will immediately convey these views to the WKCDA for their appropriate planning and follow-up.

With these remarks, I urge Members to support the resolution. Thank you, President.

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

(Members raised their hands)

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

(No hands raised)

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

MEMBERS' MOTIONS ON SUBSIDIARY LEGISLATION AND OTHER INSTRUMENTS

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Members' motions on subsidiary legislation and other instruments.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12487

Two proposed resolutions under section 34(4) of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance in relation to the extension of the period for amending subsidiary legislation.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): First motion: To extend the period for amending the Public Health (Animals and Birds) (Animal Traders) (Amendment) Regulation 2016 and the Specification of Public Offices (Amendment) Notice 2016, which were laid on the Table of this Council on 25 May 2016.

I now call upon Mr Tommy CHEUNG to speak and move the motion.

PROPOSED RESOLUTION UNDER SECTION 34(4) OF THE INTERPRETATION AND GENERAL CLAUSES ORDINANCE

MR TOMMY CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, in my capacity as Chairman of the Subcommittee, I move that the motion, as printed on the Agenda, be passed.

At the House Committee meeting on 27 May 2016, Members agreed to form a subcommittee to study the Public Health (Animals and Birds) (Animal Traders) (Amendment) Regulation 2016 and the Specification of Public Offices (Amendment) Notice 2016. To allow more time for the Subcommittee to scrutinize the relevant subsidiary legislation, Members agreed that a motion be moved by me to extend the scrutiny period of the legislation to the Council meeting of 13 July 2016.

With these remarks, President, I urge Members to support the motion.

Mr Tommy CHEUNG moved the following motion:

"RESOLVED that in relation to the ―

(a) Public Health (Animals and Birds) (Animal Traders) (Amendment) Regulation 2016, published in the Gazette as Legal Notice No. 64 of 2016; and

(b) Specification of Public Offices (Amendment) Notice 2016, published in the Gazette as Legal Notice No. 68 of 2016,

12488 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016

and laid on the table of the Legislative Council on 25 May 2016, the period for amending subsidiary legislation referred to in section 34(2) of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance (Cap. 1) be extended under section 34(4) of that Ordinance to the meeting of 13 July 2016."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Mr Tommy CHEUNG be passed.

MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): For people who are not particularly concerned about animal rights, they would not know what this motion is all about instantly. The Public Health (Animals and Birds) (Animal Traders) (Amendment) Regulation 2016 is a really long title. What does it actually mean? Organizations concerned about the rights and benefits of animals in Hong Kong can tell the public that the key to the motion as a whole lies in one sentence, that is, the unlawful acts of breeding and trading of domestic dogs will be legalized. These are unlawful acts and should not be legalized. This is a matter of principle.

The amendment was first proposed by the Government in 2012. Back then, I considered it appropriate to impose regulation by way of legislation, for it would prevent the arbitrary breeding and trading of animals, particularly for purebreds that have all kinds of diseases, which is unethical. To the general public, it is good for the Government to impose regulation. However, we were shocked after gaining a deeper understanding of the issue through animal rights campaigners. First, the arrangement will de facto encourage domestic breeding. Some people may consider applying for the relevant licences so that they may breed some beautiful puppies at home during their leisure time. A puppy may be sold at $10,000 at least. Purebreds may be sold at higher prices, and for the common breeds, it can be sold at $5,000 to $6,000 each. A dog may give birth to four to five puppies at one time, so it is a profitable business. However, we consider these acts absolutely inappropriate.

Some people may query if regulation is not imposed now, we will be condoning the irresponsible acts of these people. It is true that these acts are being carried out at present, yet they are subject to the legislation against animal LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12489 abuse ― President, why is no government official in the Chamber? They are not required to present at motions on extending the period for scrutiny, are they? I thought they have to give replies. President, the most troublesome issue is that the arrangement proposed by the authorities will encourage more people to consider this a business opportunity. The crowded living environment in Hong Kong has made the situation even more scaring. We all know that the keeping of dogs is not allowed in public housing and Home Ownership Scheme flats. As for private buildings, this is handled with discretion, for they do not dare offend individual flat owners. If the owners' corporation states that dog-keeping is allowed, tenants may keep dogs, and if owners' corporation disallows it, tenants cannot keep dogs.

However, once the legislation allowing the keeping of dogs at home and stipulating the maximum number of pregnant dogs that can be kept, some people may apply for the relevant licence several times in a year. They will seize every opportunity, big or small, for a large variety of licences are made available now. Some owners' corporations may ban the keeping of dogs across the board to save troubles. To remove doubts, the keeping of dogs, whether for the purpose of breeding or not, will be prohibited. By then, the situation will change for the worse, for Hong Kong has all along been promoting the concept of "Adopt, Don't Buy".

Certain owners' corporations have adopted a more stringent approach by issuing an order against the owners concerned to remove their dogs in seven days, and if the owners refuse to comply, a record will be filed with the authorities to indicate the problem with the premise. Under such circumstances, how can they build a good relationship with their neighbours? Is there no regulation at all for the time being ― Let me first finish what I have begun just now, that is, about the Government's claim that there is no regulation at present and thus it is sensible to impose some regulation. I held the same thought at the beginning, but the Government was just lying. Had there been no regulation at all, how could pet shops and dog farms in Sai Kung or the New Territories carry on their business? What kind of licences have they obtained for carrying on the business? If they are operating under a licence, it means they are subject to regulation. All along, we have been striving to avoid the approach of issuing different kinds of licence, big or small, which is only an approach to address the problems hastily by allowing people to carry on this kind of business lawfully. The authorities should not adopt this arrangement. The Government should only issue major licences with more stringent requirements which can only be met by a limited number of people. The dog farms in Sai Kung are an example, and I suppose 12490 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 dog farms in Sai Kung are more spacious. Moreover, volunteers may help to conduct inspections to check if there are cruelty cases and tragedies resulted from malpractices. We are potential buyers and may go in anytime to check as customers.

After the amendment of the legislation, a person may keep two Beagles in their flat in Room C of the 18th floor. How can the authorities monitor these cases? Even the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD) has stated that law enforcement is difficult. Although the AFCD has deployed 30 additional officers to conduct territory-wide inspection, covering Hong Kong Island, Kowloon, the New Territories and the outlying islands, they cannot complete the inspections, can they? They do not have the manpower to undertake the task. It is just empty talk.

The entire arrangement under the relevant legislation is utterly strange. As such, we just want to postpone and delay the passage of the legislation as far as possible, and we indeed hope that it will be repealed. It is most desirable that the relevant legislation will be repealed, yet we have to wait till mid-July now. However, President, even if we want to repeal the regulation, I think we will not have enough votes to achieve it. Members from the pro-establishment camp are in the majority, occupying a large number of seats. Yet under the present election system, the democratic camp which has obtained more votes has taken less seats, while the pro-establishment camp which has less votes has taken more seats. Hence, it is basically impossible that my demand to repeal this regulation will be realized. I cannot but settle for the second best, hoping that the legislation will not encourage people to apply for a licence to carry on a business during their leisure time.

For instance, I like Beagles and he likes shepherd dog, so I keep a Beagle in my flat and he keeps a shepherd dog in his. We apply for a licence to carry on a business and exchange some tips about dog breeding, and what we do are lawful. Should we allow these scenarios to arise? For this reason, we try to include an amendment to require that all premises used for dog breeding should not be less than 2 000 sq ft in area. However, the Government refuses to accept this, saying that the arrangement will incur additional expenses for the authorities have to measure and inspect the premises used for dog breeding. This explanation is unjustified, for the Lands Department already knows the area of each flat. Fortunately, the Chairman was smart and pointed out that the authorities would have to inspect the premises under application for a licence after all to confirm the living space provided for dogs bred.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12491

The issue as a whole is extremely worrying. Since no government official is present now, I cannot address my complaint to Secretary Dr KO Wing-man. Yet, the major mistake made in the whole matter is to treat animals as commodities. I have attended an interview of a television programme. During the interview, the host of the programme, as well as the speaker of a group, called STOP, claiming to protect animal rights and welfare, both stated that the new regulation was desirable for it would impose regulation on dog breeding. In their view, if there was no regulation, or if the relevant regulation was not passed by the Legislative Council, it would affect people who love dogs of pure breed. They said that as some people liked Chihuahua and some liked Pug with a cute flat nose, the supply of these dogs would be reduced significantly, and the balance of the market would be affected, resulting in higher selling prices of these purebreds. What kind of concept is that?

However, President, it is truly the reality. The AFCD and the Food and Health Bureau have pointed out loud and clear in the Legislative Council that the dog of a person is his personal property, and according to Article 105 of the Basic Law, all personal property should be protected. Since these animals are personal property, their owners can treat them as they like. I intend to read out Article 105 which I have jotted down, but I cannot find it now …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms MO, this Council is now debating the motion on the extension of the period for amending the relevant subsidiary legislation moved by Mr Tommy CHEUNG.

MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): I know that it is about the motion on extending the period, and Mr Tommy CHEUNG is only moving the motion on behalf of the Subcommittee.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Since the motion seeks to extend the period for amending the subsidiary legislation, Members should discuss the specific content relating to the relevant subsidiary legislation in the Subcommittee handling the relevant subsidiary legislation.

MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): President, as far as I understand it, the Subcommittee has already completed its work.

12492 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The debate now in this Council is about extending the period of amending the relevant legislation, which intends to give Members more time to examine the relevant subsidiary legislation, so it is not the time to debate the content of the relevant subsidiary legislation. Members should discuss whether the period should be extended.

MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): President, I agree that the period should be extended. Yet while I explain why I request and agree with the extension, I will inevitably come to the content of the relevant regulation. Why do we have to request an extension of the period? Because the content of the regulation is extremely poor and we need more time for scrutiny. President, please allow me to continue, will you?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I am just reminding Members to focus on the subject of the motion.

MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): President, I got your point, yet the concept of the Government regarding the incident is ambiguous. The authorities say that the dog of a man is his property. According to the legal opinion provided by the Department of Justice (DoJ), since the dog is private property, the owner has the right to dispose of it according to his will, and he may put the dog in copulation or use it to breed puppies for sale. If the authorities regard dogs as private properties, why does the Housing Department (HD) order keepers to give up the dogs kept by them, which are their private properties, when they move into public housing, and why does the HD prohibit the keeping of dogs in public housing? This is a question which the Government can hardly answer, for the concept of the authorities is unclear.

President, in my view, we should not only request the extension of the scrutiny period of the relevant regulation, but should also demand the repeal of the regulation. However, as I said earlier, since we do not have enough votes to repeal the regulation, we can only request an extension of the period for amendment. Perhaps the authorities may even have reservation about extending the period. In fact, during the discussion, many people compare animals to a kind of commodity, just like an electric appliance. Upon the purchase of an appliance, these people may request an exchange even though the appliance is in LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12493 good condition, for they may dislike the colour they have chosen and regret it, say they like red but they have bought a blue appliance. The same situation occurs to the adoption or purchase of dogs. Since the Government regards dogs as a commodity, people will adopt the same mindset. Hence, when they have made a wrong choice in adoption, they will give up the pet and choose another, for the adoption of animals is free after all. In the case of animal purchase, the same situation occurs.

President, we are now requesting an extension of the scrutiny period, yet the AFCD and the Food and Health Bureau have stated clearly that the relevant regulation will come into effect on 1 January 2017. We hope that the Legislative Council will be given more time, so that we can find out what the community can do and how it can help. We are not saying that the relevant regulation must be dumped into the rubbish bin or that we insist on dumping it no matter how small the opening of the rubbish bin is. No, we are not urging for the disposal of the relevant regulation. We agree that regulation should be imposed in some measure, yet the authorities should not de facto encourage people to engage in a business which they would not have done so without the regulation. Otherwise, the authorities' good intention will do a disservice. The present approach adopted by the authorities is legalizing certain unlawful acts. Since the authorities cannot prohibit the breeding of dogs and the sale of dogs so bred, which are regarded as private property, the authorities can only legalize those acts. This is the opinion provided by the DoJ.

The authorities are going round the circle in terms of concept and this makes us difficult to follow. However, we do not only look for an extension of the period for amendment but also the withdrawal of the relevant regulation by the authorities. The authorities should reconsider it carefully. It should not issue a licence that offers a wide range of choices for people to breed dogs, and it should not express the desire for more people to apply for a licence for dog breeding and the concept that it is better to have more dogs to be put on sale. All these concepts go against the idea advocated in the advertisements placed by the AFCD on buses, which implore the public to adopt animals, to take care of them for their whole life and not to abandon animals. Moreover, the present regulation will stimulate an increase in the number of small breeding venues, for people may rent a small house in the New Territories or a Chinese tenement anywhere to keep dogs. Hence, the present approach adopted by the authorities may result in more dogs being abandoned. Some people may think that they can breed dogs for sale, yet they may not be able to sell all the dogs. They may 12494 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 discover that the dog they have bred is a Great Dane when it grows bigger, and they can only abandon it on the hill because they cannot keep it. President, by then, we will find a lot of purebreds on the hill. Thank you.

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

DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): President, after listening to Ms MO's lengthy speech, I do not understand if she is for or against this motion, or she wants to propose another motion to repeal the subsidiary legislation. In any case, I support Mr Tommy CHEUNG's motion to extend the period for amending the subsidiary legislation.

President, why do I support this motion? Because I see a definite need in Hong Kong society. First, it has come to our attention that many dog breeding facilities have not officially obtained a licence; they are unlicensed breeding facilities. Dogs in these breeding facilities live in cramped and even inhuman conditions without food and water. Some irresponsible owners even desert the premises such that the dogs are left uncared for. With thorough follow-up and strict regulation by the authorities, large unlicensed dog breeding facilities have dropped in number and apparently very few are left.

However, what has appeared to their place is many small-scale breeding facilities, the locations of which are private residences. Currently these individuals can escape regulation just by claiming to be owners of their breeding dogs. There is no regulation at all on whether the dogs are microchipped, where they will be sold and how they will be sold. It has in essence become a new industry. Therefore, the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD) has proposed amendments to the Public Health (Animals and Birds) (Animal Traders) Regulation (the Regulation) so as to strengthen regulation by issuing the Dog Breeder Licences Category A and Category B and a one-off permit. I welcome the proposal in principle. Just as the AFCD has stated, the amended Regulation will mandate obtaining a licence to carry on such a breeding business. I believe it will become easier to spot and report someone who keeps a large number of dogs at home without a licence as neighbours would notice and there is absolutely no escaping it. However, with licences issued the AFCD can then conduct regular inspections as the licensees' information is all in the records, allowing inspections to be carried out at the registered addresses.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12495

However, Ms MO has questioned the AFCD just now whether a lot of licences will be issued, rendering its manpower insufficient to cope with the regulatory work. In this regard, the Director of Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation (the Director) said the number of licences to be issued is uncertain at this stage, unlike the issuance of taxi licences, but supervision will be exercised. And will a premise/residence of 2 000 sq ft or more be granted a licence but any one smaller than 2 000 sq ft will not? The Director wants to reserve the decision-making power without committing to any specifics. I believe there is a reason for it. Hence, in principle, to better protect dogs and facilitate the AFCD in undertaking appropriate regulation, we need to allow the subsidiary legislation to stay in effect.

I also hope that Ms MO will stop worrying because her proposal for repealing the current legislation is absolutely unreasonable. The appalling conditions at some breeding facilities are no secret. Now the AFCD is willing to go the extra mile and it should be encouraged. In some cases several dozens of dogs are kept in one house, a situation not subject to regulation currently. As a result, the AFCD must issue licences before regulation can be effected. Some private residential buildings allow dogs. Even if some neighbours are suspicious, unless the dogs bark in the middle of the night, how can the authorities enforce control? For this reason, the only feasible way is to enforce regulation through issuing licences.

Of course, we have made many recommendations to the AFCD, such as, in addition to issuing licences, provision of adequate training to shops selling dogs. The AFCD …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): May I remind Members again that we are not having a debate on the content of the subsidiary legislation, or whether it should be amended or repealed. The debate in this Council right now is on whether or not the motion moved by Mr Tommy CHEUNG should be passed, that is, whether the period for scrutinizing the subsidiary legislation should be extended to 13 July. Therefore, if Members have any views on the content of the subsidiary legislation or whether it should be amended or repealed, they should present their views in the debate on the content of the subsidiary legislation.

12496 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016

DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): President, I understand it. Originally I did not intend to speak. But you allowed Ms MO to speak for more than 10 minutes just now and so I decided to rise and make a speech to elaborate why I support the extension of the period for amending the subsidiary legislation for everyone's easier understanding. I am afraid some people would only listen to Ms MO and think that from now on any household will become a dog breeding place, causing public panic and opposition to the motion. Indeed the proposed amendments to the Regulations provide forward-looking and feasible solutions to the issue of dog welfare.

Besides, on the keeping of animals, I would like to share some thoughts with Members. First, we call for stronger public education of animal welfare, such as promotion of the idea that keeping animals, especially dogs, is a lifelong promise. Moreover, some believe that to keep an animal, one should adopt instead of buy. Lastly, I wish to mention the advice given by many experts overseas that children's future development will greatly benefit from them growing up with dogs.

I support Mr Tommy CHEUNG's motion to extend the period for amending the subsidiary legislation. Thank you.

MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I originally intended not to speak on a question on an extension resolution. However, an animal care group has recently approached me to explain the legislative amendments proposed to the regulation of trading and breeding of dogs under the Public Health (Animals and Birds)(Animal Traders) Regulation (Cap. 139B), as well as putting forward some views.

Regarding the introduction of dog breeder licences (category B) (DBLB), although the Government has indicated that there have been calls from many animal welfare organizations and suggestions for amending the legislation, coupled with the support expressed by animal welfare organizations such as the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Hong Kong) (HKSPCA), I still think that the legislation should not be introduced hastily without reaching an adequate consensus, because the HKSPCA is just one of the voices. It cannot represent all animal care advocates, and neither can it be regarded as enjoying a privilege to the same.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12497

I know nothing about animal rights, so I can only listen to Members' views. After listening to the views expressed by Ms Claudia MO and Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, I think that the scrutiny period of the legislation must be extended because many areas have yet to be given consideration. For instance, why must two types of licences be issued instead of one? I think it is right for someone to obtain a licence before engaging in animal breeding activities because the relevant activities can thus be regulated and animals' rights be addressed. However, why must two types of licences be issued instead of one?

Secondly, if a person breeds dogs inside a private building or a non-commercial unit for sale after being granted a DBLB ― President, the Government might have never considered this point. Therefore, it is really necessary for the scrutiny period to be extended for the Government to reconsider this matter ― should such an act be treated as a commercial act? This issue has never been discussed by the Government before. Should it be treated as a commercial act, the relevant Deed of Mutual Covenant might be contravened. Furthermore, should these animal breeding and trading activities be treated as commercial acts, are the persons concerned required to apply for business registration certificates? If a particular person has already been issued a business registration certificate, is he required to complete a tax return issued by the Inland Revenue Department? All these issues have not been discussed at all.

The Administration has only stated that legal advice has been sought from the Department of Justice, that pet keepers cannot be prevented from allowing their pets to breed. Of course, I understand that breeding is a natural process, but the question is: Should we allow private pet keepers to engage in pet trading? The Government can actually stop many people from trading animals for making small profits by issuing only one type of licence and requiring that persons without a licence cannot engage in trading.

Since I believe more time is required for the relevant issues to ferment and different sectors of the community to discuss, President, I support the resolution on extending the scrutiny period.

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): President, I rise to speak in support of the proposed resolution moved under section 34(4) of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance by Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Public Health (Animals and Birds) (Animal Traders) 12498 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016

(Amendment) Regulation 2016 and Specification of Public Offices (Amendment) Notice 2016, to extend the period for amending the Regulation and the Notice laid on the table of the Legislative Council on 25 May 2016.

The Regulation and the Notice are supposed to be automatically passed 28 days after their gazettal as provided for under the "negative vetting" procedure. However, President, I wish to point out that the arrangements made by the authorities in respect of the timing of the legislative exercise were actually very bad and even somewhat violent. Why am I saying this? This Regulation was gazetted on 20 May and in fact, before 20 May, we, together with some animal rights groups, met with the Under Secretary and officials of the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department to strongly call on the authorities to put off the date of gazettal. It is because once the gazettal procedure commenced, the Regulation would be tabled before the Legislative Council on 25 May and this would automatically kick-start the 28-day "negative vetting" period which expires today. If the Legislative Council cannot consider this motion on extension of the period or the motion is negatived today, the Regulation would be automatically passed, though it would only be passage per se as there has yet been a date for the Regulation to come into operation.

At that time, we questioned the Government as to why, given the serious congestion of business items to be examined at meetings of the Legislative Council, it had to take this advantage to arrange for their gazettal on 20 May. The authorities had done some calculations about the timing. Of course, the authorities also expected us to propose an extension of the period but even if the motion is passed today ― I think no Member would object to it ― to extend the period for three weeks, we still have to examine this Regulation at the last meeting on 13 July.

President, earlier on a number of Members have jumped the gun in expressing their views on the Regulation, but I think this is absolutely understandable, and I hope that the President will allow them to do so. It is because even if the period could be extended and arrangements made for the Regulation to be examined on 13 July, there are still plenty of uncertainties which can make it impossible for the Regulation to be discussed for a reasonable period of time at the meeting. Currently, we still have to examine some controversial Government bills before the end of the term, including the Private Columbaria Bill and the Bill relating to the Medical Council of Hong Kong (MCHK). Insofar as the Bill relating to the MCHK is concerned, if the amendments LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12499 proposed by Dr LEUNG Ka-lau were passed, I really have no idea for how long the debate would take before it would be the turn for this Amendment Regulation on animals and birds as well as animal traders to be examined.

Even though this motion is placed on the Agenda, it is still possible that this Regulation could not be examined at the last meeting on 13 July. This Regulation is placed on the Agenda for this meeting today, and if the motion on extension is negatived, Ms Claudia MO will later move a motion under section 34(2) of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance to repeal the Regulation. If that really happens, Secretary Dr KO Wing-man will have to give a reply in this Council, though I think this motion on extension of the scrutiny period will be passed smoothly.

Will the three-week extension do any help to the whole matter? I think it will not have much help. Back then, I worried that we might not be able to proceed with the extension of the period for amendment today, for the Agenda item before this item required a longer time to process, and it might not be completed at the meeting on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday. Besides, there were chances that the meeting might be aborted, and the extension of the period could not be processed. If the motion on extending the period for amendment cannot be passed, the Regulation will be passed in its original form. I mentioned this point to the Government, saying that such a scenario was undesirable, and the Government responded that it was also in a passive position. It said that since the Regulation was subsidiary legislation, it was natural for it to be subject to the 28-day time limit which could be extended to 49 days the longest, and this was an established requirement which was not imposed by the authorities deliberately to restrict the discussion of Members. The Government said that if the period could not be extended, the authorities would continue to listen to the views of Members. I told the Government that it was nonsense.

If the period for amendment cannot be extended, or if the Legislative Council cannot process this motion at the meeting of 13 July, no amendment can be made to the Regulation even if the Government heeds our views expressed in the course of scrutiny in the Subcommittee and is willing to accept our views. For by then, the amendment cannot be included in the Agenda of the meeting of the Legislative Council and no amendment can be made, and the Regulation will be passed automatically without any amendment. The Government denied this and said that the arrangement was fair, for no effective date was stipulated in the Regulation and Members might have further discussions. But since the 12500 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016

Regulation will be passed automatically, Members of the Legislative Council have no chance to express their views, and whether we support or oppose the Regulation, it will make no difference.

Even if the Regulation can be included in the Agenda, this Council may not be able to process it. For this reason, Members seized the earlier opportunity to express their views. As for the meeting on 13 July, we will be fighting in the gloom and no one knows what will happen. By then, will we be processing the Bill related to the Medical Council of Hong Kong or other items? We really do not know. The authorities said that there was a way out for Members, that is, if Members do not have an opportunity to debate the subject at the meeting of the Legislative Council due to objective limitations ― for once amendments are proposed, Members can speak for infinite times, but I think the chance is slim that such a scenario will arise. The Government told Members not to worry as there would be another opportunity when the authorities propose a commencement order in October during the session of the Legislative Council of the new term. As Ms Claudia MO said, the effective date may be 1 January 2017. By then, if Members consider that the legislature has not been given an opportunity to discuss the Regulation and that the Regulation is undesirable, Members may repeal the commencement date. In that case, the Government will have to start the procedure all over again, that is, from discussion in the panel to scrutiny by the Subcommittee, and eventually submission to the Council. I bluntly queried the Under Secretary why the authorities had to hurry to catch the last train and have the Regulation passed in the last two to three weeks. It is obviously taking advantage of the prevailing situation. If the motion on extending the period for amendment is vetoed, or if the motion, having been included in the Agenda, but cannot be processed at the Council meeting, the Regulation will be passed without amendment. Members do not need to vote, not to mention stating their position. The situation is comparable to the processing of the restriction on powdered formula back then, where all the amendments could not be processed after the meeting was aborted as a result of our calls for quorum. Certainly, I am not so wily that I would help the Government to have the restriction on powdered formula automatically passed by inducing an aborted meeting through calls for quorum. However, the objective scenario of the meeting being aborted or the items not being processed at the meeting may occur. Why does the Government have to rush for the automatic passage of the Regulation near the end of the current session? The Government actually cannot answer this question. The authorities said that the early passage of the Regulation would provide a buffer period for pet breeders to apply for the licences and make some preparations, so LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12501 that the implementation of the Regulation will be sped up when it comes into effect in 2017. I think this is nonsense, for even if the present Regulation is passed, the parties involved do not have to comply with the Regulation in the absence of a commencement date.

President, regarding this Regulation, I must talk about its content no matter how. President, although the title of the Regulation is related to the sale of animals, it is mainly about regulating the breeding of dogs. In the past, no licensing system was put in place to regulate the breeding of dogs, but the sale of dogs was subject to regulation. Public consultation on this issue was started in October 2012 and I had participated in it. In 2012, the issue was submitted to the Panel on Food Safety and Environmental Hygiene for discussion and public hearings were held. On 16 April 2013, the authorities reported the results to the Panel on Food Safety and Environmental Hygiene. At that time, the Panel passed a motion: "That this Panel urges the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department, to merely issue under its proposed licensing requirements a single animal breeder licence which applies to all commercial and private animal breeders and traders, so as to further protect the welfare of animals in Hong Kong." This motion on a single licence was passed. Back then, I abstained from the voting on this motion. Some people then said that "Slow Beat" had not supported the issue of a single licence.

Why did I think that way at that time? At issue is not whether or not I support the issue of a certain number of licence, either one or two, but that I think the authorities must formulate a set of clear measures to cope with the situation at the beginning of, halfway and during the final period of the implementation of the licencing system. I still think so today.

At the meeting of the Panel held on 14 June, we discussed the code of practice on animal trading. When we asked about the terms and conditions for the licences, the answer given by the authorities was still very much unclear. The questions include: Will the issue of licence affected by the Deed of Mutual Covenant of individual buildings? If the keeping of dogs is prohibited in the Deed of Mutual Covenant of individual buildings, will the authorities issue a licence to the applicant? Will the authorities require the applicant to submit the Deed of Mutual Covenant for verification? Will the authorities require the applicant to submit a No Objection Order? The authorities failed to give clear answers to all of these questions. We pointed out that it was stated in the Deed 12502 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 of Mutual Covenant of certain buildings that if the keeping of dogs was opposed by a certain proportion of owners, dog-keeping would be prohibited in the building. Hence, the licencing system will plunge all residents into troubles. In normal times, no one opposes the keeping of dogs, but when certain residents apply for a category A licence ― any individual who keeps four or fewer female dogs for breeding purposes on one premises must be subject to the regulation of category A licence or "small licence" ― other residents in the building will notice the case and they may dislike it or consider it inappropriate, and then they will lodge complaints. We asked whether the authorities would revoke the licence upon receipt of complaints, the Government did not give any response nor an answer to the question. By then, the licence concerned may be revoked, and it may eventually prompt all residents of the building to oppose dog-keeping and dog-keeping will be prohibited. When other residents are affected, they cannot but abandon their dogs on the street or send them to animal concern groups. The Government had not considered the terms and conditions for issuance of licences in a careful manner, so when we raised the said questions, they seemed to be awakened from their dreams and said that they did not know about such arrangement in the Deed of Mutual Covenant of buildings. The authorities are creating problems instead of solving problems.

I am not opposing legislation across the board. I just think that in view of the pressing schedule now and the level of preparedness of the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department (AFCD), and the division of the public in supporting and opposing the Regulation, will it be appropriate to pass the Regulation? Those people who support the Regulation think that some kind of regulation is better than none. Also, the new Regulation has its merits, that is, increased penalty on maltreatment of animals and the prohibition of purchase of animals by people under 16 ― though I think this provision will not be very effective, for parents may make the purchase for their children, as in the case of a five-year-old child who will not buy a dog himself. On the other hand, many people oppose the Regulation. The number of people participating in the march for protecting animal rights may exceed the number participating in the march to strive for democracy. Even people who are politically apathetic most of the times feel anxious when they learn that the Government is riding roughshod over public opinions to pass the "small licences" for pet breeding. Actually, many people do not understand this issue clearly, and when the public is not clear about an issue, what should Members do?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12503

Some may ask, "'Slow Beat', are you simply filibustering? I have to explain that a filibuster cannot be carried out at this stage, for the "negative vetting" procedure has been adopted. Once the deadline or "survival time" expires ― for that is the day on which the Regulation will be automatically passed and comes into effect ― filibuster cannot be carried out, though Members may freely express their views at the Council meeting on 13, 14 and 15 July. The last day of meeting is 15 July and there will not be additional meetings. Am I right? Members do not know whether the motion will be processed. Even if the Council can commence the debate on the motion, Members may at most speak till the end of the meeting, when the buzzer sounds at 12 o'clock midnight. We may not even have the chance to vote before we go home, and the Regulation will be passed automatically. Hence, this is an extremely undesirable approach.

Certainly, we are now only exerting our level best. We are lucky to have the motion on extending the period for amendment proposed today. We hope to use the few weeks of extension to persuade the Government into withdrawing the Regulation. We will be pleased if the implementation of the Regulation will be postponed, not to mention withdrawal. In my view, a responsible government should not take advantage of the timing for legislation, neither should it make use of the procedures to enable an ambiguous piece of legislation to come into effect. Worse still, the authorities try to play the innocent and express their helplessness by saying that the chick will come out from the egg when the time comes. Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, it is really undesirable. Even if Members wish to explain the justifications for supporting and opposing the Regulation or to have more rounds of debate, they do not have the time to do so.

Hence, when the new term starts in October, the fairest approach is to start all over again. Actually, we have repeated this procedure many times. We are not trying to cripple the legislation. We all consider that some regulation is better than none, yet the problem is that there is only regulation but no monitoring. The authorities have set down a lot of rules but they fail to monitor. Take the training requirement of licensees as an example. I asked the Government about it last time and the answer of the Government was ambiguous. It just said that applicants would have to attend a course lasting for a few hours and watch a video, and then they could be granted the licence (The buzzer sounded) …

12504 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016

MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): President, I rise to speak in support of extending the period for amending the Public Health (Animals and Birds) (Animal Traders) (Amendment) Regulation 2016 (the Regulation) and the Specification of Public Offices (Amendment) Notice 2016 (the Notice) to 13 July. I believe the motion is going to be supported by most of the Members and passed. Otherwise, I can only choose to vote for the two resolutions to be put forward by Ms Claudia MO to either repeal the Regulation and the Notice or amend the Regulation.

President, why is it so? My speech will surely somehow touch upon some matters of principle or details to explain why I support the relevant subsidiary legislation and why it is necessary to extend the period for amendment to 13 July to fight for more time for Members to discuss with the Government parts of the subsidiary legislation which are regarded by several animal protection organizations as unclear, vague or inadequately explained. Certainly, I also look forward to the Government making some adjustments. These are actually the reasons cited by some Honourable colleagues earlier.

President, at present, there is no cap on the application for breeding licences under the Public Health (Animals and Birds) Ordinance, and that is the gravest concern to us and animal protection organizations. As a Member said earlier, private dog farm has become a very serious problem. With the amendment exercise, the cruelty and inhuman treatment sustained by cats and dogs will spread around the residential areas across Hong Kong, Kowloon and the New Territories. Given the low threshold set out by the Government for granting of licences, applicants are actually only required to take a class of 24 hours, eight of which is dedicated to watching video clips. They may not be able to acquire enough knowledge about private breeding through this 24-hour class. Therefore, when residential or private breeding is allowed following the completion of the amendment exercise, we are extremely worried about the prospect of inbreeding, hereditary diseases or serious undermining of animal rights in the future. The Government's amendment exercise seeks to better protect animal rights, but its vagueness may work to the contrary. Hence, we support extending the period for amendment to 13 July to fight for more time for discussion with the Government.

President, another reason is that breeding activities are now extensively carried out on many private dog farms and animals are not satisfactorily treated, as Dr CHIANG Lai-wan mentioned. I hope to drive home an essential principle, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12505 that is, any life, be it a human being or an animal, should not be used as a "breeding machine" for the sake of business gains. Given the policy that encourages the adoption of animals, the Government should proceed closer towards a better goal of "zero animal trading" over the course of the amendment exercise and in future regulation. That is the way we should go rather than seeking to relax the existing regulation, an option that will not lead to better protection of animal rights.

President, a public hearing was held in this Council on 14 June. Of the 46 animal protection organizations attending, 32 were against the current amendment exercise and eight were in favour of it, so 80% of them had expressed strong views. On 30 April, a procession on animal conservation took place in Hong Kong. The event was actually held concurrently in Hong Kong, Macao and Taiwan, with Hong Kong alone reporting a turnout of 1 400, a historic high. The legislation came on the heels of more than six to seven years of efforts, and many organizations looked forward to it eagerly. They should have been glad about the introduction of the amendment exercise by the Government, yet given the vagueness of some of the provisions, it is hard for them to accept it from the bottom of the heart, so they hope to continue the negotiation with the Government through this Council. This is precisely the reason why I support extending the period for amending the subsidiary legislation.

President, let me put forward one more justification. Some animal protection organizations are worried that only seven officers will be responsible for inspection after the current amendment exercise of the Government. Come to think about this. After the Regulation is passed, private breeding will be allowed in the residential premises around us, will seven officers suffice in effecting suitable monitoring? An easy projection is that the number is surely not enough. How are they going to monitor the activities in private residential premises, estates or public rental housing units of different sizes? The threshold is already low enough to allow private breeding, whereas the Buildings Department does not have enough staff to inspect the unauthorized building works and rooftop structures in different places of Hong Kong or the New Territories now. Why do we support or allow the Government to amend the legislation through the negative vetting procedure to end up with difficulties in regulation by the Government?

President, I have once chaired an owners' corporation for nine years and served as its secretary for four, and I am still engaged in corporation work. Dogs are not allowed in many of the private or Home Ownership Scheme (HOS) 12506 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 estates in Hong Kong, whereas dogs or pets are allowed in some; it is also stipulated in some of the deeds of mutual covenant that flat owners may be asked to stop raising their small to medium-sized dogs or animals after complaints from two or more neighbours are received. President, in receiving and answering questions over the meetings with animal protection organizations, the public hearing or during the discussion or debate with Members, the Government has all along failed to give a clear account of how the law and regulation will be enforced under these circumstances. If a person has successfully obtained a category A licence for private breeding at his home in an HOS or private housing estate but is then told by the management company of his building or the owners' corporation or committee that he cannot raise the pets anymore due to the complaints from neighbours, will the Government recover the licence, delay the enforcement of regulation, and how will it deal with the living animals being raised or bred in his home? President, the authorities have not given any clear explanation.

Therefore, we must and should support extending the period for amending the subsidiary legislation to 13 July to allow more time for scrutiny by this Council and discussion with the Government, instead of dealing in a rush with the subsidiary legislation which in my opinion will only give rise to extensive private animal breeding towards the end of the final session of the current term. This is an approach I consider far from satisfactory. The Government's move will create another group with vested interests, who will put animals into use like "breeding machines" for the pursuit of gains. The emergence of such a group will pose difficulties to the future work of protecting animal rights in Hong Kong.

President, as a new Member, I was told right after taking office by some senior Members that it was the Government's practice to submit a large number of Bills in the third or fourth session of every term of this Council, such that the Bills could be passed amid our inability to dedicate enough time to scrutinizing them. This is surely the case of the current Regulation. Moreover, the negative vetting procedure, which dispenses with any voting, is absolutely not satisfactory.

We are now making a little effort, hoping to fight for more time to persuade the Government into giving clearer explanations and enacting the regulation in greater detail, such that the worse scenario of private animal breeding that may arise after the amendment exercise can be kept under control. Of course, I personally also look forward to the Government adjusting its position on the policy to walk closer towards the goal of "zero animal trading" and its LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12507 continuation of the existing policy advocacy of encouraging the adoption of animals and relevant direction of work. Only through this can the rights of animals be really protected.

With these remarks, President, I hope Honourable colleagues will support extending the period for amending the relevant subsidiary legislation.

MR CHAN HAK-KAN (in Cantonese): President, I speak in support of Mr Tommy CHEUNG's resolution to extend the period for amending the Public Health (Animals and Birds) (Animal Traders) (Amendment) Regulation (the Amendment Regulation) 2016 to 13 July 2016.

President, you have heard the speeches delivered by Members from both sides just now. Basically, the great majority of Members who spoke supported extending the period. However, there are actually voices both for and against the Amendment Regulation and the differences in opinion between both sides are also very great. For this reason, I think more time is needed to allow people on both sides to express their views to the Government and the legislature to communicate more with the Government. I personally think that both people who support and oppose the Amendment Regulation are actually all concerned about animal rights and they care about animal welfare. However, this is actually a debate between idealism and pragmatism.

I personally also support replacing trading with adoption but animal trading actually exists in society and it is also very difficult for us to impose a ban all of a sudden. We can see that friends in the idealistic camp consider that animal trading should be reduced to zero at one stroke, but friends who are more pragmatic believe that at present, legislation should be enacted to regulate animal breeding, in particular, dog breeding, because having regulations in place is surely better than otherwise. Mr CHAN Chi-chuen also presented this viewpoint just now and another viewpoint voiced by him, with which I fully agree, is that we are very much concerned about the Government putting in place regulations without enforcing them. However, may I ask how, without any legislation or regulations, one can exercise any oversight?

Just now, many Honourable colleagues pointed out the inadequacies in the legislation. To some extent, I agree with them. For example, they said that breeding animals for trading was immoral and illegitimate and under the present 12508 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 legislation proposed by the Government, it is stipulated that the so-called category A licences shall be issued to the people concerned after they have completed certain courses, so that they can carry out animal trading or breeding, and this is actually to legitimize something illegitimate. This is their argument. However, other people think that such a measure is intended to impose regulation on something that is not regulated. Herein lies the difference between the two sides and either of them cannot convince the other. In view of this, is more time not needed for discussions?

At the same time, some people who support this piece of legislation point out that it is actually a step forward. Let me cite an example. In the past, in respect of some large-scale dog farms that treated animals inhumanely and continued to carry out breeding, what could the Government do? It could only impose a fine of $1,000. However, if this piece of legislation is passed, the Director of Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation will have the power to revoke their licences, so does this not represent some sort of progress? In addition, the legislation stipulates that children under 16 years of age cannot buy or sell animals, so does this not also represent some sort of progress? Here, Members can see the views of both sides.

We think that it is actually not at all appropriate to come to a conclusion so quickly. Therefore, if we can extend as far as possible the period for making amendments through the motion, so that people in the idealistic and pragmatic camps can sit down to have discussions and eventually reach a consensus, we think this is desirable, which is surely better than one side lambasting the other side and the other side hitting back. I think this is pointless and the best thing is for Members and the Government to sit down at the table for discussions. As some Honourable colleagues said just now, there are quite a lot of items on our Agenda and if we can buy some scope with time or use time to exchange for a consensus, I believe we are absolutely willing to do so.

For this reason, I have spoken in support of Mr Tommy CHEUNG's resolution. Thank you, President.

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

(No Member indicated a wish to speak)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12509

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Tommy CHEUNG, do you wish to speak again?

(Mr Tommy CHEUNG indicated that he did not wish to speak)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Mr Tommy CHEUNG be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

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

(No hands raised)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority respectively of each of the two groups of Members, that is, those returned by functional constituencies and those returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, who are present. I declare the motion passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Members have already been informed, as Mr Tommy CHEUNG's motion to extend the period for amending the aforesaid two items of subsidiary legislation has been passed, Ms Claudia MO has withdrawn her motions on these two items of subsidiary legislation.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Second motion: To extend the period for amending the Public Health and Municipal Services (Fees and Charges) (Museums) (Amendment) Regulation 2016, which was laid on the Table of this Council on 25 May 2016.

I now call upon Dr CHIANG Lai-wan to speak and move the motion.

12510 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016

PROPOSED RESOLUTION UNDER SECTION 34(4) OF THE INTERPRETATION AND GENERAL CLAUSES ORDINANCE

DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): President, in my capacity as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Public Health and Municipal Services (Fees and Charges) (Museums) (Amendment) Regulation 2016 (the Subcommittee), I now move a motion.

At the House Committee meeting on 27 May 2016, Members agreed to form a subcommittee to study the subsidiary legislation set out in the motion. As the Subcommittee needs more time to carry out its scrutiny work, I implore Members to support the motion to extend the scrutiny period of the aforementioned subsidiary legislation to 13 July 2016.

Dr CHIANG Lai-wan moved the following motion:

"RESOLVED that in relation to the Public Health and Municipal Services (Fees and Charges) (Museums) (Amendment) Regulation 2016, published in the Gazette as Legal Notice No. 84 of 2016, and laid on the table of the Legislative Council on 25 May 2016, the period for amending subsidiary legislation referred to in section 34(2) of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance (Cap. 1) be extended under section 34(4) of that Ordinance to the meeting of 13 July 2016."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Dr CHIANG Lai-wan be passed.

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

(No Member indicated a wish to speak)

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

(Members raised their hands)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12511

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

(No hands raised)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority respectively of each of the two groups of Members, that is, those returned by functional constituencies and those returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, who are present. I declare the motion passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Andrew LEUNG will move three motions under Rule 49E(2) of the Rules of Procedure.

First motion: To take note of the Census and Statistics (2016 Population Census) Order and the Fifth Technical Memorandum for Allocation of Emission Allowances in Respect of Specified Licences, which are included in Report No. 8/15-16 of the House Committee laid on the Table of this Council.

Second motion: To take note of the Legislative Council Ordinance (Amendment of Schedule 5) Order 2015 and the Maximum Amount of Election Expenses (Legislative Council Election) (Amendment) Regulation 2015, which are included in Report No. 9/15-16 of the House Committee laid on the Table of this Council.

Third motion: To take note of the Immigration (Unauthorized Entrants) (Amendment) Order 2016, which is included in Report No. 21/15-16 of the House Committee laid on the Table of this Council.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Council shall deal with the first motion now. I will first call upon Mr Andrew LEUNG to move the motion. The debate will then be divided into two sessions.

The first session is to debate the Census and Statistics (2016 Population Census) Order; and the second session is to debate the Fifth Technical Memorandum for Allocation of Emission Allowances in Respect of Specified Licences. Each Member may only speak once in each session and for up to 15 minutes each time.

12512 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016

In each session, I will first call upon the chairman of the subcommittee formed to scrutinize the relevant subsidiary legislation or instrument to speak, to be followed by other Members. Finally, I will call upon the relevant public officer to speak.

The second session will start immediately after the relevant public officer has spoken in the first session. The debate on this motion will come to a close after the public officer has spoken in the second session. The motion will not be put to vote.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now call upon Mr Andrew LEUNG to move the motion.

MOTION UNDER RULE 49E(2) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE

MR ANDREW LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, in my capacity as Chairman of the House Committee, I move the motion as printed on the Agenda under Rule 49E(2) of the Rules of Procedure to enable Members to debate the following two items of subsidiary legislation and other instruments included in Report No. 8/15-16 of the House Committee on Consideration of Subsidiary Legislation and Other Instruments:

(i) Census and Statistics (2016 Population Census) Order; and

(ii) Fifth Technical Memorandum for Allocation of Emission Allowances in Respect of Specified Licences.

Thank you, President.

Mr Andrew LEUNG moved the following motion:

"That this Council takes note of Report No. 8/15-16 of the House Committee laid on the Table of the Council on 16 December 2015 in relation to the subsidiary legislation and instrument(s) as listed below:

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12513

Item Number Title of Subsidiary Legislation or Instrument

(1) Census and Statistics (2016 Population Census) Order (L.N. 208/2015)

(2) Fifth Technical Memorandum for Allocation of Emission Allowances in Respect of Specified Licences (S.S. No. 5 to Gazette No. 43/2015)."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Mr Andrew LEUNG be passed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): We now proceed to the first session to debate the Census and Statistics (2016 Population Census) Order.

Members who wish to speak on this item of subsidiary legislation will please press the "Request to speak" button.

MS CYD HO (in Cantonese): In my capacity as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Census and Statistics (2016 Population Census) Order, I now report on the deliberations of the Subcommittee.

The Census and Statistics (2016 Population Census) Order (the Order) specifies the relevant matters for the 2016 Population By-census (the By-census), including the implementation date and the data topics to be obtained, and so on. The Subcommittee has held three meetings to discuss the Order with the Government, and received views from deputations.

Some members consider that data topics on sexual minorities should be included in the By-census. For example, the answer options of "third sex" and "same-sex partners" should be respectively included in questions regarding "sex" and "marital status", thereby enabling the Government to grasp the situations of sexual minorities in Hong Kong and assisting it in formulating the relevant policies and legislation. Noting that the Census and Statistics Department (C&SD) has indicated during the discussion on the By-census at the Panel on Financial Affairs in December 2013 that it was considering collecting information 12514 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 on transgender and transsexual persons, and same-sex cohabitation relationship in the census, members have queried why the Department eventually did not include such data topics.

However, some members do not support including data topics on sexual minorities. They subscribe to the C&SD's explanation that as the By-census is a compulsory survey, respondents may not be willing to provide true information about such complicated and sensitive issues relating to sexual minorities. The mandatory requirement will cause difficulties to such respondents. And given that the census officers are mostly temporary workers or students, they may not possess the necessary skills.

The C&SD clarifies that after further research and consultation with professionals and academia in the relevant field and sexual minorities groups, the C&SD has decided not to include data topics on sexual minorities in the By-census. The C&SD has advised that respondents who have registered their same-sex marriage in other jurisdictions may choose the option "others (please specify)" when answering the question on their "relationship to the household head" and provide specifications, such as same-sex partners. When answering the question on "sex", respondents may provide, based on self-identification, the answer option that is deemed most suitable by themselves. If the respondents provide the answers that they believe to be true to the aforesaid two questions, they will not attract any legal liability. The Subcommittee has stressed the need for the C&SD to provide necessary training to census officers to ensure they will explain the details clearly to respondents in facilitating the latter in choosing the appropriate answers for these two questions.

Some members have suggested including questions on disabilities and chronic diseases in the By-census in order to assist the Government in formulating policies and measures relating to the ageing population. The C&SD has pointed out that it had conducted a thematic household survey on people with disabilities and chronic diseases throughout 2013, which had provided credible statistics on the subject.

In the light of suggestions by the Subcommittee, the C&SD has agreed to consider the feasibility of including an option "Rehabus" for the questions on the mode of transport to place of study or place of work in the By-census questionnaire, and considered providing a finer classification for countries in the Middle East for the answer options on nationality in consultation with the Security Bureau and other relevant persons or organizations. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12515

The Subcommittee supports promoting the use of e-questionnaires to respondents in the By-census, and has examined the relevant data security measures and privacy of data. Members have urged the C&SD to formulate appropriate measures to protect the privacy of respondents' personal data. The C&SD has undertaken to consult the Office of Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data on the privacy concerns, and agreed to provide an information paper to the relevant panel(s) of the Legislative Council the soonest possible upon completion of the By-census reporting the disposal arrangement for about 6 500 mobile tablets used in the By-census.

The Subcommittee notes that in the Order, "occupant" is defined to mean, among other things, "a person who has reached 15 years of age at the census reference moment", and "census reference moment" means "3 am on 30 June 2016". Such a definition differs from section 3 of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance, which calculates the years of age only from the date of birth. The C&SD has advised that "census reference moment" is required for determining whether a person satisfies the statistical definition of "Hong Kong Resident Population", and defining a number of matters for the census, but will not affect the method that a person's years of age is calculated from the date of birth. The Government has agreed to review the application of "census reference moment" to the definition of "occupant" in the next census exercise.

Both the Subcommittee and the Administration will not propose any amendment to the Order.

President, the following are my personal views on the implementation of the By-census. In fact, we will conduct two population censuses at ten-year intervals. One of them is a complete population census, while the other is a by-census during which 10% of households will be randomly selected for survey. In the past, the Government included questions on "housing conditions" in population censuses, and I remember that respondents would be asked whether they lived in public or private housing; if they lived in private housing, whether they were tenants or owners; and if they were owners, whether they had paid off their mortgages. At that time, the Government explained that such questions were asked for the purpose of formulating housing policies, and we accepted its explanation.

In fact, taking the opportunity of population census to ask for such information so as to facilitate the Government's future policymaking can be regarded as an appropriate measure which is cost-effective and worth 12516 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 consideration. In 2012 when this term of office started, the C&SD discussed the by-census to be conducted with us for the first time. At that time, we heard C&SD officers propose of their own accord ― I must stress that they did so of their own accord ― that a question on respondents' sexual orientation, partners or marital status should be included in the By-census. Members promoting equal rights for people of different sexual orientations certainly welcomed it. At that time, we even stood in the Government's shoes to consider whether sensitive questions were covered in the questionnaires. Care should also be taken when asking the questions as homosexuals who have not come out actually do not wish to answer them in the presence of their family members. So, when asking such questions, do we need to adopt the method for finding out details about Mainland children in the past, putting some film cylinders in a black cloth bag for respondents to draw one before answering "Yes" or "No", and the census officers might take their time to fill out the information afterwards?

However, unfortunately, after the resumption of this Session, the C&SD advised us that the relevant situation would not be covered in the survey given the sensitivity of such information. In fact, we already reminded the authorities of the sensitivity of such information long ago, and we had to try to resolve it. Whenever problems arise, we should find solutions. A pet phrase of public officers is that there are always more solutions than problems. We should not be stopped by the problems that come our way, should we? But we feel sorry for it. Has the Government made an about-turn and decided not to support equal rights for people of different sexual orientations, so they have now even withdrawn the initiative they once actively proposed? Certainly, Members in the Legislative Council supporting equal rights for people of different sexual orientations, including Mr CHAN Chi-chuen and me, as well as Members from other political parties and groupings, are eager to obtain some data from the by-census. With accurate data, we will be able to know the size of population affected by the Government's formulation or otherwise of a policy in the future.

C&SD officers have certainly advanced a great deal of reasons to explain why they have made an about-turn, withdrawn this question and decided not to collect such statistics. According to his explanation, given that respondents are required to give true answers under the primary legislation, if they give false answers because of the sensitivity of information or reluctance to come out, they will break the law and commit a criminal offence. He sounded as if he was considerate to them, withdrawing the question so as to prevent them from attracting criminal liabilities. But in fact, the question proposed by us serves to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12517 obtain information of persons registered as partners or spouses outside Hong Kong, which is an objective fact instead of subjective feelings. Upon registration of same-sex partnership or marriage overseas, such information is actually readily accessible in the place of registration. Hence, the sensitivity issue may not arise.

However, the Government firmly refuses to do so. In that case, how can we make any compromise? We therefore asked the C&SD to show us the questionnaire, and found that there were nearly 40 questions. At the end, our compromise was that the question on respondents' relationship to household head would be asked in the last item M, that is, item 13 "Miscellaneous", so that respondents may declare in "Miscellaneous" whether they are the same-sex partner of the household head or one of the parties of marriage registered overseas. Certainly, this is just a compromise but it is actually a terrible insult thrown into the face of same-sex partners or one of the parties of same-sex marriage registered. Why are heterosexual partners formally and rightfully placed as the first item, while same-sex partners are placed last as the "Miscellaneous" item even if they have been formally and rightfully registered through a statutory procedure? Such a practice has actually deeply hurt the feelings of people of different sexual orientations.

Nevertheless, given that it is a small step forward, though at a slow pace, we accept the relevant arrangements for the time being. But we will call on homosexual groups to tell more homosexuals by all means that when they are selected for the household survey, it is most important for them to cast away their fear. They should gather up their guts and courage to declare their sexual orientation and their marriage or partnership. And most important of all, they should live real and face their true self honestly. Recently, we have seen that when Mr LAM Wing-kee spoke out the truth, his pressure eased off as he got a taste of what freedom and honesty were. Similarly, homosexuals also face with such a predicament. But we see that many homosexuals who have come out actually enjoy life more than ever.

The Commissioner for Census and Statistics has advised us that if a survey on the profile of population of different sexual orientations is to be conducted, we may ask the bureaux to commission them to conduct a thematic household survey. Hence, as the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau is in charge of human rights policies, it is duty-bound to take the initiative to commission the C&SD to conduct a thematic household survey. We hope that someday, the Government will take a step forward under the pressure of the community at 12518 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 large. As for the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC), President, although I do not expect much from the new EOC Chairman, generally speaking, I believe EOC comprises many who are committed to upholding equal opportunities and anti-discrimination, thereby enabling it to keep promoting anti-discrimination.

In addition, President, I have to point out why some members subscribe to the remark made by the Government now, indicating that given the sensitivity of information, they dare not talk about it. In fact, when sexual orientations have become a taboo topic, we are actually admitting that discrimination does exist in society. If there is no discrimination, why do people dare not talk about it? For example, a person needs not feel embarrassed even if he is less than five feet tall. What is wrong with being short? Or suppose someone is six feet eight inches tall. Since it is a fact, he can just feel free to tell others or fill in the information accordingly. But if someone dares not disclose one of his characteristics, actually we can see that the community demonstrates discrimination, rejection or even hostility against such a characteristic. We should spare no effort in eliminating such a phenomenon. Through enactment of anti-discrimination legislation, everyone, irrespective of their sexual orientation or other characteristics, will no longer run away from themselves, nor will they run away or keep it a secret from others. In this way, we will see more honesty in society, and people will enjoy more freedom and feel more at ease. In this connection, I urge the Government to take a step forward, and our community organizations will also keep promoting equal opportunities. Thank you, President.

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): President, the sexual minorities and groups concerned about the interests of sexual minorities in Hong Kong hold expectations on population censuses. They hope that one day, the Government will indeed take the initiative to compile statistics on the population of people of different sexual orientations and gender identification in society. We often ask what the actual number of people of different sexual orientations is in Hong Kong. Actually I have no idea, and I do not know how to answer this question either. Some people say it is one tenth of the population, and some others say a conservative estimate is 3% to 6%, but these are only figures derived from reference to the information of different places. Never has Hong Kong done any large-scale research and statistics on the population of sexual minorities. We certainly understand that it is difficult to compile statistics on the population of sexual minorities. There are many technical problems, including whether they LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12519 are willing to answer questions, whether they will have any fears, feel embarrassed, and so on. However, I would like to tell the Government that no matter what, the Government must take the first step. It has to figure out a way to assess and obtain these data. The Government often says that the data obtained from population censuses can help it formulate the relevant policies and laws. If the Government grasps no knowledge of the existence of a certain group in society, or if it just roughly knows that it exists but does not have any statistical information, it will be difficult to formulate any policy or even draw up any law.

The sexual minorities are like living in a dark world or, in our words, living in a closet. They exist, but no one cares about them. Here, of course, I am referring to the Government because without any figures or data, it can neither formulate any policy nor inject any resources, and we cannot strive for any change. For this reason, before the 2016 Population By-census (the By-census) is conducted, we should really give it some thoughts. Even if not much can be done, we should still do something. Even if we cannot make a giant stride, we should still take a baby step forward.

At first the Census and Statistics Department (C&SD) gave us some hope about whether something more could be done. As stated by Ms Cyd HO just now, the Government's reason is that given the mandatory nature and statutory effect of the population census, anyone who makes a false declaration, that means providing information dishonestly, may have to bear criminal liability. The Commissioner for Census and Statistics has especially spent an afternoon with us for a relevant discussion. Keenly interested in this subject, he asked whether such work could be carried out in another survey of a smaller scale if it could not be done in the population census. However, here a problem will arise. When such a survey is conducted, it will not be decided by the C&SD. Instead, it will be led by a Policy Bureau, so there must be a Policy Bureau willing to inject resources before it can be carried out.

In respect of this by-census, we have proposed two directions. As mentioned by Ms Cyd HO, we wish to assess objective facts including marital status. Moreover, can there be a third option for gender?

Let me first talk about the issue of gender identification. To the Government, there are only two genders: male or female. If someone has undergone a surgery and replaced his identity card, he will become a member of the other gender. Hence, there should be no difficulty in making his option 12520 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 because in theory, no one's gender is in between the two sexes. This is very old mentality. Now regarding this subject of gender identity, if we take a look at the European and American societies, we will find that even the offer of "others" as the third option is not detailed enough. Certainly, the gender of some people who apply for passports in overseas countries may be "X", that means neither "M" nor "F". Such cases objectively exist. In my view, during the collection of information, the authorities should try to collect such data. Even if it is considered that the number is small and will not help or affect the policy, it is actually a kind of respect to the transgender persons we are talking about. They should be given this option. If someone really does not identify himself as "male" or "female", how should he answer the question? Can he refuse to answer this question? Is he provided with sufficient room for reflecting his status truthfully?

The question about marital status is even more ridiculous. The following question arose during our discussion. Suppose I got married overseas ― many overseas places such as the United States and the United Kingdom allow same-sex marriage, though it is not allowed in Hong Kong ― if I am married and I have a husband, how should I complete the questionnaire after returning to Hong Kong? During our discussion, the Government said this kind of marriage was not legal in Hong Kong, so he should fill in "single". However, a married gay man said that he is in fact married. If he fills in "single" as required by the authorities, it seems to do injustice to his conscience. If he fills in "married", is he lying? If he is lying, will it attract any liability in law? At first the Government did not reply very well, as though it was advising him to lie or telling him not to tell the truth. Later, the C&SD indicated that an explanatory note would be included in the reporting guidelines of the By-census to state that for the purposes of the By-census, "married" refers to persons married to the opposite sex. Hence, respondents who have registered their same-sex marriage in other jurisdictions may answer by choosing the option "never married". If the respondents provide answers which they believe to be true, they will not be regarded as having contravened section 16 of the Census and Statistics Ordinance.

I think the authorities have put it this way to provide a so-called "leeway". That means as long as a person believes at that moment that he should fill in the questionnaire in this way, he probably will not commit an offence. This is an absurd part of the marriage institution in Hong Kong. That is to say, if I got married to a man overseas and obtained all the supporting documents such as the marriage certificate, I could still marry a woman and apply for many benefits with LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12521 the marital relationship after returning to Hong Kong. Of course, this may be beyond the scope of population censuses. Originally, I wished to propose a motion (which is now still pending) at the Legislative Council meeting to request the Government to examine the introduction of a civil union system. This is what the Government should face proactively. It is also a world trend. Moreover, a considerable percentage of members of the public have raised this request in Hong Kong.

What we can do now is to get into every nook and corner. If any law or policy involves same-sex relationship or the relationship of sexual minorities, we should express our demands and needs by all means. Such laws include those relating to health record sharing and domestic violence. Moreover, when we discuss the relationship of relatives or intimate relationship covered in the law about columbaria in the future, we will also need to handle and face this issue.

Now the final compromise solution, as mentioned by Ms Cyd HO just now, is to deal with it under the item "relationship to household head". If the household head and the respondent are of the same sex, their relationship can be indicated as "others". This is a relatively indirect way to enable them to declare their relationship truthfully. President, actually the matter is not so complicated. If we go to the Facebook website and click "relationship status", we will see a lot of options such as "single", "in a relationship", "engaged", "married", "in a civil union" and "in a domestic partnership". There are also "divorced" and "widowed". In my view, the Government can further explore the approach of handling this issue in population censuses, compilation of statistics on the relevant situations or any government forms for completion by the public in the future.

Some Members have raised objection in the Subcommittee for a number of reasons. One of their points is that if statistics are compiled with these questions asked officially, it is like recognizing that there is no problem with this kind of relationship. I certainly do not think there is any problem. Taking tens of thousand steps backward, even if Members do not recognize the relationship of sexual minorities or different sexual orientations, it is unreasonable to refuse to compile statistics on their population on this ground because this group really and objectively exists and affects society. Moreover, it is not a small group. However, you have turned a blind eye to them and do not compile the relevant statistics on the grounds of dislike, since compiling such statistics is tantamount to recognizing, approving of and supporting them. Such arguments are 12522 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 ridiculous. To put it in a more extreme way, crimes need statistics too, do they not? Nowadays, having a different sexual orientation is certainly not any crime or disease. Rather, it is normal. Even for crimes or diseases, statistics should be compiled. How can anyone ask the Government not to compile statistics on the ground of dislike? Technical problems can be handled, discussed and resolved. Of course, many technical problems cited by the Government are concocted. For example, it said that as the temporary employees or students have only received basic training for statistics and research, they may not be able to deal with the complicated and sensitive matter of sexual minorities. However, how complicated and sensitive will it be? One side will merely ask questions while the other side will give answers. They are not supposed to lure or lead the respondents to give any particular reply.

Moreover, it has been mentioned in the Subcommittee that some people may not wish to disclose their same-sex relationship. This is also a concocted reason because if they got married through a certain system, be it same-sex marriage or what we call civil union or domestic partnership, it is open information which can be accessed at different places. Hence, how can we say that we think they will feel embarrassed or they do not wish to disclose it, so we had better not ask about it? If such logic holds, there may be a lot of things which should not be asked for fear that they may infringe upon privacy, but this cannot stand because, as we all understand, the data collected in population censuses are not meant to pinpoint the behaviour of individual persons or entities. Rather, it is meant for assisting the Government in the formulation of policies and research.

For this reason, we have expressed our strong views in the Subcommittee on this Order and hope that the Government will keep its promise in the future. I hope the C&SD and the relevant Policy Bureaux can proactively take a step forward if it is considered that it may not be suitable to do such work in the population census owing to such factors as technicalities and legal risks. I expect the Government to open its eyes and try to compile statistics on the population of sexual minorities, including those of different sexual orientations and gender identification. Certainly, there will be a discrepancy between the figures and reality. However, if we do not ever compile such statistics, we will never have any figures or data which can be used for the formulation of policies or laws.

I so submit.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12523

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

DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): President, the Census and Statistics (2016 Population Census) Order this time around seeks to direct the Commissioner for Census and Statistics to conduct a population by-census for Hong Kong. Earlier on, the two Members, Ms Cyd HO and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, expressed their aspirations regarding this issue, hoping to know the number of people who are sexual minorities in Hong Kong during the census. Both of them have long been siding with people who are sexual minorities, and I appreciate it. But when I look at it from the perspective of human rights, I think we must carefully consider if the population census should include questions on whether there is any sexual minority member in a household.

We have heard Ms Cyd HO's speech earlier, which said that the census is compulsory and legally effective. If respondents indicate that they are uncertain or choose not to answer in response to census officers' questions, it may easily constitute a criminal offence. If the respondents are really uncertain about whether there is any sexual minority member in their household or whether any member has a different sexual orientation, we can understand it to a certain extent. But in that case, will the respondents commit a criminal offence? And how can the respondents convince us that they really have no idea about it? Hence, I think the authorities should carefully consider these situations in order to prevent members of the public from inadvertently committing a criminal offence unawares.

In addition, according to some experts studying sexual minorities, those who are originally sexual minorities actually may not be sexual minorities all through their life. Some people may have different sexual orientations at a certain stage, but it may not last forever. We know that there are many such examples overseas, and there are also films based on similar themes, such as the recent movie named "The Danish Girl", in which the male lead loved his wife dearly when they got married, and they lived a happy life. But at the end, the male lead found that he was a sexual minority. This shows that different orientations may be demonstrated at different stages.

Certainly, some people clearly know that they are sexual minorities. But are they themselves reluctant to disclose it? I do not subscribe to Ms Cyd HO's remark that if the Government dares not talk about it in public, it indicates that 12524 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 discrimination does exist in society. Ms HO, this is not true. In fact, many people prefer keeping a low profile and are rather conservative. They also respect their personal privacy. Hence, they may not be willing to answer a stranger whether they are homosexuals or heterosexuals. From a certain perspective, I think whether a person is willing to come out in public and tell everyone his sexual orientation is a personal decision which we should respect.

In fact, we can see that nowadays, Hong Kong is actually an open society, in which a number of sexual minority groups are recruiting members. If some sexual minorities, knowing that there are such a large number of sexual minority groups in Hong Kong, are reluctant to join and participate in them, it proves that those people only enjoy their personal life, and may not necessarily come out. Be they sexual minorities, sexual majorities or what, there is simply no need for them to come forward today to tell us whether they are attracted to males, females or anything else. I think if such an approach is adopted, it will be a serious infringement of individuals' rights.

On the other hand, as I have mentioned earlier, it is understandable that family members may not be able to answer the relevant questions asked by census officers as they actually may not know the sexual orientation of other members of the family. But if someone is a sexual minority and actually has an intimate boyfriend or girlfriend but replies that there is no sexual minority in the household, I believe that person has surely committed a criminal offence in that case. Hence, in such circumstances, I hope we can treat it seriously and respect different people's sexual orientations. I shall stop here. Thank you.

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

(No Member indicated a wish to speak)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Members have already spoken in this session. I now call upon the Secretary for Financial Services and the Treasury to speak. This session will come to a close after the Secretary has spoken.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12525

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): President, first of all, I would like to thank the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Census and Statistics (2016 Population Census) Order (the Subcommittee), Ms Cyd HO, and members of the Subcommittee for their scrutiny work. The Census and Statistics (2016 Population Census) Order (the Order) came into effect on 17 December 2015.

The primary objective of the Order is to direct the Commissioner for Census and Statistics to take a population by-census for Hong Kong between 30 June and 2 August 2016. The 2016 population by-census is a large-scale statistical project which surveys one-tenth of the households throughout the territory or 300 000 households approximately. The detailed population information gathered will be of vital importance to the Government for planning and policy formulation, as well as to the commercial sector and academia for research purposes.

The 2016 population by-census will cover 45 data topics. We are very grateful for the precious comments provided by the Subcommittee and community members in the three Subcommittee meetings held last year. In the formulating process of the data topics for the 2016 population by-census, the Census and Statistics Department (C&SD) consulted different organizations, including various Government bureaux and departments, the Statistics Advisory Board, the Legislative Council, District Councils, relevant academic institutions and non-government organizations, and so on. In accessing different proposals, the C&SD has considered the feasibility in data collection and the accuracy of the collected information, and balance them against the load of information input of surveyed households. Some newly suggested items, including "Ability to read/write languages", "Hours of work", "Whether sub-divided units" and "Floor area of accommodation" will be added to the 2016 population by-census. We have also taken up the suggestions put forth by the Subcommittee to add the "Rehab bus" option to the "Mode of transport to place of work/study" topics and to further break down the options under the "Nationality" topic.

Meanwhile, the C&SD has also clarified to the Subcommittee the definition of "Sex" and "Marital status" in the population by-census, so that all interviewees, sexual minorities included, can clearly understand how to provide the above information.

12526 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016

During the discussion in the Subcommittee, the inclusion of topics relating to sexual minorities into the 2016 population by-census has been raised. But it has also met opposition from many, reflecting the considerable difference of opinion within the society now. Having regard to the fact that a considerable number of interviewees will be unwilling to disclose the relevant information, the C&SD considers the collection of such information in the population by-census unfeasible, after accessing the accuracy of the surveyed results in implementing the initiative and drawing reference from relevant practices in the population census conducted in other economies.

I so submit. Thank you, President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): We now proceed to the second session to debate the Fifth Technical Memorandum for Allocation of Emission Allowances in Respect of Specified Licences.

Members who wish to speak on this instrument will please press the "Request to speak" button.

MR KENNETH LEUNG: President, in my capacity as Chairman of the Subcommittee on Fifth Technical Memorandum for Allocation of Emission Allowances in Respect of Specified Licences, I wish to report on the work of the Subcommittee. I shall focus on the major issues considered by the Subcommittee.

The Subcommittee has held two meetings to discuss the Fifth Technical Memorandum with the Administration, including one meeting to receive views from deputations.

The purpose of the Fifth Technical Memorandum is to allocate for each emission year from 1 January 2020 the quantities of emission allowances for three specified pollutants, namely sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and respirable suspended particulates, for the electricity sector in Hong Kong. Compared with the emission allowances for 2019 under the Fourth Technical Memorandum, there will be a further tightening of 17% for both sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides, and 16% for respirable suspended particulates. The Subcommittee has no objection to the promulgation of the Fifth Technical Memorandum.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12527

On the scope of specified pollutants, the Subcommittee considers that the Administration should also set emission allowances for fine suspended particulates (that is, PM2.5) emitted from power plants, having regard to the potential adverse impact on public health arising from high concentrations of this pollutant in the air. The Administration advises that as there are no established and reliable methods for measuring the emission of fine suspended particulates from power plants, it is not practicable to set limits on such emissions at this stage.

As electricity generation is the largest source of local greenhouse gas emissions in Hong Kong, the Subcommittee has urged the Administration to de-carbonize emissions from electricity generation, and explore using the "carbon capture and storage" technology to measure and store carbon dioxide emitted from power plants. The Administration explains that there is currently no practicable technology available for controlling carbon emissions from power plants and such emissions can only be reduced by adjusting the fuel mix. Apart from the substantial energy and storage costs concerned, it is unlikely that the "carbon capture and storage" technology can be feasibly deployed having regard to the physical constraints in Hong Kong.

Since the projection of local electricity consumption is a key factor for determining the quantity of emission allowances, the Subcommittee has sought clarification on whether and how the emission allowances for a particular emission year can be rectified if the electricity demand has been under-estimated or over-estimated. The Administration advises that it has considered the best available information at the time of the review for projecting the latest electricity demand. The current mechanism already allows for review of the emission allowances at least once every two years, and tightening of the emission allowances where practicable.

The Subcommittee has explored whether the Fifth Technical Memorandum may incorporate incentives to encourage energy saving and use of more renewable energy (RE) by the power companies. The Administration points out that the Technical Memorandum is meant to control the emission of specified pollutants from power plants, whereas energy saving initiatives or development of RE by the power companies should be dealt with in the context of the Scheme of Control Agreements (SCAs) signed between the Government and the power companies.

12528 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016

Some members of the Subcommittee have suggested that the Administration may explore importing more nuclear power and using more low-sulphur coal for electricity generation, so as to relieve the pressure to increase electricity tariffs in the near future due to changes in the fuel mix towards a greater use of natural gas. The Administration has advised that there will be operational difficulties to cope with a higher level of nuclear power import beyond the current level. While using low-sulphur coal for power generation will generate less pollutant, it is not a sustainable solution in the long term taking into account the service life of existing coal-fired power generation units.

President, the following part of the speech carries my personal comments on the Fifth Technical Memorandum.

Electricity generation accounts for 68% of Hong Kong's annual carbon emissions. Therefore, while the Government tightens the control of emissions of sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxides and respirable suspended particulates from power plants, we must also deal with greenhouse gas emissions generated from the electricity sector.

As mentioned earlier in my report, the Administration explains that it is not currently feasible to employ "carbon capture and storage" technology to capture carbon emissions from power plants in Hong Kong. Instead, we could adjust the current fuel mix, that is, to curb carbon emissions at source.

Currently, coal makes up 53% of power generation in Hong Kong and as natural gas emits 50% less carbon dioxide than coal, there would be immediate reduction of carbon emissions if the use of coal is replaced by natural gas. Therefore, I believe that natural gas should be the major source of electricity generation in Hong Kong in the near and immediate term.

The Government has a target to reduce to the use of coal in power generation to 25% and increase the use of natural gas to 50%. While it is making progress to replace coal with natural gas, I believe that in the long run the use of fossil fuels should be minimized.

RE sources should gradually replace the use of fossil fuels in the future. Currently, the development of RE resources in Hong Kong is minimal. Although the Government has plans to make use of electricity generated from its LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12529 existing and planned waste treatment facilities, the estimated generated power would only account for 1% of the total generation.

Hence, besides utilizing waste-to-energy resources, other RE resources, such as solar, water heating and photovoltaic (PV) should also be developed. As a city with high density, I support the development of distributed RE systems in Hong Kong. It will generate clean and renewable electricity on site that can be directly utilized in buildings.

As energy is produced where it is used, there will be no energy loss due to transmission. There are also other benefits such as reducing demand over peak times and minimizing congestion on the entire grid.

The current capacity of the installed solar power system in Hong Kong is around 1 500 kW. To provide incentives for building owners to invest in RE installations, the small RE producers should be able to sell surplus power to the grid.

To do this, the Government should liaise a fair agreement with the power companies and the interested third party for grid connection. A fair on-grid price and proper technical, legal and safety arrangements would encourage distributed generation investments in Hong Kong.

Besides adjusting the fuel mix, there are other feasible measures that could be taken to reduce carbon emissions from the power sector. The current SCAs would expire in 2018. The Government should proactively discuss with the two power companies the terms of the new SCAs, adding provisions which would promote energy saving and improve energy efficiency.

Under the current SCAs, the power companies could easily achieve the energy saving target and enjoy an additional rate of return. I suggest that a more ambitious saving target should be adopted.

To prevent power companies from over-investing in building new plants, which will lead to a higher rate of return for power companies but higher tariff for customers, the Government should set a peak demand reduction target over years. In this case, if power companies achieve the target, they could enjoy an extra rate of return on newly-built plants; if not, the rate of return should be lowered.

12530 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016

One reason why the power companies may be reluctant to make investments in energy saving and energy efficiency measures is that it will compromise the need for building new plants, that is, lower the rate of return on average net fixed assets. To encourage power companies to make investments in energy saving and energy efficiency measures instead of building new plants, such investments can be counted as Average Net Fixed Assets when calculating the rate of return.

Besides providing incentives, the Government could set a target for power companies to make investments to increase energy efficiency in customer's buildings. There should be penalties if the companies fail to meet the target.

To recover the cost borne by power companies, an energy efficiency levy could be put on customer's bills. As energy efficiency is improved, the cost saved due to reduced energy consumption could offset the cost induced by the levy, and hence there will be no change in customer's bills in the end.

President, the Government has set a target to reduce its carbon intensity of 50% to 60% by 2020 compare with the 2005 level. To achieve this target, a more ambitious emission plan should be adopted. I would like to urge the Government to take the opportunity to negotiate with the power companies on adopting more innovative provisions for the new SCAs.

Thank you, President.

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

(No Member indicated a wish to speak)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Members have already spoken in this session. I now call upon the Secretary for the Environment to speak. This motion debate will come to a close after the Secretary has spoken.

SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT: President, I am grateful to the Honourable Kenneth LEUNG, the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Fifth Technical Memorandum for Allocation of Emission Allowances in Respect of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12531

Specified Licences, and also to other members who spent a lot of time on the detailed examination of the Technical Memorandum.

The Honourable Kenneth LEUNG was absolutely right to highlight three of the key points that were raised during the Subcommittee's scrutiny. The first point he brought up was about PM2.5. And as I said, we agree with him entirely and at this time, it is not possible for us to put a cap on PM2.5 emissions. This is also the case of the United States, and is the case of the European Union. However, of course, technology developments do advance, and we will keep a close watch on those developments.

The second point that the Honourable Kenneth LEUNG brought up was about carbon emissions. I think it is well known that the Government is looking at a target beyond 2020 to 2030. It is inevitable for us to make a substantial de-carbonization in Hong Kong and that we will have to look at further retirement of our coal-fired power generation fleet.

On the point about carbon emissions, we are planning to put out a new carbon emission target for Hong Kong for 2030. During that time, we will have to consider what we do with the remaining 25% of the electricity that comes from our coal-fired generation.

The third point that the Honourable Kenneth LEUNG brought up was about renewable energy. President, Members will remember that last year we put out a consultation paper about the electricity market and the future development of the electricity market. On that point, all the issues that I think the Honourable Kenneth LEUNG brought up about how to restructure the energy sector, so that we could have a higher level of renewable energy, have been addressed. And since I think it is generally known that we are in the middle of negotiations with the two power companies on the Scheme of Control Agreements for beyond 2018, I will not go into any details there.

The last point I want to make is about energy efficiency. Often, we talk about the importance of energy saving, and on this, we have set a target. We know some people think it is not an ambitious enough target, but actually I must say it is, because it requires us that by 2025, to reduce 6% the actual energy consumption in Hong Kong, which is very very substantial. I just want to say that Hong Kong ― a very high density city, a very busy economic centre ― our use of energy in this city is actually very, very large. But in any case, I think we have no problem with Members of the Chamber who obviously desire us to go 12532 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 much further. The Government set a target. We work on our own infrastructure. We are working with all the departments right now to look at energy saving, to look at carbon emissions and reduction. And we also ask the business sector and the general community to work together with us to save energy.

Now, the Honourable Kenneth LEUNG talked a lot about what he would like to see in the future, in the Scheme of Control Agreements and in carbon reduction. Since the Technical Memorandum essentially seeks to deal with air pollution from our existing power plants here, I will not go any further on the future system that we are looking at in terms of climate change, and in terms of switching away from burning coal. So, if I may be excused to go further into those issues, I will just end here, President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): In accordance with Rule 49E(9) of the Rules of Procedure, I will not put any question on the motion.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The Council shall deal with the second motion under Rule 49E(2) of the Rules of Procedure now: To take note of the Legislative Council Ordinance (Amendment of Schedule 5) Order 2015 and the Maximum Amount of Election Expenses (Legislative Council Election) (Amendment) Regulation 2015, which are included in Report No. 9/15-16 of the House Committee laid on the Table of this Council.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I will first call upon Mr Andrew LEUNG to speak and move the motion, and then call upon the chairman of the subcommittee formed to scrutinize the relevant items of subsidiary legislation, Mr Paul TSE, to speak, to be followed by other Members. Each Member (including the mover of the motion) may only speak once and may speak for up to 15 minutes. Finally, I will call upon the public officer to speak. The debate will come to a close after the public officer has spoken, and the motion will not be put to vote.

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

I now call upon Mr Andrew LEUNG to speak and move the motion.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12533

MOTION UNDER RULE 49E(2) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE

MR ANDREW LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, in my capacity as Chairman of the House Committee, I move the motion as printed on the Agenda under Rule 49E(2) of the Rules of Procedure to enable Members to debate on the following two items of subsidiary legislation included in Report No. 9/15-16 of the House Committee on Consideration of Subsidiary Legislation and Other Instruments:

― the Legislative Council Ordinance (Amendment of Schedule 5) Order 2015; and

― the Maximum Amount of Election Expenses (Legislative Council Election) (Amendment) Regulation 2015.

President, I so submit.

Mr Andrew LEUNG moved the following motion:

"That this Council takes note of Report No. 9/15-16 of the House Committee laid on the Table of the Council on 6 January 2016 in relation to the subsidiary legislation and instrument(s) as listed below:

Item Number Title of Subsidiary Legislation or Instrument

(1) Legislative Council Ordinance (Amendment of Schedule 5) Order 2015 (L.N. 225/2015)

(2) Maximum Amount of Election Expenses (Legislative Council Election) (Amendment) Regulation 2015 (L.N. 226/2015)."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Mr Andrew LEUNG be passed.

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

(No Member indicated a wish to speak)

12534 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now call upon the Secretary for Constitutional and Mainland Affairs to speak. The debate will come to a close after the Secretary has spoken.

SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): President, in preparation for the Legislative Council general election to be held in September this year, a review was conducted at the end of last year on the subsidy rate of the financial assistance for candidates and the election expenses limits for Legislative Council election. We propose after the review that starting from the 2016 Legislative Council general election, both the subsidy rate of the financial assistance for candidates and the election expenses limits for Legislative Council election will be adjusted on the basis of the estimated cumulative inflation rate from 2013 to 2016. The two items of subsidiary legislation are introduced to give effect to the proposed adjustments.

At the meeting of the Subcommittee formed to study the two items of subsidiary legislation, Members have focused their discussions on the basis adopted for adjusting the election expenses limits. For the current review, we have taken into account a host of factors which include the declared election expenses of contested candidates in the 2012 Legislative Council general election, the projected population change in Hong Kong, the number and boundaries of geographical constituencies, the estimated cumulative rate of increase in Composite Consumer Price Index, and so on. Taking into account the above considerations, we consider it appropriate and reasonable to adjust the election expenses limits for the 2016 Legislative Council general election on the basis of the estimated cumulative inflation rate from 2013 to 2016.

As for the subsidy rate of the financial assistance for candidates of Legislative Council election, some Members opined that the proposed increase in the subsidy rate would not be enough to meet the needs of contested candidates and suggested that it should be adjusted further upwards. I would like to reiterate that the spirit of the financial assistance scheme is to encourage more public-spirited candidates to participate in Legislative Council election, so that financial assistance may be given to candidates according to the level of support they received from the public, and that both the candidates and the Government should shoulder part of the election expenses. The Government has already LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12535 revised in 2012 the basis for calculating the financial assistance payable, so as to relax the maximum amount of financial assistance obtainable by contested candidates. We consider that under the existing financial assistance scheme, a proper balance has been struck between the policy objectives of encouraging more public-spirited candidates to participate in election and ensuring prudent use of public funds. We therefore consider that the current financial assistance system should be maintained, and that it is appropriate to adjust the subsidy rate on the basis of the estimated cumulative inflation rate from 2013 to 2016 as proposed under the two items of subsidiary legislation introduced.

Thank you, President. I so submit.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): In accordance with Rule 49E(9) of the Rules of Procedure, I will not put any question on the motion.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The Council shall deal with the third motion under Rule 49E(2) of the Rules of Procedure now: To take note of the Immigration (Unauthorized Entrants) (Amendment) Order 2016, which is included in Report No. 21/15-16 of the House Committee laid on the Table of this Council.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I will first call upon Mr Andrew LEUNG to speak and move the motion, and then call upon the chairman of the subcommittee formed to scrutinize the relevant item of subsidiary legislation, Mr IP Kwok-him, to speak, to be followed by other Members. Each Member (including the mover of the motion) may only speak once and may speak for up to 15 minutes. Finally, I will call upon the public officer to speak. The debate will come to a close after the public officer has spoken, and the motion will not be put to vote.

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

I now call upon Mr Andrew LEUNG to speak and move the motion.

12536 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016

MOTION UNDER RULE 49E(2) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE

MR ANDREW LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, in my capacity as Chairman of the House Committee, I move the motion as printed on the Agenda under Rule 49E(2) of the Rules of Procedure to enable Members to debate on the Immigration (Unauthorized Entrants) (Amendment) Order 2016 included in Report No. 21/15-16 of the House Committee on Consideration of Subsidiary Legislation and Other Instruments.

Mr Andrew LEUNG moved the following motion:

"That this Council takes note of Report No. 21/15-16 of the House Committee laid on the Table of the Council on 22 June 2016 in relation to the subsidiary legislation and instrument(s) as listed below:

Item Number Title of Subsidiary Legislation or Instrument

(2) Immigration (Unauthorized Entrants) (Amendment) Order 2016 (L.N. 66/2016)."

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Mr Andrew LEUNG be passed.

MR IP KWOK-HIM (in Cantonese): President, I speak in my capacity as the Chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration (Unauthorized Entrants) (Amendment) Order 2016 (the Subcommittee).

The Immigration (Unauthorized Entrants) (Amendment) Order 2016 (the Amendment Order) seeks to expand the scope of unauthorized entrants provided in Part VIIA of the Immigration Ordinance to include persons resident or formerly resident in Afghanistan, Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Nigeria, Pakistan, Somalia and Sri Lanka. Under the Amendment Order, arranging and assisting the smuggling of non-ethnic Chinese illegal immigrants from these eight countries to Hong Kong is subject to the offence provisions under Part VIIA.

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

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12537

While expressing support for the Administration's proposal, some Members expressed concern about why the scope of unauthorized entrants was not extended to all countries. The Administration advised that the Amendment Order was directed at syndicates arranging and assisting the smuggling of illegal immigrants from specified countries. Before proposing the list of countries to be covered under the Amendment Order, the Administration already analysed the profile of non-ethnic Chinese illegal immigrants and their continual trend in the past five years. After the Amendment Order comes into operation, over 99% of non-ethnic Chinese illegal immigrants will be covered under the Amendment Order.

Some Members were concerned about the effectiveness of the Amendment Order in achieving the desired deterrent effect against the smuggling of illegal immigrants into Hong Kong by smuggling syndicates, especially against the "snake heads" of the smuggling syndicates who might not have accompanied illegal immigrants in their passage to Hong Kong. The Administration has pointed out that anyone, including the crew, the owner and his agent who assisted unauthorized entrants in remaining in Hong Kong commits an offence and is liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for 14 years and a fine of $5 million.

Moreover, some Members were of the view that it would be more effective for the Administration and Mainland authorities to jointly combat the problem at source. Some Members urged the Administration to step up enforcement actions against illegal employment of illegal immigrants and non-refoulement claimants. At the same time, members had suggested that the Administration should explain Hong Kong's policy on non-ethnic Chinese illegal immigrants to the major origins of non-ethnic Chinese illegal immigrants.

Deputy President, the following are my personal views.

In recent years, the illegal immigrants' problem in Hong Kong is getting worse. The number of illegal immigrants has grown almost six times in four years, from 547 in 2011 to 3 819 in 2015. The monthly average is 420. The security of Hong Kong has reached an alarming level.

As my understanding goes, smuggling syndicates have been recruiting illegal immigrant workers in South East Asian countries, mainly from Pakistan, Bangladesh, India, and so on. They would be smuggled from their places of 12538 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 origin to the Mainland first, including Guangxi, Yunnan, Guangdong, and so on, for a brief stopover, and then they would find ways to come to Hong Kong. Smuggling syndicates would charge each illegal immigrant a smuggling fee of several dozen thousand dollars. This has become an emerging "criminal industry".

In order to combat the problem at source and address the concerns of Hong Kong people about this problem, at the "two sessions" (the annual sessions of the National People's Congress and the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference) held in this March, the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong's Hong Kong deputies to the National People's Congress and Hong Kong members of the National Committee of the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference put forward a motion to urge the SAR Government to enhance the co-operation with the Mainland authorities, such as the exchange of intelligence and joint enforcement actions in order to combat smuggling syndicates.

Deputy President, since April 2016, the Hong Kong Police has been conducting joint enforcement operations with relevant Mainland authorities to combat human smuggling at the boundary. According to the information that we have received, the operations were successful in just four months. According to the information as at 20 June, about 5 000 illegal immigrants had been apprehended. The success is remarkable for all to see.

As smuggling syndicates can make huge profits, many people are willing to break the law. Can law-enforcement agencies really eradicate smuggling activities in just a short period of time? I believe that smuggling activities cannot be totally eradicated due to the huge profits involved. Therefore, we consider that besides amending the subsidiary legislation this time around (This is also very important because if we clamp down on "snake heads", the incidence of human smuggling will be reduced), the Government should also conduct large-scale publicity work among residents living in black spots where illegal immigrants would land, such as Lantau Island and Sha Tau Kok residents. In this way, they would report to the authorities on any human smuggling activities and thus the authorities could further combat human smuggling activities.

The increase in the number of illegal immigrants has also given rise to the problem of bogus refugees. Whenever they are intercepted by the Police or staff of the Immigration Department, the majority of them would lodge LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12539 non-refoulement claims. But in reality, they are illegal immigrants, or bogus refugees, as we call them.

Deputy President, in order to achieve their goals, bogus refugees will try everything to slow down the vetting process of their non-refoulement claims; they will resort to every conceivable means to achieve such goals. According to the information provided by the Security Bureau, the most outrageous case in the past three years was delayed for 49 months. An analysis of the case shows that the person concerned submitted his claim form as late as four months after the screening commenced. In the 29 months that followed, the claimant failed to attend his screening interview repeatedly for various reasons, including poor psychiatric condition, but without medical proof. The screening interview was only completed 48 months after the screening procedure commenced.

It can be seen that these delaying tactics have caused great difficulties in the screening procedure. In this connection, the legislature has approved the addition of manpower request made by the Immigration Department in order to execute and expedite the work of combating such activities.

The example I have cited above is only the tip of the iceberg. I support the idea of "severe penalties in times of disorder". Therefore, I consider the amendment this time around necessary. I hope the Government will conduct a comprehensive review as soon as possible. Besides reviewing the legislation, the Government should also conduct a comprehensive review of the entire strategy and the measures and system about non-refoulement claims, so as to put a check on the abuse as well as the influx of illegal immigrants.

I so submit. Thank you, Deputy President.

DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, over the past three years, I have received many requests for assistance. As I remember, the first group of people who sought my assistance comprised residents of Chungking Mansions. They hoped that the Legislative Council could deal with the issue of torture claimants because the presence of such people had aroused law and order concerns in their communities. Around one year ago, several ethnic Indian jewellery businessmen living in Tsim Sha Tsui approached me for assistance. They even provided specific figures to show that they were the main targets of robbery over the previous two years. In their judgment, many crimes were 12540 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 probably committed by illegal immigrants. This year, the Government announced again the numbers of torture claimants, illegal immigrants and people remaining in Hong Kong, the related expenses and the possible problems with law and order. All this has aroused our concern. But actually, such cases have long been in existence.

We well understand the stances of certain organizations. But in my view, it is not correct for them to associate such cases with racial discrimination because those assistance seekers and victims in the same ethnic groups may honestly outnumber those ethnic Chinese victims. According to certain organizations, they merely want to segregate illegal residents and legal residents, so that they can live their lives and do business without any worries, and they have chosen to stay in Hong Kong ― in particular, some ethnic Indian and Pakistani people have stayed in Hong Kong for quite some time ― because they are fond of the safe environment of Hong Kong. But now, they think that Hong Kong is no longer a safe place, and they feel especially so in their social circles. Some of them have even said that if this problem cannot be solved, they will consider the withdrawal of their capital from Hong Kong.

They are discontented with the failure of the Security Bureau and the Police to actively handle their reported cases all along. They set out all the relevant cases before me, saying that despite the passage of several years, the Police had failed to solve the problems or arrest any culprits. They queried that the culprits had probably left Hong Kong or even absconded to their own countries. As the culprits have no identity in Hong Kong, police officers in Hong Kong are unable to arrest them.

So, such problems must be solved. First, I do not think the problem is an issue of race. We will of course support any rectification proposals put forth by the Government and the Secretary. For this reason, we will support the authorities' proposals of increasing the penalties on human smugglers and extending the coverage of the law to more countries. But can these proposals solve the problem at root? I have one question. We once asked various ethnic minority groups about this matter in order to understand the main reason why their fellow countrymen were attracted to Hong Kong. We also asked some representatives of these ethnic minorities in Hong Kong. An overwhelming majority of these people replied that if the Government could make it impossible for them to work illegally in Hong Kong, many people would not come here. The main reason is that they can work illegally in Hong Kong.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12541

Actually, such illegal immigrants have disguised themselves as genuine torture claimants. According to extensive media reports, some of them have stayed in Hong Kong for eight or nine years, and some of these people have taken up jobs, including the job of foreign domestic helpers. If their contracts of employment as foreign domestic helpers are not renewed upon expiry, they will advance torture claims immediately, so as to continue to work in Hong Kong. Some of my friends who work in the department responsible for processing torture claims have told me that they are really unable to complete the screening of all applications because as long as anyone claims that he may filful the torture claim criteria, he may not be deported from Hong Kong due to the relevant conventions.

In this regard, Hong Kong is actually quite generous, in the sense that we will offer them an allowance to meet their basic living and accommodation expenses. Once they are given such basic allowances, they will then seek illegal employment. All this is a great inducement to them. I once showed the Secretary an Indian advertisement given to me by my Indian friend. It promoted a one-stop service for coming to Hong Kong and an income of at least $8,000 a month would be guaranteed. But an agent fee equivalent to $15,000 was required. Members can see for themselves how attractive this business is to human smugglers.

When we stress the need to pass this piece of legislation which seeks to increase the penalties on human smugglers and extend the coverage of the law, we should not merely focus on combating illegal immigrants from Vietnam. But in no time, the media have reported that human smugglers are very smart as they will teach those people how to maneuver a boat themselves for the purpose of coming to Hong Kong. That means they are able to detect the legal loopholes very quickly. Can these legislative amendments alone achieve any actual effectiveness in plugging the loopholes and resolving those problems of concern to Hong Kong people? In my view, this is just like applying a thin layer of ointment and fails to "deal with the disease at root" ― eliminating the inducements. One inducement is that after being granted recognizance, they can work illegally in the market. This is the most important factor. While the government allowance of $3,000 a month may not be sufficient for them to cover all their expenses, they can work illegally as a means of increasing their incomes. I think we must squarely address the inducement of illegal employment.

12542 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016

I know the proposal of setting up a confinement facility will definitely arouse the opposition of illegal immigrants or those organizations which assist them in applying for the right of abode in Hong Kong. But I want to raise one point. Undoubtedly, the relevant convention against torture contains an express provision forbidding the deportation of anybody who claims to face the threat of torture. But the convention does not provide against the detention of these people. As pointed out by Members, the Government can detain them for a reasonable time frame to verify their identities according to the Hardial Singh Principles, certain judgments and some common law precedents. But what is meant by "reasonable"?

We know that many different precedents have been laid down since 10 years ago in which we are required by the Court to provide illegal immigrants and torture claimants with a reasonable standard of living. I understand this. But in the recent year (2015), the Court laid down a new precedent and advised the Hong Kong Government to take effective measures to cope with the abuse of the torture claim mechanism, or else the Court must deal with such cases unceasingly. Actually, what is called "one-stop service" may possibly cover legal service. Once the Government rejects a torture claim application, the applicant may even apply for legal aid in Hong Kong to initiate a judicial review. Which place will provide so much legal aid subsidy to illegal immigrants and those who are not Hong Kong permanent residents? It seems that in Hong Kong, all this is part of an automatic process.

While their judicial reviews, litigations and repeated appeals are being processed, they can still work in Hong Kong. Frankly speaking, this is unfair to those genuine torture claimants because they are treated in the same way as bogus torture claimants. And due to manpower shortage, the relevant department is utterly unable to verify their identities within a reasonable time frame. For this reason, I support the Secretary's efforts to apply for more resources from the Legislative Council, so as to recruit more staff members. The reason is that the workload of its staff is literally endless. And I know that even if they work from day to night every day, they are still unable to finish their work. Besides, many staff members are not legal professionals, so in cases where their decisions are not entirely correct, they will be immediately challenged by way of judicial reviews. We do not want to see any further wastage of public money in this regard. If the department can get more resources, it should recruit more people with legal background, so as to offer immediate advice to other colleagues.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12543

Actually, the department should handle torture claimants with criminal records under a separate mechanism and make a preliminary judgment on the authenticity of their torture claimant status, so as to shorten the processing time. Actually, we conducted a site visit to South Soko Island some time ago and found that it was well-equipped with some basic facilities. We should not look back at the influx of Vietnamese refugees years back because the number of torture claimants is not that many. The Government can set a cut-off date under a dual-track approach, under which those who make torture claims after the announcement of the new policy will have their identities verified as soon as possible under the new mechanism for ascertaining the authenticity of their torture claimant status, and those who are unable to submit any information will be sent to a confinement facility pending identity checks. If they are still unable to provide any information after a period of detention, they will be sent away. In our discussion with the Nepalese Consulate General, we were advised that the Hong Kong Government could actually seek their assistance in identity checks. Those who always claim to be unable to provide any information actually want to stall for time. How can we reduce the number of applications if we allow them to do so?

As for those applications under the old mechanism, if an applicant can meet the criteria, the authorities should grant approval without any delay. Applicants who are found to be unqualified may have certain unfavorable personal circumstances, one obvious example being that they have criminal records in Hong Kong. Perhaps, their countries can also find out their criminal records by their own checks. In that case, they should be deported.

The Government should not bury its head in the sand and say that the problem can be solved by amending the law now. I think we must tackle the problem, so as to reduce the number of people who use the mechanism of recognizance to remain and work in Hong Kong. We should eliminate this inducement and verify their identities within a reasonable time frame, so that genuine torture claimants can be given a formal identity. Some of them have stayed in Hong Kong for a few years, and some have even given birth to children. Their situation is actually quite pitiful. And we do not want to see this.

So, with additional resources, the Secretary should expeditiously verify applicants' identities. He should approve the applications of those fulfilling the criteria, so that they can live a normal life in Hong Kong and find a job. Those who fail to meet the criteria should be deported. I want to explain clearly again 12544 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 that the legislative amendments this time around can merely "address the symptoms rather than curing the disease" and have failed to meet people's demands and expectations. I hope the Secretary can give serious thoughts to the proposals put forth by the community. Last time, I had the opportunity to visit the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office of the State Council and meet with its Deputy Director FENG Wei. I expressed to him my hope that the Guangdong Province and the SAR Government could devote vigorous efforts to combat the smuggling of illegal immigrants and curb this problem at source.

I also hope that the authorities can examine one issue closely. At present, those human smugglers who manipulate the legal loophole of teaching illegal immigrants some boating skills to enable the latter to come to Hong Kong by operating a boat by themselves may commit a persistent offence under common law. We will certainly punish them severely instead of letting go of them easily. If they are arrested within the Mainland territory, they should be dealt with under the laws of the Mainland and severely punished.

I hope the Secretary can think again how to curb illegal immigration by eliminating the inducements. Information from various sides has shown that as long as the inducements can be eliminated, people from those counties will not want to come to Hong Kong only to be put under confinement. Instead, only those with genuine needs who face genuine threat of torture will come to Hong Kong. This will do good to various sides. The local ethnic minority groups who have become Hong Kong people after staying in Hong Kong legally for several decades likewise support our proposal. So, as we can see, racial discrimination is not involved. We only hope that Hong Kong can be a place with good law and order where different people can live and work in contentment.

Deputy President, I so submit.

MS CYD HO (in Cantonese): On behalf of the Labour Party, I express our stance of approving the amendment order. Heavy penalty should be imposed on "snake heads" as their human smuggling business actually makes money by risking the lives of illegal immigrants. Human smuggling syndicates care only about collecting fees on a per-head basis. After collecting money, they do not care about whether the vessel is overloaded, dangerous or seaworthy. They do not care about the life and death of people. The press once reported a case in which LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12545 a child was suspected to have been thrown into the sea from a speedboat when it was intercepted by marine police in the eastern waters of Hong Kong. We must therefore punish "snake heads" severely. They really should not rip people off when they are facing crises or danger.

We also agree to another part of the amendment order, which extends the scope of unauthorized entrants to eight more central Asian and southeast Asian countries. This can be traced back to the legislation enacted when Hong Kong faced the influx of Vietnamese boat people, under which a person who entered Hong Kong without undergoing proper entry procedures is not liable for a criminal offence when he is intercepted within Hong Kong if he holds a travel document recognized by Hong Kong. At that time, due to the influx of Vietnamese boat people into Hong Kong, such Vietnamese were classified as unauthorized entrants even though they held travel documents recognized by Hong Kong. The amendment order will extend this measure to cover more countries.

We agree to this arrangement. We even think that the Government may consider negotiating with certain countries to explore the feasibility of terminating the visa-free arrangement already established with these countries. Of course, we understand that any visa-free arrangement is bilateral. If we require that the visitors from certain countries must obtain a visa for their business or holiday trips to Hong Kong, the governments concerned may likewise require holders of the HKSAR passport to obtain a visa for travelling to their countries. Hence the Government should assess actual statistics and situations when determining whether to terminate the visa-free arrangement with certain countries.

Deputy President, we hope that the amendment order can have deterrent effect. More importantly, the Government should enhance communication and collaboration with relevant Mainland enforcement departments. As the Chairman of the Subcommittee Mr IP Kwok-him said just now, many illegal immigrants would first seek entry into to the Mainland, where their illegal entry into Hong Kong would be arranged subsequently. Hence I believe the most effective solution is to intercept illegal immigrants in the Mainland by co-operating with the relevant Mainland enforcement departments. In view of the many cross-boundary projects we already have in various aspects, why don't we also bring this issue to the Central Government's attention and express our wish to step up co-operation with the enforcement departments of the regions near the boundary? 12546 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016

Moreover, Deputy President, I believe this amendment order can generate strong deterrent effect because unauthorized entrants from the newly designated countries shall be convicted of an offence, and they may be prosecuted, detained and sentenced to imprisonment once they are intercepted in Hong Kong. We hope that the amendment order can deter some economic refugees. For some of them who want to seek illegal entry into Hong Kong just for work instead of any critical or life threatening reason such as the imposition of torture, it is better for them to know in advance that they will be sentenced to imprisonment for their illegal entry into Hong Kong. It is possible that the smuggling syndicates in those countries would make up and spread rumours in order to attract people to join their smuggling activities to Hong Kong. To ensure that the amended legislation can take effect, I think the Government should step up promotion in the countries concerned at the same time.

In addition, Deputy President, I am of the view that the Government should increase the manpower for screening to ensure that the screening process would not be delayed due to the shortage of manpower. For those claimants who use their claims as an excuse to prolong their stay in Hong Kong and they are not really the victims of torture, we do hope that the screening process can be speeded up, so that their applications can be sorted out quickly. A faster screening process would also benefit the real torture claimants, who would be verified quickly, then they can wait for being transferred to other countries in Hong Kong. The Government should estimate the necessary manpower resources. Any of its need for an increase or deployment of resources will have our support.

Lastly, I would like to respond to a point mentioned by Dr Priscilla LEUNG earlier. She said she had contacts with the consuls from some countries. They indicated that they could assist the Government of Hong Kong and the claimants to obtain the relevant information. But I have to say that I have some reservation towards this. Torture claimants might have been tortured by the officials of their countries. Hence I do not think it is appropriate to ask the governments concerned to help find evidence to prove that the claimants did come from these countries, and that the local authorities had imposed on them unnecessary torture that are not permitted under the law. I am afraid it would be rather difficult for the SAR Government to co-operate with these governments. It is therefore reasonable for us to be sceptical as to whether these countries that the claimants came from would quickly and genuinely provide the relevant and accurate information that we need.

Thank you, Deputy President.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12547

DR ELIZABETH QUAT (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I speak in support of the Immigration (Unauthorized Entrants) (Amendment) Order 2016 (the Amendment Order) because in order to tackle the problem of abuse of non-refoulement claims, it would be very important to combat the activities of "snake heads". There are a lot of illegal immigration cases in Hong Kong every day at present, and the problem is getting more and more serious. As a matter of fact, the problem of abuse of non-refoulement claims by bogus refugees has existed in Hong Kong for a long time. How heavy a burden has it placed on the people of Hong Kong? As at 2015, there were over 10 000 non-refoulement claimants in Hong Kong, and how much taxpayers' money has been spent in this regard? In 2015-2016, the expenses in this respect amounted to over $700 million, and according to the Government's estimation, over $1.1 billion will have to be spent in 2016-2017 in order to handle the issue of non-refoulement claims, but this sum does not include the expenses arising from judicial review, healthcare services and other matters.

What law and order problems have bogus refugees caused to the community of Hong Kong? I think these can be seen very clearly from news reports published every day. Most of the non-ethnic Chinese persons on recognizance in 2015 were non-refoulement claimants, and there were 1 113 counts of arrest of such persons for serious crimes such as theft, physical assault, and drug trafficking, representing an increase of 67% over 2014. The number of such cases also reached 542 in the first five months of 2016. How many of these non-refoulement claimants are genuine refugees? Past records show that only less than 1% of them were genuine refugees.

Hence, as revealed by the above figures, there is tangible proof of the fact that the problem of bogus refugees poses threats to the law and order of Hong Kong and the personal and property safety of the public. It is absolutely not a story made up by the Government or the media as suggested by some people, nor a problem created by some Members for the upcoming election, but a real threat posed to Hong Kong. Our attempt to reveal the truth of the problem is not intended to be any discrimination against people of South Asian descent.

(THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair)

12548 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016

Let me emphasize here again that we consider it the duty of Hong Kong to offer assistance to genuine refugees fleeing from persecution so long as it is within the Government's means. However, the fact now is that the mechanism adopted in Hong Kong is abused by some syndicates and bogus refugees. We have been trying to expose the truth of the problem of bogus refugees and follow up the issue with concern since it is our hope that the problem could be resolved and Hong Kong would be made a safe city again for all who are living here. We have put forward different proposals to the Government on tackling the problem, and combating the activities of "snake heads" is one of them. The legislative proposals introduced by the Government in the current exercise are therefore most welcome.

I would like to reiterate once more that the problem we are facing now cannot be thoroughly resolved even though amendments are made to the relevant legislation. Why is that so? It is true that the imposition of a heavier penalty on "snake heads" will definitely help to achieve a certain degree of deterrent effect, but it is noticed that after the Government's announcement of the new measure, "snake heads" have tried to outsmart the authorities by resorting to a new tactic. Illegal immigrants smuggled into Hong Kong previously would be accompanied by "snake heads" to go ashore and board vehicles, but now they will be left to steer a small "freedom boat" by themselves and enter Hong Kong on their own. Once illegal immigrants are in Hong Kong waters, they will be transferred to speedboats and left to enter Hong Kong by themselves. The new strategy has already been adopted, and it can thus be seen that although the introduction of legislative amendments is necessary, this cannot completely solve the problem.

I have proposed seven suggestions to the Government earlier as follows: First of all, an initial screening mechanism has to be put in place to screen out and reject unreasonable cases at an early stage. Secondly, a time limit should be specified for lodging non-refoulement claims and presenting evidential support for such claims, and I think a time limit of six months should be a very reasonable time frame. Besides, a maximum amount should also be prescribed for the publicly-funded legal assistance provided to such claimants. Thirdly, additional manpower should be provided to clear backlog cases, and contract staff such as retired officers of the Immigration Department should be employed with additional resources to speed up the vetting and approval procedure.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12549

Fourthly, the Amendment Order should be enacted to enhance the interception of illegal immigrants at source, but a mere imposition of a heavier penalty would not be enough, and close co-operation with border control staff of the country should also be strengthened. Fifthly, a heavier penalty should be imposed on "snake heads". Sixthly, consideration should be given to repatriating immediately non-refoulement claimants arrested for serious crimes, or handling their cases by means of another method. Seventhly, closed reception centres should be set up for such claimants to discourage them from coming to Hong Kong.

I have conducted in-depth studies on the seven suggestions mentioned above with different organizations and individuals many times, and have recently given deep thoughts once again to the ways of tackling the problem genuinely. One of the possible ways is to follow the approach adopted now to handle cases involving illegal immigrants, and I wonder if further study can be conducted by the Bureau in this respect.

The policy of "immediate repatriation upon arrest" has been in force since a long time ago and applied to illegal immigrants intercepted in Hong Kong, who would also be subject to immediate prosecution and detention. However, I do not know since when illegal immigrants have been exempted from prosecution as long as they raise their hands and indicate their wish to lodge a non-refoulement claim when they are under arrest. The procedures concerning non-refoulement claims would then begin at once and claimants would subsequently be issued a "going-out pass" (Recognizance Form), which serves as an incentive to encourage them to take up illegal employment. If the existing policy can be adjusted or the need for amending the relevant legislation can be examined so that prosecution must be initiated immediately against illegal immigrants arrested for entering Hong Kong illegally, they would be subject to detention at once and would not be issued with a "going-out pass". In my view, the Bureau should consider conducting further study on this approach.

On the other hand, I am gravely concerned about the great pressure faced by front-line disciplined officers at present. As a matter of fact, there are front-line disciplined officers reflecting to me every day that they are under intense work pressure and facing the problem of manpower shortage as far as the operations against illegal immigrants and bogus refugees are concerned. For example, I was told by marine police officers stationed in the border area that they had to stand on guard by the seaside day and night, particularly during the 12550 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 night-time, to watch out for vessels smuggling illegal immigrants into Hong Kong. They feel helpless about such operations because if the vessels have not been successfully intercepted, illegal immigrants on board would enter Hong Kong, but even though the vessels have been successfully intercepted, people on board would be entertained like guests of honour if they raise their hands and indicate their wish to lodge a non-refoulement claim. This can never provide a complete solution to the whole problem. As a vast area of land is covered in the boundary zone, would it be feasible in the long run to permanently conduct such operations by the seaside? This is also one major problem we have to deal with.

Besides, staff members of the Immigration Department are also putting up with immense work pressure, and manpower shortage is one of the problems. Come to think of it, among those who are tasked with handling the problem of bogus refugees, things should be most difficult for front-line officers of the Immigration Department. First of all, operations have to be launched by investigation officers at various immigration control points to strengthen the control and interception of bogus refugees at sources in sea, land and air transport, which is in itself a very demanding task. Considerable manpower should also be deployed by the Immigration Department to clear the backlog of outstanding non-refoulement claims, the number of which has already risen to over 10 000. According to them, they have already been working ceaselessly for days and nights with a view to handling such outstanding cases as soon as possible, but the problem of manpower shortage is really acute. Furthermore, in order to deliberately delay the process, most of these bogus refugees are difficult to reach. They have kept putting up all kinds of excuses to stand case officers up again and again, and there would be lawyers to represent them and defend their case during cross-examination. Officers of the Immigration Department are thus facing very great difficulties, and they have already tried their very best to handle such cases. It is indeed most unfair that they are queried for making deliberate attempts to delay the vetting and approval procedure.

Officers in detention centres are also faced with some difficult problems. We know that detention centres managed by the Immigration Department are fully occupied already. Bogus refugees are addressed by officers in such centres as "frequent visitors" because although they are released after a period of detention, they will usually be detained again subsequently, thus rendering them unscrupulous detainees in the centres. What punitive measures could actually be taken against them if they violate the rules of detention centres? Unlike officers of the Correctional Services Department, officers in such centres have not been LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12551 given adequate power or supervisory power to penalize detainees who violate the rules of detention centres, and offenders will at most be subject to separate confinement for a period of time. However, when new groups of non-refoulement claimants are sent to detention centres, officers there will be forced to release some of the detainees as the centres are fully occupied. Hence, the existing custodial measures have completely failed to achieve any deterrence effect.

Officers responsible for executing deportation and removal orders are also facing great difficulties because it is never an easy task to handle the deportation and removal of persons. For example, where should the person concerned be removed to? What means of transportation should be used? How to handle cases in which persons deported have risen in revolt before boarding a plane? A lot of taxpayers' resources will also be wasted in this regard. Judging from all these, it is not difficult for us to understand that excessive pressure has indeed been exerted on front-line officers in handling the problem of bogus refugees. Therefore, apart from introducing legislative amendments, I hope efforts would be made by the Government as soon as possible to solve the problem of bogus refugees completely, and enhance the manpower and equipment of disciplined officers.

Officers in detention centres have also commented that they have neither the support nor the legal basis required for conducting weapon training, and many of them have already stayed in the same post for six years but have still not been offered a transfer to another post. With such problems accumulated over the years, staff morale have been seriously undermined. It can thus be seen that the problem of bogus refugees is the root of many other problems, and particular importance has to be attached by the Government in this regard. I hope the current legislative amendment exercise is only the first step, and the Government will implement expeditiously other proposals which can tackle the problem of bogus refugees through a multi-pronged approach. In particular, the support offered to front-line officers should be enhanced, and additional manpower should be provided as soon as possible without further delay.

Thank you, President.

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

12552 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016

MR WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese): President, I rise to speak in support of the Immigration (Unauthorized Entrants) (Amendment) Order 2016 (the Order). President, the title of the Order is indeed a very big understatement. "Unauthorized entrants" are actually illegal entrants. Secretary, while I support the Order, I believe that the title of the Order cannot reflect the gravity of the problem, nor do I think that it can reflect the importance and necessity of combating illegal entrants.

Many Members have spoken just now, and Dr Elizabeth QUAT has also listed a series of figures indicating that tens of thousands of illegal entrants are stranded in Hong Kong at the moment. As they normally remain in Hong Kong for years, they consume hundreds of millions of hard-earned public money from tax payers, causing much disturbance to the daily lives and public security of Hong Kong people, as well as a rise in crime. We can no longer ignore the issue of bogus refugees, which jeopardizes people's lives and property every day, and leads to significant spending of taxpayers' money. In fact, the outflow of money has not stopped yet. These problems, in my opinion, arise from the Government's inadequate estimation at the beginning and its overly lenient and magnanimous handling approach subsequently. All these have resulted in the embedded deadlock today. This is why I said right at the very beginning that the title of the Order simply could not highlight their status as illegal entrants. Why should we call them "unauthorized entrants"? Honestly, they are just illegal entrants, who should be clamped down on instead of being treated so leniently and magnanimously.

President, illegal entry has been troubling the Hong Kong economy and threatening the security of our society and people's employment. It has been damaging the health of Hong Kong like cancer. At the same time, regarding this issue, I must take this opportunity to express my gratitude to the Oriental Press Group, as the problem was first exposed by the Oriental Daily News. As I can observe, the newspaper has been publishing tracking front-page reports that are both detailed and richly pictured, continuously revealing the facts in an attempt to disclose the increasing seriousness of the problem and its threat to Hong Kong. I think that the Oriental Daily News has really played the role of the fourth estate in monitoring government policies. I would like to make use of this occasion to thank the Oriental Daily News. Had it not covered the problem in this way, society would not have realized its seriousness. The Oriental Daily News has time and again criticized the Government, in its editorials and political commentaries, for its belated response. I hereby urge the Administration to heed the opinions and criticisms of the Oriental Daily News. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12553

The Order was not submitted to the Legislative Council until nearly the end of this session, but it is better late than never anyway. Moreover, I think that after the passage of the Order today, the executive authorities and law-enforcement agencies must still step up enforcement in order to effectively protect the people of Hong Kong and safeguard public security. Therefore, I would like to take this opportunity to raise a few opinions to the authorities.

First, I hope the Security Bureau, senior Government officials and Mainland public security authorities can strengthen communication and co-operation in terms of intelligence gathering. It is widely known that illegal entrants and bogus refugees come from places very far away from Hong Kong, and in some cases, they even come from very distant African or South Asian countries. How can they come to Hong Kong from such distant places? In fact, they enter Hong Kong from adjacent cities in Mainland China, usually going to cities in the Mainland before they smuggle themselves into Hong Kong. As a result, I believe that such cross-boundary smuggling activities can only be combated effectively if the HKSAR Government can improve intelligence communication and exchange with the Mainland and closely monitor the routes through which they enter Hong Kong illegally. Therefore, first, I hope the Government can really step up co-operation with Mainland boundary control authorities because only this can produce practical effects. This is the first point.

Second, I hope the HKSAR Government can step up joint operations with Mainland law-enforcement and public security authorities. It is because while Hong Kong abuts the Mainland on land, its territorial waters are also very extensive, so extensive that its marine police or coastal police patrol cannot possibly keep watch 24 hours a day. Therefore, only the stepping up of joint operations can intercept illegal entrants effectively, particularly when human smuggling syndicates keep changing their tactics in response to the situation in Hong Kong. For example, the "freedom boats" mentioned just now by Dr Elizabeth QUAT is one of the tactics to deal with law-enforcement activities. Therefore, I believe that in order to achieve practical effects, joint operations must be conducted, and be conducted continuously. This is the second point.

Third, I hope the SAR Government can seriously consider the implementation of repatriation upon arrest, as this is the only means to quash any false hope among bogus refugees and illegal entrants. If they are left with even a glimmer of hope, they will attempt to enter Hong Kong by any possible ways. 12554 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016

Then, they will raise their hands, get stranded in Hong Kong and later file some so-called torture claims using different methods. Therefore, if we fail to lock our front door, we will face very great trouble once they enter Hong Kong. It is thus very important for us to guard our front gate by implementing repatriation upon arrest.

Fourth, I request the Security Bureau to consider the adoption of centralized management for illegal entrants making torture claims. The merit of the centralized management I advocate is that it can facilitate the arrangement of contacts and screening. Moreover, centralized management can also prevent them from causing any security problems in society. Apart from this, centralized management can give them better support in their daily lives and other aspects, and appropriate assistance can also be given to them when they are in need. Furthermore, centralized management can eliminate any room for them to give excuses, and in this way, the making of appointments, meetings, investigation and the gathering of information can be conducted more smoothly. Therefore, I hope the Government can think about the adoption of centralized management. At present, there are many government premises which have been laid idle for years. For example, some school campuses or premises have been vacant for a long time, and water, electricity and gas supplies can be arranged easily. Will the Government study the feasibility? Can it make use of these resources? I hope the Government can seriously take this into account.

Fifth, I hope the law-enforcement departments under the Security Bureau can speed up screening and improve screening efficiency, so as to prevent any unreasonable delay in the screening process. A Government official indicated in response to a Member's question at a relevant meeting of the Legislative Council in the past that they could only screen and handle a maximum of 2 000 or 3 000 claimants per year. More than 10 000 illegal entrants are stranded in Hong Kong at present. In other words, if we continue to proceed at this speed, the matter will probably drag on for many years, right? We need at least four years to clear the 10 000 cases, right? But what about the newly added cases? Let the backlog accumulate? If so, there will be a lot of stranded cases and delays in the work of handling illegal entrants. I do not mean that law-enforcement officers intend to delay the progress. What I mean is that given the present speed of handling, the progress is bound to be slow even though there is no intention of putting up any delay. In this regard, are there any means to enhance efficiency? Can we increase manpower to boost efficiency and set up time limit for screening? I hope the Secretary can think over this.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12555

Sixth, I hope the Government can clamp down on "snake heads", ringleaders, or triad groups engaged in organized crimes. I hope they can beef up intelligence gathering and punish leaders of these illegal smuggling syndicates. It is essential that they must not be given any chance to collude with local crime syndicates. This is equally important. Otherwise, illegal entrants will in effect become the human capital of local crime syndicates. I think if the situation develops in this way, it will turn very serious.

Lastly, I hope the authorities can consider my seventh point. I hope that the authorities can increase the penalties for those illegal entrants who are involved in crimes or even repeatedly committed crimes in Hong Kong in the process of screening and urge the Court to handle their cases sternly.

Finally, I hope the Secretary can respond positively to my recommendations after the Order is passed (The buzzer sounded).

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WONG Kwok-hing, your speaking time is up.

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

(No Member indicated a wish to speak)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Members have already spoken. I now call upon the Secretary for Security to speak. This debate session will come to a close after the Secretary has spoken.

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): President, to begin with, I wish to thank Mr IP Kwok-him, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration (Unauthorized Entrants) (Amendment) Order 2016 (the Subcommittee), for his oral report on the deliberation of the Subcommittee just now. I also wish to thank those Members who have spoken today, including Mr IP Kwok-him, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Dr Elizabeth QUAT and Mr WONG Kwok-hing, for their views on this matter.

12556 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016

The numbers of non-ethnic Chinese illegal immigrants who have been intercepted or have surrendered since 2014 have increased drastically. Mr IP Kwok-him already quoted the relevant figures just now. Let me repeat the figures once again now. In 2015, the figure stood at 3 819, an increase of six times over the figure in 2011. Our records show that over the past two years, at least seven out of 10 non-ethnic Chinese illegal immigrants have made non-refoulement claims after interception or surrender, in an attempt to resist refoulement. For this reason, over 50% of the non-refoulement claims, which have shown drastic increases over the past two years, are made by illegal immigrants. Combating illegal immigration and human smuggling syndicates is an integral segment of the Government's comprehensive review of its strategy on dealing with non-refoulement claims and also the basis of our first step of introducing legislative amendments into the Legislative Council.

An overwhelming majority of illegal immigrants enter Hong Kong illegally with the aid of criminal syndicates. So, as the first step, we will focus our efforts on combating human smuggling syndicates. At present, 40% of the non-ethnic Chinese illegal immigrants come from countries including Pakistan, Bangladesh and India. But before the commencement of the Immigration (Unauthorized Entrants) (Amendment) Order 2016 (the Amendment Order), anyone who arranges the passage of illegal immigrants (except those from Mainland China, Macao or Vietnam) into Hong Kong can merely be charged with the general offence of "aiding and abetting a person to enter Hong Kong illegally", which is punishable by a less severe maximum penalty of three-year imprisonment and $25,000 fine. The deterrent effect is not strong enough. But if anyone carries illegal immigrants into Hong Kong on board a vessel, we may charge him with an additional offence of endangering the safety of the relevant persons. Today, a man was sentenced to 40 months of imprisonment at the District Court for carrying a group of illegal immigrants into Hong Kong on board a sampan in March this year.

For these reasons, we put forth the Amendment Order to bring another eight major origins of illegal immigrants under the ambit of the law. After the commencement of the Amendment Order, over 99% of the existing non-ethnic Chinese illegal immigrants will become "unauthorized entrants", and any individual or syndicate assisting them in entering Hong Kong illegally can be prosecuted under Part VIIA of the Immigration Ordinance and is liable to a maximum penalty of 14-year imprisonment and $5 million fine. The deterrent LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12557 effect is significantly enhanced. At this point of my speech, let me also give a reply on the issue of naming raised by Mr WONG Kwok-hing just now. As we now seek to amend an existing order, we can only use the name as it is.

I must reiterate that the Amendment Order is targeted on those criminal syndicates which engage in human smuggling, and it does not seek to introduce any additional penalties for illegal immigrants. The Government will continue to vet and approve non-refoulement claims made by illegal immigrants in Hong Kong under the unified screening mechanism.

Those Members who have spoken have expressed a grave concern, the concern that since many illegal immigrants enter Hong Kong by land via the Mainland, we should enhance co-operation with the relevant Mainland law-enforcement departments. In this connection, I can report to Honourable Members that as a means of dovetailing with the implementation of the Amendment Order, law-enforcement departments such as the Police and the Immigration Department (ImmD) will step up their efforts of combating human smuggling activities by sea and by land. Not only this, they will also continue to enhance intelligence exchange, liaison and co-operation with the law-enforcement departments of the Mainland, with the focus on combating syndicates engaging in the smuggling of illegal immigrants into Hong Kong. Since the launch of a dedicated operation by Mainland law-enforcement agencies in mid-February this year to combat human smuggling activities at the Guangdong-Hong Kong border, the Public Security Frontier Corps of various places in the Mainland have arrested at least 5 000 non-ethnic Chinese illegal immigrants. At the same time, the numbers of non-ethnic Chinese illegal immigrants who have been intercepted or have surrendered in Hong Kong have taken a downward turn over recent months. During the first three weeks of this month, for example, 113 non-ethnic Chinese illegal immigrants were intercepted or surrendered, representing a drop of over 60% over the figure in January this year. This shows that the implementation of the Amendment Order and our liaison, co-operation and operations with the Mainland authorities have achieved some initial success.

The implementation of the Amendment Order and the crackdown on illegal immigrants are integral segments of our comprehensive review of the strategy on dealing with non-refoulement claims. With the Finance Committee's approval of funding for the creation of new posts in the Security Bureau and the ImmD, the Government will adopt a targeted and multi-pronged approach to deal with this 12558 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 matter, including: (a) the introduction of pre-arrival control for certain individual countries; (b) the tightening of screening procedures; (c) detention; and (d) greater efforts in combating unlawful employment and the speeding up of the removal process. The Government will take action in these areas, so as to tackle the problems faced by the existing mechanism. The SAR Government will take forward the tasks in various links with full efforts.

Finally, I wish to thank the Subcommittee chaired by Mr IP Kwok-him again for effectively completing the scrutiny of the Amendment Order within a short time frame. I also wish to thank Members again for offering their valuable views at the Subcommittee meetings and in their speeches today.

President, I so submit.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): In accordance with Rule 49E(9) of the Rules of Procedure, I will not put any question on the motion.

MEMBERS' BILLS

First Reading of Member's Bill

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Member's Bill: First Reading.

BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS (HONG KONG) LIMITED (MERGER) BILL

CLERK (in Cantonese): Bank of Communications (Hong Kong) Limited (Merger) Bill.

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

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): As the Bank of Communications (Hong Kong) Limited (Merger) Bill presented by Mr NG Leung-sing relates to government policies, I shall, in accordance with Rule 54(1) of the Rules of Procedure, call for LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12559 the signification of the written consent of the Chief Executive by a designated public officer before this Council enters upon consideration of the Second Reading of the Bill.

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): President, I confirm that the Chief Executive has given his written consent for the tabling of the Bank of Communications (Hong Kong) Limited (Merger) Bill before the Legislative Council.

Second Reading of Member's Bill

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Member's Bill: Second Reading. Mr NG Leung-sing, you may now move the Second Reading of the Bill introduced by you.

BANK OF COMMUNICATIONS (HONG KONG) LIMITED (MERGER) BILL

MR NG LEUNG-SING (in Cantonese): President, I move the Second Reading of the Bank of Communications (Hong Kong) Limited (Merger) Bill (the Bill).

The Bill aims to effect the merger of the retail banking business and private banking business of Bank of Communications, Hong Kong Branch into Bank of Communications (Hong Kong) Limited.

At present, the Hong Kong business of Bank of Communications is operated through its Hong Kong branch. After the merger, Bank of Communications (Hong Kong) will take over the retail banking business and private banking business of the Hong Kong Branch, with a view to further localizing the operation and governance structure of the businesses concerned.

Bank of Communications (Hong Kong) is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Bank of Communications. It was incorporated in Hong Kong in 2014 and was granted a bank licence by the Hong Kong Monetary Authority in September 2015.

12560 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016

The Bill was discussed at the meeting of the Panel on Financial Affairs in July 2015. Regarding the merger, members raised at that time some questions and comments, each of which was then replied to by Bank of Communications and its team of advisers. They indicated that the merger in question followed subsidiarization, a global megatrend in the industry. In addition, as Bank of Communications (Hong Kong) is incorporated locally, it is under the direct supervision and guidance of the financial regulatory regime in Hong Kong and this will hopefully further enhance its internal governance and corporate governance.

Furthermore, as a locally incorporated bank, Bank of Communications (Hong Kong) will primarily provide retail banking and private banking businesses in Hong Kong. Its operation will come closer to its service targets, and will be able to provide more premium and targeted services to its customers while implementing the Bank's strategy of having Hong Kong as its focus of development.

In terms of implementation, Bank of Communications will strive to ensure that the operations of the Bank will be disrupted to the slightest extent in the process of the merger. Customers are not normally required to sign new customer documentations. Bank of Communications intends to retain all the employees who will be transferred from Bank of Communications, Hong Kong Branch to Bank of Communications (Hong Kong). The accrued benefits of these employees, including annual leave and long service leave, will remain unchanged.

President, more than 20 cases of bank merger have been effected via similar bills over the last 30 years. I believe that the Bill is not controversial. And it aligns with the development trend of the banking industry in Hong Kong and meets the policy objectives on the supervision of the banking industry in Hong Kong. Effecting the merger via the passing of the Bill, which is a highly open and transparent means, will be readily acceptable to customers, third parties and the community at large.

President, due to the reasons provided above, I have pleasure to recommend the Bill to this Council.

With these remarks, President, I introduce the Bill. Thank you.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12561

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the Bank of Communications (Hong Kong) Limited (Merger) Bill be read the Second time.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): In accordance with the Rules of Procedure, the debate is now adjourned and the Bill is referred to the House Committee.

Resumption of Second Reading Debate on Member's Bill

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): We now resume the Second Reading debate on the Kowloon Tong Church of the Chinese Christian and Missionary Alliance Incorporation (Amendment) Bill 2014.

KOWLOON TONG CHURCH OF THE CHINESE CHRISTIAN AND MISSIONARY ALLIANCE INCORPORATION (AMENDMENT) BILL 2014

Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 4 June 2014

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

(No Member indicated a wish to speak)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): If not, I now call upon Dr Priscilla LEUNG to reply. The debate will come to a close after Dr Priscilla LEUNG has replied.

DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I wish to express my gratitude to Members, especially Mr James TO, because since 2014 when I submitted the Kowloon Tong Church of the Chinese Christian and Missionary Alliance Incorporation (Amendment) Bill 2014, he has been actively discussing the legislative amendment with lawyers engaged by the Kowloon Tong Church of the Chinese Christian and Missionary Alliance (the Kowloon Tong Alliance Church).

12562 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016

During the Second Reading debate on the Bill in 2014, I stated that the main purpose of the Bill is to expand the power of the Trustees of the Kowloon Tong Alliance Church to borrow moneys. Such a power can be seen in ordinances under which other churches are incorporated, such as the Church Body of the Hong Kong Sheng Kung Hui Ordinance, Hop Yat Church of the Church of Christ in China Incorporation Ordinance and the Methodist Church, Hong Kong, Incorporation Ordinance. Moreover, the Bill aims to complement the absence of such a power to raise funds under section 3 of the Ordinance concerned, as well as giving flexibility in finance for issues related to the construction of schools, and so on.

I must emphasize here that the Kowloon Tong Alliance Church was recognized as a charity by the Inland Revenue Department as early as 24 April 1957, and all of its incomes must be used for charity purpose. During the process, we discussed a question about the handling of properties by the main church and branch churches of the Kowloon Tong Alliance Church, in which we considered whether the main church had the power to represent various branch churches to collateralize their properties in the course of borrowing moneys. In this respect, we particularly asked the Kowloon Tong Alliance Church to engage a solicitor for an official reply.

After our thorough discussions … the lawyer gave an unequivocal reply in which it stated that properties owned by branch churches were indeed held nominally by the main branch in trust. According to current arrangements and the trust documents, as well as the solicitor's written reply, the Trustees of the Kowloon Tong Alliance Church do not have any power to dispose of any asset of branch churches. From their perspective … we also accepted the solicitor's opinion. Branch churches have respectively established their own trusts subject to regulation under relevant trust documents, the Trustee Ordinance and the common law, and the power to borrow moneys proposed under the Bill will only apply to Cap. 1031, Laws of Hong Kong and the trust established by the Kowloon Tong Alliance Church in accordance with its constitutions. It means that the Trustees of the Kowloon Tong Alliance Church cannot exercise such power to borrow moneys while managing the trusts set up by branch churches, and that the Bill will have no effect on the operation of trusts set up by branch churches, nor will it confer more power to the Trustees of the Kowloon Tong Alliance Church as trustees of trusts set up by branch churches.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12563

This is the written reply given by the law firm engaged by the Kowloon Tong Alliance Church on 23 December 2015 in respect of our queries about the question concerned, and it has also answered our … throughout a period in the past … most importantly, it has clarified the relationship between the main church and branch churches. The relationship in terms of legal and trust arrangements between the two kinds of branches should become clear now, and our queries have been responded to. Therefore, I propose the Bill again this year in the hope that it can be passed by the Legislative Council.

I thank Members for offering different opinions for our consideration throughout this period, to the effect of clarifying the legal relationship in this respect.

With these remarks, President, I hope Members can support the Bill.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the Kowloon Tong Church of the Chinese Christian and Missionary Alliance Incorporation (Amendment) Bill 2014 be read the Second time. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

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

(No hands raised)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority respectively of each of the two groups of Members, that is, those returned by functional constituencies and those returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, who are present. I declare the motion passed.

CLERK (in Cantonese): Kowloon Tong Church of the Chinese Christian and Missionary Alliance Incorporation (Amendment) Bill 2014.

Council went into Committee.

12564 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016

Committee Stage

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee stage. Council is now in Committee.

KOWLOON TONG CHURCH OF THE CHINESE CHRISTIAN AND MISSIONARY ALLIANCE INCORPORATION (AMENDMENT) BILL 2014

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the following clauses stand part of the Kowloon Tong Church of the Chinese Christian and Missionary Alliance Incorporation (Amendment) Bill 2014.

CLERK (in Cantonese): Clauses 1 to 4.

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

(No Member indicated a wish to speak)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That clauses 1 to 4 stand part of the Bill. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

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

(No hands raised)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority respectively of each of the two groups of Members, that is, those returned by functional constituencies and those returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, who are present. I declare the motion passed.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12565

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Council will now resume.

Council then resumed.

Third Reading of Member's Bill

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Member's Bill: Third Reading.

KOWLOON TONG CHURCH OF THE CHINESE CHRISTIAN AND MISSIONARY ALLIANCE INCORPORATION (AMENDMENT) BILL 2014

DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, the

Kowloon Tong Church of the Chinese Christian and Missionary Alliance Incorporation (Amendment) Bill 2014 has passed through the Committee stage without amendment. I move that this Bill be read the Third time and do pass.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the Kowloon Tong Church of the Chinese Christian and Missionary Alliance Incorporation (Amendment) Bill 2014 be read the Third time and do pass.

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

(No Member indicated a wish to speak)

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

(Members raised their hands)

12566 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016

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

(No hands raised)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority respectively of each of the two groups of Members, that is, those returned by functional constituencies and those returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, who are present. I declare the motion passed.

CLERK (in Cantonese): Kowloon Tong Church of the Chinese Christian and Missionary Alliance Incorporation (Amendment) Bill 2014.

MEMBERS' MOTIONS

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Members' motions. Two motions under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): First motion moved by Mr WONG Yuk-man under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance: That this Council appoints a select committee to inquire into the clashes between the Police and members of the public in Mong Kok from the night of 8 February to the early morning of 9 February 2016 which caused injuries to many people, and other related matters.

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

I now call upon Mr WONG Yuk-man to speak and move the motion.

MOTION UNDER THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL (POWERS AND PRIVILEGES) ORDINANCE

MR WONG YUK-MAN (in Cantonese): President, I move that the motion, as printed on the Agenda, be passed.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12567

President, from the night of the first day of the Lunar Near Year to the early hours of the second day, large-scale clashes broke out between the Police and members of the public on the streets of Mong Kok. The autocratic Government and its underlings of course denounced what had happened. I think in the political parlance of the early Communist Party, they are "advocates of the moral values upheld by the exploiting class and defenders of the counter-revolutionary political cause". Such politicians, who serve as the lackeys of lackeys continue to defend the Government as usual. They keep on making political slanders to repress the "kids rebellion". Please give me a break. I will only scorn and despise them.

Since the 1970s, Hong Kong's economy and society have been developing rapidly. Within just a decade, Hong Kong transformed itself into a highly modernized city. Thanks to the clean and efficient governance of the British-Hong Kong administration, Hong Kong people managed to lead a happy and prosperous life. Thus, the whole generation developed an awareness of "focusing on the economy, paying minimal attention to politics", "resorting to peaceful, rational and non-violent means" and "engaging in dialogues with the Government". More than a decade ago, writer Joe CHUNG criticized Hong Kong's democratic camp. He said, "They very often hold a naive attitude towards politics and power, have a weak awareness of struggle and resistance, take care of their masters' interests in every aspect, show a shallow thinking, and fail to uphold their belief firmly. In a nutshell, they lack a heartfelt drive of resistance that comes from the experience of being suppressed." In fact, this is a portrayal of an entire generation of Hong Kong people.

Since the transfer of sovereignty in 1997, TUNG Chee-hwa and Donald TSANG, who uphold extreme capitalism, and LEUNG Chun-ying, who is a Hong Kong communist, have been in power one after another. Having suffered badly, the grass-roots, post-90s and post-millennium youth who do not have a wealthy family and social connections have developed an ideology which is totally different from that of their preceding generation. The youth have no hope for a future, and some of them have chosen to commit suicide. In the last academic year, there have been scores of suicide cases involving students but the autocratic Government and the royalist camp remain apathetic. Some choose to engage in fighting to challenge the unjust regime. The autocratic Government and the royalist camp regard them as treacherous and in defiance of those on the top. In a word, the autocratic Government and the royalist camp have made no attempt to get an in-depth understanding of what the new generation of Hong Kong people think. 12568 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016

The "act to resist tyranny by force" started by the post-90s and post-millennium has gradually replaced the "peaceful, rational, non-violent" fighting employed by the pan-democratic camp in the last two or three decades. In June 2014, people who opposed the Northeast New Territories development plans stormed the Legislative Council Complex; in October 2014, there was the re-taking of Mong Kok after clearance by the Police in collaboration with the triad; there were liberation protests from February 2015; in January 2016, students of the University of Hong Kong (HKU) stormed the meeting of The Council; on the night of the first day of the new year, clashes broke out between the Police and members of the public; and some time ago, students of The Chinese University of Hong Kong stormed the meeting of The Council, demanding the establishment of an ad hoc committee to review the automatic appointment of the Chief Executive as university chancellor. Within just a year and a half, the young people have demonstrated alarming determination and stamina to turn the tide. In Hong Kong, the "act to resist tyranny by force" is as shocking as a sudden clap of thunder. Hong Kong is a peace-loving city. Why have scenes of militant resistance like setting fire and brick-throwing suddenly appeared? Our education system lays emphasis on discipline and obedience. Why has it churned out militant youth who defy authority and negate the establishment?

The mainstream opinion in society is of course to bitterly denounce the so-called Mong Kok riot. They quickly stigmatize those who put up a fight as "useless youth", "trouble makers", "people who disrupt social order". Yet, asking to remain anonymous, many young people who have taken part in the fight have expressed in media interview that they do not mind how the public sees them. They will only hold on to their belief of resisting tyranny by force, until genuine democracy is realized in Hong Kong. In the wake of the clashes between the Police and members of the public in Mong Kok, the student unions of various universities issued a statement in support of the Mong Kok fighters. Furthermore, in the New Territories East by-election held on 28 February, the "rioter" who has been charged with rioting in the Mong Kok incident ― Edward LEUNG of HKU ― garnered a good 66 524 votes, or as high as 16% of the total number of votes cast. All these reflect that the new generation of young people have the militant resistant awareness of "treading the path of righteousness and justice steadfastly without any consideration for their personal safety".

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12569

The SAR Government still believes that "the mainstream opinion in society is against the use of violence", "the silent majority will not recognize radical acts", "the rebels only account for a minority in society". The Government continues to turn to the law-enforcement agencies to repress the new generation of rebels. This is but digging its own grave. More than half of the members of the Hong Kong Indigenous to which Edward LEUNG belongs have been arrested and prosecuted by the Police. If convicted of rioting, they will be sent to political prison. However, they are already psychologically prepared and have no regrets. In March 2016, Andy CHAN of The Hong Kong Polytechnic University established the Hong Kong National Party which advocates Hong Kong independence. He claims that he will not rule out armed rebellion in Hong Kong. I am afraid the cage of totalitarian rule can hardly confine the will for self-rule and self-determination. The tyranny of the Hong Kong communist will definitely be cast away in the waste dump in history.

One does not have to look far for a lesson. In 2010, the Jasmine Revolution which took place in West Tunisia bears great resemblance to the "Fishball Revolution" in Mong Kok. From the 1990s until before the financial tsunami, the economy of Tunisia had developed rapidly. However, the disparity between the rich and the poor led to serious public grievances. In 2010, a 26-year old fruit hawker had his cart confiscated by the police for hawking without a licence. Not long, he burned himself to death in protest. This triggered a rebellion by the people all over the country to overturn the corrupt government.

The SAR Government is even worse than the Tunisian government. During the Chinese New Year, snack stalls are a common scene in Mong Kok. This has been a custom for Hong Kong people over the years. Yet, staff of the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD) conducted a large-scale crackdown. Being surrounded by the people, they asked for police reinforcement and abused violence. As the SAR Government cracked down on the traditional activities of the people in the public space, it deserved the resistance it met.

Last year, a large-scale riot also broke out in Baltimore, the largest independent city in the United States. The people protested against the unrelenting use of fatal violence against a 25-year old national of African descent and police racism over the years. As a result, a state of emergency had to be declared for the entire state of Maryland. The riot led to the charging of six 12570 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 police officers of alleged killing. It also forced the American government to review the issue of police racism. Campaigns for equal rights for the black have evolved from the two-pronged approach of Martin Luther KING's non-violence and Malcolm X's militant resistance to militant resistance being the main thrust as seen last year. I am afraid the democratic camp which favours peaceful and rational protests without violence and vulgar language will not be willing to bear this historical reality and world trend.

During the Umbrella Revolution, the renowned contemporary philosopher Slavoj Žižek cheered for Hong Kong people from overseas. He said, "The history of defeat has been giving us this lesson: For things which the adults regard as impossible, they should hold on to them. It is only by doing so can reality be successfully changed. Never fall into their traps or follow their rules of the game."

The protagonists of Hong Kong's protest movements are no longer politicians and stars of social movements. Rather, the young people who do not mind their personal gains and loss have become the protagonists. They will no longer follow the rules of the game of the SAR Government and the pan-democratic camp in these 10-odd years. Edward LEUNG's slogan for the Legislative Council New Territories East by-election was "Revolution of the times" (時代革命). He wanted to stage a simultaneous revolution against the SAR Government and the pan-democratic camp. Resisting tyranny by force will surely become the axis for Hong Kong's local civil rights movement.

After the clashes in Mong Kok, the Police have established an internal review committee. It is learnt that police officers will be allowed to use tear gas or weapons like plastic bullets. The royalist camp also advocates an "anti-mask law". However, the bigger the repression, the stronger the resistance. The Umbrella Revolution was sparked by tear gas; brick-throwing in Mong Kok was also triggered by gunshots. In 2014, the pro-Russian government in Ukraine enacted the "anti-mask law". This led to the rapid downfall of the government.

In his many responses to the clashes between the Police and members of the public in Mong Kok, the Secretary for Security LAI Tung-kwok said that the SAR Government had heard public views, and the so-called "a rebel of people oppressed by the Government" or "an act to resist tyranny by force" was no excuse for violence. In the clashes in Mong Kok, Stephen KU, editor-in-chief designate of HKU publication Undergrad, who went to the spot to observe, was LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12571 arrested and charged by the Police for no reason. He was only released afterwards as there was not enough evidence. While the editor-in-chief of a university student union's publication was treated as a rioter when covering the event on the spot, the traffic policeman who suddenly fired into the air was awarded a medal. The SAR Government has indeed long lost the ability of self-reflection. I have to propose to invoke the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (the P&P Ordinance) to establish a select committee for the Council to perform its role in monitoring the Government and checking and balancing its powers. The select committee will conduct a thorough inquiry into the deployment of the Police and the FEHD at that time, so as to seek justice for members of the public and stem the abuse of violence and prosecution by the Police. Of course, the royalists will defend the abuse of violence and prosecution by the Police and veto the motion.

During the meeting of the Legislative Council on 16 March, the pan-democratic camp proposed to establish a select committee to inquire into the clashes between the Police and the members of the public by way of a petition. Yet, if the select committee is not established under the P&P Ordinance, the Security Bureau, the Hong Kong Police Force, the Food and Health Bureau and the FEHD will give stereotyped responses to Members' questions when they attend the meeting. The inquiry findings and the report will not be legally binding and the SAR Government can continue to apply violence.

This year, we have seen serious policy blunders including the delay and over-budget of the Express Rail Link and the discovery of lead in drinking water in public housing estates. However, there is still no way for Hong Kong people to hold the Executive accountable. Countless policy blunders, countless strong denial of mistakes and countless hopelessness have shown us the decay of the separation of powers. With the Executive abusing its power and the legislature becoming dysfunctional, force is the last self-defending weapon for the masses. I extend my great sympathy to Hong Kong people who are forced to resist tyranny by force in order to help themselves.

"One country, two systems" and "Hong Kong people administering Hong Kong" have fallen apart. The young people have new vision for Hong Kong's future. In March, HKU student publication Undergrad published a "Declaration by Hong Kong Youths of Today" with an article titled "Our 2047", in which three major demands were made with regard to the expiry in 2047 of the "remain unchanged for 50 years" pledge of the Sino-British Joint Declaration: Turn Hong 12572 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016

Kong into an independent, sovereign country recognized by the United Nations; establish a democratic government; establish a constitution for Hong Kong by all members of the public. The manifesto of the Hong Kong National Party also states clearly: "We now expressly advocate independence for Hong Kong. We firmly believe that this is the only way out for Hong Kong people. It is only when Hong Kong breaks away from the colonial rule of China will Hong Kong genuinely enjoy freedom. We vow to break away from the jinx of being reduced to a colony. Hong Kong will eventually be liberated!" The young people have the courage to challenge the taboo of the Communist Party of China. They vow to shatter the old world and rebuild a new regime which belongs to Hong Kong people and not the people of China. They also strive to come up with a full account in this regard. Although I do not fully agree with what they advocate, I am optimistic about their success. "Break away from China", "self-rule", "Hong Kong independence" have become an ideology. I am afraid it is already too late even if the SAR Government and the royalists now regret deeply the damages they have done.

Today in this Council, I am fighting for the young people. This has a bigger political meaning than dressing down the Government as their behaviour will enable Hong Kong to see light after a long night. Medgar EVERS, a civil rights activist leader of the 20th century, has this famous quote: "You can kill a man, but you can't kill his idea." You can vote against invoking the P&P Ordinance and continue to connive and ramp up violence in law-enforcement to safeguard the interests of the rulers, but you cannot dismiss the awareness of self-determination and self-rule.

President, I so submit.

Mr WONG Yuk-man moved the following motion:

"That this Council appoints a select committee to inquire into the clashes between the Police and members of the public in Mong Kok from the night of 8 February to the early morning of 9 February 2016 which caused injuries to many people, and other related matters; and that in the performance of its duties the committee be authorized under section 9(2) of the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (Cap. 382) to exercise the powers conferred by section 9(1) of that Ordinance."

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12573

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Mr WONG Yuk-man be passed.

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): President, as everybody knows, the riot that occurred in the early hours of 9 February this year in Mong Kok was a serious incident involving large-scale mob violence. During the incident, a vast number of rioters attacked police officers with bricks dug out from pavements, self-made weapons and various kinds of hard objects, set fires at various locations and damaged police vehicles. Over 100 persons were injured in the incident. Most of the injured persons were police officers, while several members of the media were also injured.

After the incident, the SAR Government and various social sectors strongly condemn the acts of the rioters in unison. As at 20 June, the Police arrested in total 82 persons, and have set up a hotline to facilitate provision of information related to the riot by members of the public. The Police are now conducting investigation and gathering evidence, and the Department of Justice has instituted prosecution against certain people for the alleged offences of "riot" and "arson".

After the riot, there has been much discussion and reflection in society. Some have asked about the underlying cause of the incident, while some have asked what has gone wrong in Hong Kong. At the time, some groups alleged that the riot was triggered by a raid on hawkers jointly conducted by the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD) and the Police in the evening of the first day of the Lunar New Year (8 February), and that it was a matter pertaining to the governance of the SAR Government. Actually, the FEHD already made a prompt clarification that FEHD officers were only conducting general patrol in Mong Kok in the evening in question. They did not issue any warning nor take any enforcement action against the hawkers, let alone conducting a raid. However, they were already surrounded, scolded and pushed around by over 50 persons, and an officer was injured. The incident, which involved downright unlawful conduct, caused serious disruption to public order and placed public safety in jeopardy. Putting the blame of the riot on hawker management policy or the governance of the SAR Government is merely an attempt to rationalize the violent acts of the rioters as well as to divert attention, and this is totally unacceptable.

12574 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016

After the riot, there has been an opinion that the SAR Government should set up an independent commission of inquiry headed by a judge to conduct investigation. The SAR Government does not agree to this proposal. Generally, a commission of inquiry should fulfil two functions: first, fact-finding; and second, identifying problems and proposing rectifications to prevent similar incidents from happening again in the future.

With the media's extensive and in-depth live broadcast of the Mong Kok riot that night, and also the information released by the Government, it is not difficult for the public to grasp the details. Afterwards, the Police have conducted criminal investigation with a view to apprehending all culprits for fair trials and rulings by the Court. During open trials, the public will come to know the information relating to the facts of the relevant cases, and in turn understand the background of the incident and the truth. What I have said above shows that it is utterly unnecessary to set up a commission of inquiry to find out the facts.

On the practical actions taken to deal with this incident, the Hong Kong Police Force has established a review committee chaired by Deputy Commissioner of Police (Management) to examine three areas, namely, "operations", "arms, equipment and training" and "support", so as to enhance the safety and professional competency of police officers in the execution of their duties. The progress of the review is satisfactory, and the Police will seek to complete the review as soon as possible and implement the improvement measures.

President, at the special meeting on 16 February this year, the Legislative Council Panel on Security (the Panel) passed a motion on condemning the rioters for their violent acts which seriously endangered public safety and social order, and urging the Security Bureau to increase manpower for handling riots and upgrade police equipment. On the same day, the Panel negatived a motion requesting the SAR Government to set up an independent commission of inquiry to inquire into the incident. On 26 February, the Legislative Council House Committee likewise rejected the proposal of appointing a select committee in the Legislative Council to inquire into the incident.

I wish to stress that the response and follow-up of the SAR Government after the riot do not simply stop at the levels of condemnation, investigation and prosecution. The SAR Government has all along been reviewing its work and services provided to the public and looking for improvement.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12575

As pointed out by the Chief Secretary for Administration in her speech during the Legislative Council's debate on the Motion of Thanks in respect of the Policy Address on 19 February, "[n]o governance is perfect, whereas taking heed of the wide range of public views and making continued improvement is the cornerstone for good governance. Though the governance of the Government may be less than desirable, it does not mean that the heartrending violent incident that occurred before our eyes can be packaged as 'a rebel of people oppressed by the Government' or 'an act to resist tyranny by force', or a clash between the Police and the people resulted from the tyranny of the Government."

Last month (In May), the Chief Executive also stated unequivocally in a media interview that the SAR Government sought to deal with our social and livelihood problems with concrete efforts. He said, "Over the past four years, we have sought to solve our problems such as poverty, upward mobility of youngsters, economic restructuring and housing one after another."

Actually, different conflicts are bound to exist perpetually in society. Most importantly, the Government is willing to communicate with various social sectors and pay heed to the views of various sides. The SAR Government will, as always, listen attentively to the aspirations of all sectors of the community and continue to improve governance to ensure that policies are geared towards the overall and long-term well-being of the public while balancing the interests and needs of various sectors. At the same time, everybody must respect the law and should not express their aspirations through illegal and violent acts.

President, Hong Kong people all along cherish peace and rationality. Openness, diversity, freedom and the rule of law have all along been the core values of Hong Kong. The rioters of the Mong Kok riot claimed to defend "local" characteristics, yet they resorted to violent means that ran totally against the core values of Hong Kong. I believe we all agree that Hong Kong must not relinquish the bottom line of the rule of law. Violence is not a solution to problems, but only a trigger for more violence.

President, Mr WONG Yuk-man's motion will not resolve our deep-rooted social conflicts and the so-called "governance" problems. Every society in the world faces the same governance problems as our Government, and we should not associate the riot with our governance problems no matter what, or try to find any excuse for it. In the present political atmosphere, bringing the Mong Kok riot up to the level of political dispute will only serve to complicate and politicize 12576 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 the matter instead of doing any good to preventing similar incidents from happening again. A select committee in the Legislative Council is not an appropriate platform for conceiving proposals capable of fostering the long-term interests of Hong Kong. Neither can it focus on resolving the evil deeds of a handful of lawbreakers who disregarded people's life safety in the early hours of 9 February, or the various problems currently faced by society. Therefore, the Government considers it unnecessary for the Legislative Council to set up a select committee under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance to inquire into the Mong Kok riot.

I earnestly ask Members to oppose Mr WONG Yuk-man's motion. After Members have expressed their views in their speeches later on, I will give a further reply in my concluding speech.

Thank you, President.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): President, I rise to speak in support of Mr WONG Yuk-man's motion on setting up a select committee for conducting an investigation into the incident that happened in Mong Kok under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (the P&P Ordinance).

I am very disappointed upon hearing the Secretary for Security's reply just now. As Secretary LAI Tung-kwok has said, this was not a simple incident, and this was a riot. He has said not only once that the incident is related to the dissatisfaction that the youth have towards the Government, towards the Government's hawker policy and towards the practices of the Police in dealing with the situation, and so on. Precisely because of these various reasons, a Legislative Council panel has moved a motion to request the Government to establish a committee chaired by a retired judge or a select committee to conduct an inquiry. The demand has however been turned down. In fact, if the Government had not tried to bury its head in the sand, if the Government ― LEUNG Chun-ying or the Secretary in particular ― had really tried to seek the truth behind the incident, why should we need to debate today in the Legislative Council whether to invoke the P&P Ordinance for inquiry?

We still remember the 1967 Riot, which was a genuine riot. Owing to the influence of the Cultural Revolution, leftist trade unions in Hong Kong, and the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions in particular, participated in that genuine LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12577 riot, which saw bombs and deaths and caused deaths of police officers and innocent people. That was a bona fide riot. The colonial government at that time ― not the present Government, which claims to be representative the people and people-based ― already knew that they had to conduct a comprehensive review of the then colonial rule and policy after the 1967 Riot. They understood that they had to open up gradually, to formulate and implement reform in governance from the perspectives of the young and the grassroots in society. The subsequent social changes are history. We see that the 1967 Riots prompted the Hong Kong colonial government to relinquish its former tough line, its high-handed practices and instead provided the people, and especially the young, with opportunities on various fronts, including housing, the economy, employment and high-level social education policy, in a transformation of considerable scale.

But what is our Government doing now? Despite what actually happened, the Government simply behaves as if nothing has happened. This is what is so dreadful about the whole thing. Apart from reprimanding repeatedly at the early stage, what else has the Government done since the 8 February incident? We call it the "Fishball Revolution". It actually started with the Government's intention to combat the night market and the selling activities of illegal hawkers during the Chinese New Year. We all know that this is something really minor. If the Government had not made such a wrongful policy decision, how could so many people use the issue as the excuse for making trouble? Why doesn't the Government about its own role and responsibility? Why does it put all the blame on others?

The Government says that some police officers were injured in the incident. So let me tell you that five journalists were also injured in the event. One of them, a reporter of Ming Pao Daily News, was pressed on the ground while being beaten by the Police. Is it fair to say that the Government and the Police have no responsibility in the incident? Of course, some media have edited footages to depict that the riot started before the police officer opened fire. But those who are familiar with the incident know that a traffic policeman fired when he was on his own with no help and support around. The move further provoked people's emotion, rendering the situation increasingly difficult to manage. Can we say that there is no problem with the planning of the Police? Can the Police actually solve the problem with such an attitude? Can't they see that the acquisition of more water cannons will only incite further riots? How come a government can neglect the root of the problem, hide it underneath the 12578 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 carpet, keep it out of sight and out of mind, and do nothing other than giving out mild reprimand? This will only lead to a continued distortion of the distorted social policy, with the result that the young will turn even more mistrustful and defiant of the Government ― not only the SAR Government but also the Central Government in Mainland China. The situation is evident to the Government too. Can't they see that the Government is provoking hatred among the people?

Why doesn't the Government conduct an independent inquiry proactively? The Government should have accepted the views of the Legislative Council Members then and appointed a retired judge to lead an independent commission for inquiry. We all know the secretariat of these commissions are under the civil service and members of the commissions are all appointed by the Government. With so much under the Government's control, how can the commission do something completely unfavourable to the Government and favours the so-called thugs only? This is simply impossible. If the Government at that time had thought of a way to resolve the deep-rooted conflicts with due regard given to the entire incident, including the episodes which happened before, during and after the incident, we would not have to spend so much time here.

"Deep-rooted conflicts" and "resolving problems" are not our words; these are the words of your boss, XI Jinping. He said that many Hong Kong problems were deep-rooted conflicts which had to be resolved. It is definitely not undesirable to hide things away and pretends that the problem does not exist. Similar incidents will only happen again, and next time, it might be the Police who initiates the occurrence.

We have to understand that with such inquiries ― if Mr WONG Yuk-man's motion is passed in the Legislative Council ― there will be more people from the pro-establishment camp when votes are counted and it is very likely that the commission will be chaired by a pro-establishment Member. There should not be worry over whether your views and their views can be expressed. No, this is not a possibility. But most importantly, we can have a chance to examine the entire incident and prevent it from reoccurring. The Secretary did say also that the Government did not want to see conflicts again, did not want to see the young taking to the street, did not want to see flawed policies, did not want to see "Fishball Riot" again or any other riot such as "Fake Shark Fin's Soup Riot". But it is most important for the Government to give some thoughts on the problem. What is going to happen after the Government finished making such remarks?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12579

Subsequently, we see the night market operated under The Link REIT has evolved into an operation under the patronage of triad gangs. Life is even harder for the people and social grievance thus grows. But the Government has turned a blind eye to it. Micro-economic activities which should have enabled people from the bottom stratum to make their living had been ignored by the Government as if they did not exist. The Government has instead been conniving large consortium and property developer hegemony. The Link REIT continues to extend their occupation as hawkers are driven away from the markets and shops are driven away from the shopping malls so that at night only privileged big consortiums can run night markets, and hence we can only eat fishballs in Linkreit-managed shopping malls. This exactly is the major deep-rooted conflict in Hong Kong. How often does the Government study problems of the lowest stratum and the low-income group? How does the Government react to problems facing the young? Places in post-secondary institutions are insufficient to cater for local young people in Hong Kong. But what the Government is doing is to allocate $1 billion for the "Belt and Road" Scholarship, so as to aid more people without any connection with Hong Kong to come to study. This is such a smart move that it is only going to invite more young people to deny the Government, hate it and despise it.

If an inquiry is to be conducted, it should not be the sole responsibility of the Secretary. The Food and Environmental Hygiene Department, the Food and Health Bureau and the Education Bureau should all be involved. These sparks of fire which are capable of setting the entire grassland ablaze do arise for a reason. Why did the 1967 Riot happen? Honestly it was not entirely due to the fault of the British Hong Kong Government. At that time, the Cultural Revolution which had caused tens of millions of death spread to Hong Kong. The colonial government could have ignored it as it was actually none of its business. It was just a problem of Mainland China, so why bothered about it? But then, while the riot was brought about by the Cultural Revolution, which had caused many lives and impacted the political movement in Hong Kong, the colonial government did give it a thought to see if anything could be done locally to resolve the imported conflict.

Therefore, after the 1967 Riot and up to the reunification, the governance of the British Hong Kong Government in Hong Kong was all the time progressive. And young people cannot help but wonder why the Government elected under the Basic Law after 1997 is so disappointing. Secretaries are absolutely detached from the people, the Secretary for Administration is best 12580 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 known for claiming "a government official with no expectation is always courageous" and use this claim as a standard reply to everybody. Does the Government have a sense of responsibility? A police officer can strike people with a series of baton blows, denied anything has happened afterwards, and got away with it. The seven police officers were harboured by the Government after assaulting a citizen. These incidents breed public grievances, provoke more young people and more Hong Kong people to continue taking to the streets in defiance against the Government. The Secretary acts like an ostrich, putting his head into the sand and telling people that he sees nothing. Alternatively, he is like the emperor in "The Emperor's New Clothes" who was naked but told people that his new clothes were splendid. Right, so maybe this actually is a plot jointly crafted by a good number of people to frame LEUNG Chun-ying, to make him step down. Perhaps the Secretary is also involved, I am not sure. But I am sure the plan targets his job for he has not thought of handling the problem. Now maybe even Grandpa stepped up and asked what had happened to Hong Kong. Even the peddling of fishballs triggers a revolution as the people at the bottom stratum cannot make a living.

It is quite interesting that when we walk down the streets, people from the neighbourhood say that though Mainland China is an outrageous place, the livelihood policies there are better than those in Hong Kong. For instance, in terms of transport, the elderly enjoy free rides. Certain micro-economic activities still exist in Mainland China and hawkers are not eliminated altogether. Of course, some urban management personnel do bully people and we cannot pass on a categorical remark. But Hong Kong is an international city in Asia and we always boast of our good governance and our solid foundation. But after these problems surface, would the Government conduct a soul-searching and inspect its own image in a mirror? If a mirror is not available, the Government should at least pour out water in a basin and see how it is now doing, right?

It is now clear that the Government has not learned a lesson from this incident. It has not done any review, has not studied the problem, nor put forth any effective solution ― aside from the purchase of water cannons. If problems can be resolved with the purchase of water cannons, it would be advisable for the Government to build more prisons and keep everybody behind bars. And it would be better for the Police not to carry batons but rather rifles so as to kill all the people. Is this a way to govern? This will only deepen the deep-rooted conflicts in Hong Kong so that they cannot be resolved in the short term. If the Government is not going to put a first step forward, the problem will only be LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12581 prolonged and delayed, so that governing Hong Kong will be increasingly tough. By then, the victim is not the Secretary … with a bit of luck, the Secretary and LEUNG Chun-ying are going to be reappointed for a second term and earn ten millions or more. The Secretary earns an annual salary of three to four millions and many people work under him. Those who suffer most will be the grass root people, those grass root people and young people who do not enjoy bargaining power. They have all along been the victims.

I so submit in support of Mr WONG Yuk-man's motion. Thank you, President.

MR CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I rise to speak to strongly oppose the motion moved by Mr WONG Yuk-man on appointing a select committee to inquire into the riots in Mong Kok that occurred on the first day of the Lunar New Year under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (the P&P Ordinance).

I find his motion extremely absurd. It aims to divert the community's attention, tries to politicize and rationalize the riots that are obviously against the law, and attempts to use administrative blunders as an excuse to defend for the rioters. I am determined to oppose the motion as it is another form of accomplice to the rioters and tries to beautify their violent behaviours. The behaviours of the rioters in the incident of Mong Kok were undoubtedly illegal and extremely violent, and this is clear to anyone who is sensible and neutral. The masked rioters were completely out of control. They burnt and smashed things, and madly threw bricks at policemen to the extent that they would not even spare an injured officer lying on the street with blood all over his face. Their behaviours were not just illegal; they were actually no different from the ISIS terrorists in their cold-bloodedness. They have gone too far that even a liberal community would find their behaviours intolerable.

Any rational, civilized and law abiding citizen should strongly condemn such illegal and violent acts. But ridiculous enough, many pan-democratic Members, including Mr WONG Yuk-man, have not said a word to condemn the violent behaviours. Mr WONG however moved a motion to establish a select committee to inquire into the clashes between the Police and members of the public in Mong Kok at this juncture when the police is still investigating the incident and the case is still awaiting the Court to fix a date for trial. He even 12582 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 described the rioters as "young people who do not bother about losses and gains". Everything said and done by him is completely outrageous and exactly opposite to the truth.

President, as everyone can see, Mr WONG Yuk-man intends to divert the community's attention by putting the blame on the Government. He tries to use administrative blunders as the excuse for the violent acts of the rioters. Meanwhile, he continues to promote the so-called "valorous fight for justice" and the fallacy that "breaking the law is justifiable". His advocacy literally defies the rule of law of Hong Kong and attempts to beautify the violent behaviours. Hence it should be strongly condemned instead of having our support.

Mr WONG Yuk-man's motion is also a waste of time for the Council. Everyone knows that there is not much time left in this term of the present Legislative Council. Even if a select committee is established, it will not have adequate time to conduct investigation. Mr WONG Yuk-man and the pan-democratic Members who support this motion are well aware of this fact. But they still press ahead with their call. I would say this is purely a gesture or a "political show" aiming to please a small group of radicals and win their votes. These pan-democratic Members have acted against their conscience and distorted the truth for just a tiny bit of benefits, they are very pathetic indeed.

What I find even more ridiculous is, when the police officers were assaulted by the rioters, when the spirit of rule of law was at stake, the pan-democratic Members who always emphasize the importance of rule of law chose to take side with the rioters. They made up various ridiculous excuses, including the saying that "the people were forced to rebel under government oppression", in order to justify the violent behaviours of the rioters. Certain democratic Members even provided legal aid to the rioters arrested at the police station immediately after the riots in Mong Kok. This highlights that the pan-democratic politicians are extremely hypocritical; their words are inconsistent with their deeds. In their eyes, "law" is just a tool that they can easily play with to win votes.

President, the rule of law is the foundation that democracy is built on. It is also the cornerstone of a community that ensures social stability and harmonious development. Hong Kong has long been recognized as a city of rule of law, which is a pride of Hong Kong people. Unfortunately, the fallacy that "breaking the law is justifiable" has been widely spread in the community since LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12583 the outbreak of the illegal occupation movement. Some radicals are completely ignorant of rule of law, which they believe, is something that can be sacrificed in pursuit of their so-called ideals. May I ask the pan-democratic Members, is there anything else such law-breakers will not attempt to do? What will happen in Hong Kong if we do not condemn these illegal behaviours firmly and strongly, and allow the continual dissemination of the fallacy that "breaking the law is justifiable"? Do we actually prefer to let Hong Kong, as a city of rule of law, degenerate into a city of crime?

In addition, I have to remind pan-democratic Members not to mess with the rioters again. I am afraid your plan to win votes and get political benefits by conniving at and finding justifications for the violent behaviours is just your wishful thinking. The rioters completely defy the rule of law. This time, when they were antagonistic to the Government, they attacked the police officers. But next time, or in the future, they may attack you guys violently when their position is no longer the same as you. If you continue to defend these rioters blindly, you would only get yourself into big troubles at the end. You guys better watch out.

I so submit. Thank you, President.

MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary for Security was contradicting himself in his opening remarks, but he did not even feel ashamed and blush when he said such things. On the one hand, he stated that the outbreak of riots should never be linked up with governance since the two were not interrelated. On the other hand, he said that there was no use invoking the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (the P&P Ordinance) to inquire into the case, and that it could in no way help to address the deep-rooted conflicts in society.

What exactly are deep-rooted conflicts? They are after all problems of governance. Nearly all street disturbances in cities all over the world, big cities in particular, are closely related to the governance of their government. It is true that wages owed by big companies and the suffering of workers can also lead to street disturbances, but these will also evolve into problems of governance if the government concerned fails to do anything to help. This is one most basic concept of sociology: 99% of major street disturbances are related to the governance of the government in the place concerned. Otherwise, what will be the underlying causes of such incidents? What exactly is he trying to say?

12584 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016

He has failed to properly perform his role as the Secretary for Security. When he commented that this heartbreaking incident of violence was packaged as something else by the opposition camp, he was actually doing the same thing, was he not? When faced with an obviously heartbreaking social phenomenon, he has behaved as if nothing has happened and sought to settle it by leaving it unsettled. This is exactly the attitude adopted by the current term Government in policy implementation. Problems encountered are regarded as nothing, hoping that time can heal everything and things will really be settled by behaving as if nothing has ever happened and leaving them the way they are. What inferior, disgusting and completely ridiculous remarks he has made! Is he trying to follow what has been depicted in the novel 1984 and produce a Hong Kong edition of the book? The remarks are nothing but sheer nonsense. He may think that he is doing some practical things, but he is just trying to show his loyalty to Beijing.

What I find more puzzling is that as rumoured, when LAM Wing-kee returned to Hong Kong, four plainclothes police officers were waiting for him at the customs control point did not offer any protection to him, but just clarified with him if he wished to cancel the report of his case as soon as possible. Does the Secretary for Security know anything about the matter, and what response will he make in this regard? He has also said that a motion was passed by the Panel on Security to support the Hong Kong Police Force and turn down the proposal of inquiring into the matter, sounding as if such motions passed by this Council do carry weight. But the fact is, they can decide the passage or otherwise of nearly every motion moved in this Council since they are the majority, and the Secretary should know about it very well. If such motions with no binding effect could really make a big difference, how come Secretary Dr KO Wing-man has never boasted of the motions we passed previously on animal rights and welfare? It is because these motions are of no use to him.

Hence, as the Secretary for Security, he should not take forward policies under his purview in this way. I hope he will respond to the question I raised just now about the case of LAM Wing-kee and indicate clearly to reporters waiting outside this Chamber whether he knows anything about the matter. In this connection, he will be in big trouble no matter what the answer is. If he says that he is aware of the matter, people will then ask him why he has done nothing and has just asked LAM Wing-kee to cancel the report of his case. If the answer is in the negative, queries will be raised about the effectiveness of the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12585 notification mechanism, for which hundreds of thousands of dollars are paid every month. I thank the President for not criticizing me for digressing from the subject, since I have actually deviated from the subject.

Mr Christopher CHEUNG has made some criticisms in his speech delivered just now against what some Members have said earlier, and although he was just reading from his script, the terms and phrases he used have driven me crazy. He has used the phrase "burning and looting" to describe what happened that night, and this is exactly the same as the description made every day by the People's Daily and the China National Radio (in Putonghua) back then when I was providing news coverage of the June Fourth Incident in the Mainland. He has also commented that people had "從(pronounced as cung4)容" (a Chinese term with no meaning in itself) the offenders, who had paid no regard to law and discipline, but I utterly do not understand what is meant by "從(pronounced as cung4)容", and wonder if the term used should be "從(pronounced as sung1)容" (meaning "act calmly and peacefully"). It has really driven me crazy when I subsequently realized that what he said was actually "縱(pronounced as zung3) 容" (meaning "connive at"). He cautioned that we should not play with fire, but the message should in fact be conveyed to those middle-aged Chinese women and men, telling them not to resort to violence so lightly. Mr IP Kwok-him is looking at me and I think he does understand what I am saying, since those people can always, but not sometimes, get out of control.

President, I support the suggestion of invoking the P&P Ordinance to inquire into the serious clashes in Mong Kok. The incident took place on the night of the first day of the Chinese New Year, and I must leave Hong Kong by air that night to go overseas for the funeral of a close relative. I realized before boarding the plane that things were not going well, but I also considered it necessary for young people to vent their discontent and resentment after the Umbrella Movement. As it was a public holiday that day, and the first day of the Chinese New Year too, I boarded the plane thinking that we could just wait and see. However, when I arrived at the place of my destination at around 12 noon the next day Hong Kong time and switched on my mobile phone, I was astonished to find that a police officer had fired his gun, which is really terrifying. I think an investigation into the incident should be conducted, and things are not as simple as what the Police have described, that is, the police officer who fired his gun has not breached the discipline of the Police Force.

12586 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016

I have checked the relevant video clips and feel that as the police officer was besieged then, he might have fired his gun twice vertically up in the air in a moment of desperation without giving it much thought. He has fired his gun not once but twice on a busy street in Mong Kok, and there are residential buildings around. If someone in one of these buildings popped his head out at that moment out of curiosity to see what has happened, it would be likely for him to get hurt by those flying bullets. I can of course appreciate and understand the upsurge of sentiment on the part of the police officer at that very moment when he fired his gun, but the Police cannot simply assert that there was no violation of their internal guidelines and behave as if nothing has ever happened. If this is the case, police officers would be allowed to do so in the future and fire their gun vertically up in the air when they consider that they are placed under serious threats. Although the gun was fired vertically up in the air, it should not be taken lightly since this could still be dangerous and we could run into trouble.

I hope the Police could at least offer an explanation and issue a new set of internal guidelines to remind police officers that they should exercise the highest level of restraint. Can it be described that the police officer concerned has already exercised the highest level of restraint before he fired his gun vertically up in the air? What we are talking about now is the firing of a gun, but not the indiscriminate use of pepper spray or baton. This is a very serious matter, and we cannot adopt an evasive attitude, behave as if nothing has ever happened, and again try to settle it by leaving it unsettled.

This is also a very important matter to the prospect of the Hong Kong Police Force because the incident may serve as a precedent. The Government should not try to get away with it and let things go, pretending that nothing has ever happened as long as there is no more mention of the case. This is my biggest query, and I hope an answer could be given to me. However, President, frankly speaking, how can we spare enough time to appoint a select committee under the P&P Ordinance to inquire into the incident? It would not be possible for us to inquire into the incident now, and we can just take this opportunity to state our position clearly, express our agreement or disagreement to inquire into the matter, and put forth our views on the terrifying moments and scenes of blazing fire during the clashes between the Police and members of the public in Mong Kok.

Nevertheless, what is most deplorable is that the Government has tried to draw a final conclusion to pre-empt queries about the incident by calling it the Mong Kok "riot", which has the effect of making a very serious accusation LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12587 against participants of the public assembly held that night. The term used is really terrifying, but has the incident ever led to tragedies of bloodshed? If the Government really wants to call it the Mong Kok riot, I think sociologists may wish to take time to examine with the Government the appropriateness of using such a term to describe what happened that night. However, it is most deplorable and laughable of the Government to describe the 1967 riots as "騷亂" (meaning "civil disturbances") in Chinese, or even " 騷 動 " (meaning "disturbances") at the beginning. What is meant by "disturbances"? When a big movie star arrive, some disturbances may occur among a large group of fans. Have our public officers ever studied Chinese language? It is barely acceptable to use the term "騷 亂", but they have chosen to use "騷 動" instead. It has subsequently been revised to "騷 亂" and thus, you may just save the trouble of doing research in this regard. The 1967 riots have indeed been described as "騷 動" at the beginning, but it has later been revised to "騷 亂".

In my opinion, it is a blatant attempt of the Government to doctor history because people of my generation and people all over the world, including you, President, have all along regarded the large-scale social unrest took place back then as the 1967 riots, or even the large-scale riots in 1967. It does not matter whether the term "large-scale" is included, but the point is that the riots did lead to casualties. If my memory serves me right, a girl and her younger brother were killed by a home-made bomb planted near Braemar Hill Road, North Point, reflecting that the riots did lead to deaths. The Government has gone so far as to escalate the severity of the clashes in Mong Kok to a level higher than that of the damage caused by the 1967 riots. What kind of a government is this? The deplorable approach adopted by the Government is really beyond our imagination. President, this is one of the reasons why I fully support the motion moved to inquire into the incident under the P&P Ordinance, though it is in fact quite impossible now for us to do so.

There is also another reason: The freedom of the press and the media's right of reporting are not only the cornerstone of society, but also the last line of defense for a free society. In a society with no basic freedom of the press and basic right of reporting for the media, people will have utterly no knowledge about what is going on. They will have no idea at all about what the people are protesting against, fighting for and seeking to overthrow, and the whole society will be brainwashed. A society will be rendered a hopeless case if it does not have a regular and formal press sector to serve the people genuinely. However, it seems that this society of ours has started giving up on the freedom of the press, 12588 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 especially the conventional media, which have mostly turned to serve the Party. This is however another issue which can be explored in details in lessons on journalism.

Nevertheless, according to news reports published afterwards, something very strange has happened during the clashes in Mong Kok. A reporter wearing his press card was brought under control and pushed to the ground by the Police, and although he has identified himself as a reporter very directly, he was ignored and beaten up by police officers at the scene. The injured reporter was subsequently sent to the hospital and got stitches on his wounds. Is it a breach of internal discipline on the part of the police officers involved in the case, and have they violated any guidelines for execution of duties?

Certainly, my comments are not one-sided, and there are also reporters who have been hit by flying bricks that night. The Government cannot turn a blind eye to this, and as a result of the violent act of throwing bricks, we can now see something glittering between the bricks on pedestrian pavements outside the Legislative Council Complex and in the surrounding area of the Citic Tower. What a tasteless and ugly scene it is! As pedestrian pavements are surfaced with concrete bricks, in order to prevent young people from throwing bricks when staging protests during the visit of ZHANG Dejiang, the Government has decided to act fast and glue up the bricks, thus causing the unsightly reflected glare between the bricks. This can be described as a scar in our history, and would it be a permanent practice adopted by the Government in the future?

Why can we not inquire into the clashes between the Police and members of the public in Mong Kok? Why can discussions not be held at least on the incident? I wonder why the Government has not only objected to inquiring into the clashes, but has also deliberately played down the incident. Yet, I am sure this Government of ours will secure support from some Members of this Council, and Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr TAM Yiu-chung and Mr CHAN Kam-lam, who have already formed the majority, will certainly support the Government. However, the Government should not bury its conscience. Life is short, we will all grow old, reduce to flying ashes and smouldering smoke, and then come to the stage of "ashes to ashes, dust to dust". In the end, we should all be honest with ourselves and ask earnestly with our last breath: Have we let ourselves down with this life, have we failed to properly perform our role as a public officer, and have we really been fair to this society and its people? Thank you.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12589

MR CHAN KAM-LAM (in Cantonese): President, in the evening of 8 February, the Chinese New Year's day, everybody was celebrating one of a few occasions of family union in the year as well as the joy of spring. But when people turned on the television, what came to sight were scenes incredibly shocking to them. The streets in Mong Kok plunged into chaos as a group of masked persons headed by the localists attacked police officers with such sharp weapons as bricks, iron rods, glass bottles, and so on. What was more, some of these people set fire on the street, burnt down tires and even attempted to set a taxi ablaze. The scenes were too brutal and violent for one to believe that they were part of a genuine happening in Hong Kong, a place said to be one of the safest cities in the world. It was found out afterwards that more than 2 000 pieces of pavement bricks had been ripped up, many streets which were affected in the riots were torn with damage. The Police had to cordon off certain street sections temporarily to pick up the pieces after the riot. More than 100 police officers were injured and one even passed out. The incident is finally positioned as a riot.

The incident reminds us of the illegal Occupy Central movement in September 2014. At that time, the main roads in Hong Kong were occupied for more than two months. Numerous citizens were distressed as they were impeded in their journeys to work and school. The Hong Kong economy has subsequently suffered from a gradual setback. The Legislative Council was stormed. At that time, protesters wanted to enter the Legislative Council Complex illegally and hence hit the glass door of the complex with bricks and mills barriers, smashing the glass. The storming caused injuries to a large number of innocent people. Such a course of action shares close affinity with the Mong Kok riot which obviously was neither an accident nor an isolated case. It did not arise solely from the management of hawkers but was organized and set up deliberately. A small fraction of extreme localists orchestrated an escalation of operation and summoned within a mere couple of hours hundreds of people who launched a bloody attack against the policemen spontaneously and simultaneously. There were even sources indicating that weapons and supplies were arranged to be delivered to the scene.

The rule of law and civil behavior are among the core values of Hong Kong, serving as cornerstones of Hong Kong's development. "A city of civilization" is now gradually becoming "a city of violence" or even "a city of terror". We cannot but thank those pan-democratic Members for providing constant preaching and assistance in the Legislative Council. The Council holds zillions of meetings every week and they all go live on webcast. The public at large see how Members can wilfully hurl various objects in the Council. Since 12590 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016

Mr WONG Yuk-man dashed a banana to the then Chief Executive Donald TSANG at the Chamber in October 2008, the props have been upgraded persistently, evolving from egg to water bottle. Is this not the best exemplification they give to the young generation? The physical and verbal violence which swamped the Legislative Council have eventually grown into the present day social riot, and the pan-democratic Members in the Council should bear the largest share of responsibility for it.

Mr Alan LEONG said in the year before last that abiding by the law was not what the rule of law was all about. Such a claim has foretold Hong Kong's degeneration into a society of violence. After the Mong Kok riot, taxis at the scene were vandalized and the nearby shops were damaged inevitably. What is surprising is that the pan-democratic Members, champions of justice, did not pay heed to these genuinely needy people and instead provided free legal assistance to the rioters under arrest.

Mr WONG Yuk-man proposed to set up a select committee conferred with power and privilege to look into the causes of this incident. He obviously is aiming at stirring up a debate and using the opportunity to attack the Central Authorities, the SAR Government and the Chief Executive. The malicious intention is plain to even a man in the street. The reality is that Mr WONG Yuk-man and the array of pan-democratic Members have always been claiming to support Hong Kong's reunification with the Motherland. In terms of their deeds, however, they are increasingly seeking to challenge the authority of the Central Authorities in every possible way and showing contempt for the constitutional status of the SAR Government as well as the Chief Executive.

People such as Mr WONG Yuk-man and Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung revealed to us their true colours once they sworn in as Members after getting elected to the Legislative Council. In a scornful play of the oath, they were insincere in bearing allegiance to the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China and on top of that, were unwilling to serve conscientiously, dutifully, in full accordance with the law, honestly and with integrity. The establishment of select committee aims only at diverting people's attention away from being accountable to the Government and to the disciplinary forces. However, we have seen from the entire riot process that the Hong Kong policemen were confronted not only with physical violence but also with verbal insults, suffering overwhelmingly from both physical and psychological abuses. However, the Police Force still managed to abide by the principle of restraint, an attitude that they had adhered to since the Occupy Central movement. The riot evidently targeted police officers who maintained law and order in Hong Kong. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12591

A professional guideline which was widely circulated online the day following the riot indicated that the capture of policemen and the attack of reporters were the subsequent course of action to be taken. In the Occupy Central movement taken place in the year before last, the Police did not prosecute protesters for riot. But in the Mong Kok riot, the protesters have seemingly been replaced by radical mobs. Meanwhile, we met trouble on another front. While the police officers outside the Council were seen as targets of assault, the pan-democratic Members were launching warfare within the Council in a concerted manoeuvre. These pan-democratic Members have moved a large number of "filibuster-style" amendments to slash the budgeted expenditure of the Security Bureau and various disciplinary forces, including those which seek to cut the annual remuneration of fire personnel and policemen, paying no regard to the law and order in Hong Kong or the lives and properties of the Hong Kong people.

Indeed, setting up a select committee is definitely not an effective way to ascertain the causes and consequences of a riot. Hong Kong is a liberal and democratic society which enjoys a high degree of transparency in governance, the freedom of expression and multiple channels in monitoring the executive decisions of the Government. The call for establishing a select committee aims merely at diverting the focus of all the attention to the governance of the Government, in an effort to legalize violence, justifying and embellishing its underlying causes.

Following the logic as advocated by the pan-democratic Members, arson, the hurling of bricks and the violation of law are all permissible provided that people are dissatisfied with the governance of the Government. When there is dissatisfaction with the Government, violence can be allowed, even supported and promoted. This logic which defies morality and conscience cannot be acceptable in any country or any place in the world. It will prevent Hong Kong people from living and working in contentment, costing them dearly.

Rather than saying the Government governs badly, it is more appropriate to say that the Government is unable to govern. The pan-democratic Members enjoy filibustering in the Legislative Council: they filibuster on Government issues, not to mention on livelihood ones, such that bills and funding proposals which are closely related to people's livelihood and the economy cannot be passed, stalling the onward advancement of the entire society.

12592 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016

The Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge, the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link, and the funding proposals under the Appropriation Bill are all doomed to meet filibuster which eventually generates major congestions of agenda items. Facing the limited meeting time, the Government insists on giving priority to livelihood issues and non-controversial issues in drawing up the remaining agenda. On top of this, it has also put forward several demands for extra meeting. There are indeed shortcomings in Hong Kong's political system, but this is absolutely not an excuse for the array of pan-democratic Members to do harm wilfully. The pan-democrats act to their heart's content and only the Government is made responsible for restoring the situation to normality, thus leading to the society's stalemate development. Is this not a source of violence?

We cannot imagine what will become of Hong Kong with all the hurling of bricks. This trend of violence has seriously impacted on Hong Kong's international image and the chain reaction it has generated spans across various trades and industries, with tourism being the first and foremost victim. Being one of the four economic pillars in Hong Kong, tourism generates a large number of jobs in the territory. The latest survey shows that from January to April, the number of inbound tourists amounted to 18 million person-visits, falling about 8% from the same period last year. The unemployment rate of tourism-related industries stands at 5.4%, even higher than the overall unemployment rate. The number of inbound packaged tours visiting Hong Kong last month dropped about 50% on a yearly basis. Many tourist guides have been forced to switch to a new career. Facing the slowdown of the world economy, Hong Kong should have proactively paid attention to the development of the economy and the livelihood, so as to seek steady or even upward development under the lacklustre economic condition. However, a handful of people insist on promoting confrontation with the Government, hinder the Government in its governance while leaving the eventual adverse outcome for Hong Kong people to settle. Recently, press reports have indicated that the comprehensive competitiveness of Hong Kong has slipped to the twelfth place among a number of cities in China. Our growth competitiveness has even slipped one place to the twenty-fifth. These indicate to a certain extent the growth potential of Hong Kong is showing signs of fatigue. If we continue to feel resistant to the co-operation between the two places, the future economy of Hong Kong will only continue its downward slide.

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

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12593

Perpetrators of violence must be subject to the sanction of law. Violence is not confined to vandalizing by physical means, it is more importantly the encroachment of ideology. A handful of people in society harbour ulterior motives when highlighting the importance of two systems at the expense of one country. They even oppose the Basic Law in an attempt to intensify conflicts and create division in Hong Kong society. The only way for Hong Kong to rescue itself is to put down disputes and resume rationality. Hong Kong should not be eroded by low quality democracy. Only a stable society founded on level-headedness is able to resolve problems. Otherwise, the day when petroleum bombs but not eggs are thrown, as predicted by Mr WONG Yuk-man, will come eventually. Certainly, this is not to be welcomed by the great majority of Hong Kong-loving people.

Deputy President, I so submit and I oppose the motion.

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I support the motion moved by Mr WONG Yuk-man on appointing a select committee under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance to inquire into the clashes between the Police and members of the public in Mong Kok from the night of 8 February to the early morning of 9 February 2016 which caused injuries to many people, and other related matters.

On the night of 8 February (that is, the first day of the Lunar New Year) this year, dozens of hawkers were conducting hawking activities in Langham Place, Mong Kok near Shantung Street, turning the place into the "Langham Night Bazaar". However, when staff members of the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department (FEHD) tried to take enforcement actions against illegal cooked food hawkers, whose trading activities usually turn active during the Lunar New Year season, they came into conflict with people at the scene and had to call the Police for assistance. A large number of police officers arrived at the junction of Langham Place and the Grand Tower at 12.00 midnight. Pepper spray was used more than once and red banners were displayed in an attempt to control the situation, but there were clashes between police officers and the crowd during the confrontation, and the clashes later evolved into large-scale conflicts. People started to set fires on miscellaneous items in various places in Mong Kok, many people such as police officers, reporters and demonstrators were injured, and dozens of demonstrators were arrested by the Police. The incident came to an end at around 8 am on 9 February when the crowd gradually dispersed.

12594 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016

No matter how the Government would call it, the "Mong Kok clashes", "Mong Kok disturbances" or "Fishball Revolution", it is still necessary to conduct an investigation into the incident in an unambiguous manner, so that only one truth prevails in history, and that justice will be done to all who have been affected by the incident. It does not necessarily mean that by calling it a "revolution", members of the public are completely right, while they will be completely wrong when the incident is referred as a "riot". There is not much meaning for us to argue here about this.

Superficially, the immediate cause of the clashes is the hawker management policy adopted by the FEHD, which has been accused of abandoning the usual practice of not taking enforcement actions against hawkers during the Lunar New Year season. Although illegal itinerant cooked food hawkers are not allowed under the law to conduct trading activities on the street, it is true that operationally speaking, informal practice has been put in place previously to relax the regulation of hawkers during Lunar New Year. People have pointed out that the incident under discussion was actually caused by the "city management" mode of control exercised by the FEHD in recent years to suppress hawkers. Instead of what actually happened that night, this is in fact used to describe the impression that the FEHD has given to Hong Kong people in this respect in recent years. Certainly, there is no fire without smoke, and although illegal hawking activities involving fishballs is the immediate cause of the clashes, there are indeed more deep-rooted social problems behind.

The clashes took place in Mong Kok on the first day of the Lunar New Year was induced by the enforcement actions taken against hawkers by the FEHD, but as a matter of fact, there can be a host of background factors for the incident, and it can be a result of the combination of many social problems. The governance of the Government is the background reason for the clashes in Mong Kok, and even though I do not call it a tyranny, it has at least pushed our community towards extreme polarization. As these social problems have remained unsettled, they combined to become a pot of fishballs which gave rise to the clashes. The development of the whole incident has already deviated far away from its origin.

What I am most eager to share with you today is that the clashes in Mong Kok caused by the problem of illegal hawkers have reminded me of the February 28 Incident occurred in Taiwan in 1947. The February 28 Incident was superficially caused by the wounding of a widow selling contraband cigarettes in Taipei by a Tobacco Monopoly agent, followed by the gunshot LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12595 killing of a bystander by another Tobacco Monopoly agent. When people got agitated and staged a procession to the Governor-General's Office, conflicts were triggered. Yet, the Incident was in fact induced by many social and political factors behind.

Politically speaking, Japan surrendered and withdrew from Taiwan after the Second World War, and the administrative control of Taiwan was handed to the Kuomintang-administered Republic of China. As Taiwan was placed under Chinese rule again and reunified with the mother country, Taiwanese had initially pinned high hope on the Kuomintang administration. However, CHEN Yi, the then Governor-General of Taiwan, failed to respond to public aspirations and achieve good governance. Rather, government powers were highly centralized in his hands, and he had not only assumed absolute powers of executive, legislative and judicial, he had also made himself the supreme commander of the armed forces. The powers he enjoyed were so great that many Taiwanese viewed his governance as a step backward from the Japanese rule, thus arousing substantial public discontent.

There are of course many more background factors for the outbreak of the February 28 Incident which make it impossible for us to compare the Incident directly with what happened in Hong Kong, but we do find something in common. For example, officials of the Kuomintang administration were corrupt and rotten, the garrison troops of the Republic of China were highly undisciplined, there was a general shortage of many local goods and commodities, and so on. Besides, as we all know, the February 28 Incident had also led to an uprising on an extensive scale.

In the Mong Kok clashes, we have witnessed the venting of people's anger and grievances against the Government, but it would indeed be premature to predict if this would evolve into some movements of a larger scale or even a so-called "revolution". However, after the clashes in the February 28 Incident, the Kuomintang administration has made no effort to investigate into the truth of the Incident, but has resorted to high-handed measures to handle the case. It has subsequently administered Taiwan with all sorts of suppression measures such as searching through the rural areas to eliminate rebels, placing the island under martial law and creating the so-called White Terror period for Taiwan. These measures have not only prevented Taiwan from developing towards a free and democratic society, but have also deeply intensified the opposition between the mainlanders and the native Taiwanese, which has later evolved into the opposition between the Pan-Blue and the Pan-Green Camps. Although 12596 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 apologies and compensations have been offered to the widows of many victims of the February 28 Incident after the lifting of martial law, an investigation has still not been conducted on the responsibilities of the perpetrators and the truth of the Incident. Until today, the February 28 Incident is still a deep scar in the hearts of many Taiwan people.

The clashes in Mong Kok have also reminded me of the Formosa Incident (also known as the Kaohsiung Incident) which occurred at the end of 1979. What has deeply impressed me is the Chinese phrase "未暴先鎮，鎮而後暴" (meaning "suppression before a riot actually occurred has eventually triggered a riot") used to describe this massive incident of public clashes. If law-enforcement agencies choose to suppress a public movement when people have not committed any violent acts, escalated actions will of course be taken in response to the suppression. This is also what we often suggest when we say that "tyranny is the source of violence".

We consider it necessary to set up a committee to investigate into the clashes in Mong Kok, so as to face squarely and follow up on the existing problems of the Government, and examine if there is any use of excessive force by the Police, thereby bringing order out of chaos and diverting public discontent. I do not consider it desirable to simply keep on labelling those involved in the case as a gang of thugs in a high-handed manner without investigating the causes of the clashes. If we go on handling the case in this way, it is possible that more incidents of violence and even suicidal attacks will be incited, thus tearing different social groups including the Police and members of the public further apart.

As we may recall, after the clashes in Mong Kok, academics and professionals have signed a joint petition calling on the Government to set up an independent inquiry committee to thoroughly investigate into the truth of the incident as well as the causes of the clashes, and to make recommendations in this regard. The suggestion put forward by these academics and professionals then was the common hope shared by many people, but what was the Government's response? It turned down the proposal on the ground that a criminal investigation would be conducted by the Police. However, the internal review committee established by the Police will only examine three areas of their operations in the incident, namely "operations", "arms, equipment and training" and "support". Moreover, the results of the review are intended for internal reference by the Police only, and apart from those on the area of "arms, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12597 equipment and training", those on the other two areas of "operations" and "support" will not be made public. We have no objection to the proposal of conducting an investigation by the Police into the three areas mentioned above since these are their internal affairs, but how can the internal review committee established under the Police be used to substitute an independent inquiry committee?

The Secretary for Security has opined just now that the appointment of a select committee is just an attempt to divert attention, but how can this divert people's attention? The Police and the independent inquiry committee should conduct an investigation separately on their own, but as it is impossible now for us to set up an independent inquiry committee, we then propose to refer the matter for investigation by this Council, which should appoint a select committee to inquire into the clashes. As a matter of fact, Members of the pro-establishment camp will also join the select committee appointed for this purpose, so how can people's attention be diverted, and how can the inquiry conducted by a select committee be used to serve as a kind of embellishment?

We have never said that those who advocate militant resistance are all persons with lofty ideals and men of righteousness, since there are also bad people among them. This is the reason why we have repeatedly and sincerely advised those who participate in social movements to beware of these bad elements and be careful that they will not be used by people who advocate militant resistance, since many of these people will only sit back with folded arms and let someone else fight for them. I would also like to advise these people sincerely that they should not try to achieve their aims with whatever means they can and let innocent people suffer.

It seems that only two of the royalists in this Council have spoken today, but this is not surprising to us that they will eventually vote against the motion. Yet, I hope they can be more careful with what they say. In his speech delivered just now, Mr Christopher CHEUNG has likened people participated in the incident of clashes in Mong Kok to terrorists of ISIS, and I would like to tell Mr CHEUNG that if this is really the case, he should keep a watchful eye on his head. This is simply unlimited exaggeration, regarding all people participated in the incident of clashes in Mong Kok as cold-blooded terrorists who have covered the head of abducted persons with black cloth and beheaded them. In fact, some of these participants are youngsters who care for Hong Kong and have discontent with society. It does not matter if you fail to feel for them, but such a 12598 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 comparison should never be made. Otherwise, they will only be pushed to develop towards the direction of becoming the kind of persons that you have mentioned, which I think no Hong Kong people would wish to see.

As for the wicked and violent acts mentioned by the Secretary, works undertaken by the Department of Justice and the Court to deal with them will not be hampered even though a select committee is appointed to inquire into the case. The Government should in fact accept the suggestion put forward by academics and professionals in the joint petition initiated at the outset to set up an inquiry committee to investigate into the causes of the clashes in Mong Kok and identify the persons to be held responsible for the incident. It is also our original intention to support the appointment of a neutral person, such as a judge or retired judge, as the chairman of the inquiry committee. He is neither a member of the democratic camp and the opposition camp nor an element seeking to topple China and cause unrest in Hong Kong, and we have never indicated any wish to be appointed as members of the inquiry committee. If we are allowed to choose between the two, it would of course be more effective to let the Government take the lead to set up an inquiry committee and invite some neutral persons to participate in the investigation work. Even though the motion on the appointment of a select committee can be passed today, related work has to be left until the next term since it is now approaching the end of June and the current Legislative Session is drawing to a close.

Mr CHAN Kam-lam poured out his dissatisfaction and strong views about the democratic camp all these years in this Council when he spoke earlier, probably due to the fact that he will not run for re-election, but it seems that he has overly flattered us. According to him, resistance actions in this Council have led to confrontation and clashes on the street. Although physical contacts or throwing of things are involved in our resistance actions in this Council these days, most of them are still of a non-violent nature and we have no intention of causing injury to anyone. If what Mr CHAN Kam-lam has said is true, it would not be possible for him to cut off the filibuster so easily during deliberation of the funding item for the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link. The item would not have been endorsed so smoothly, and at least there was no one trying to give him a good beating then. Hence, he is indeed overly flattering us by saying so, and I think those who were at the scene and participated in the incident of clashes in Mong Kok that night would not admit that our resistance actions in this Council have inspired them and taught them to take to the street to oppose the Government.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12599

Nevertheless, I would like to take the opportunity to raise one point. I have once attended a programme hosted by children, and in which a child asked me if taking resistance actions in this Council would set a bad example for children. I therefore told him frankly that the live broadcast of the Council proceedings should indeed be classified as "Parental Guidance Recommended". First of all, children should never learn from LEUNG Chun-ying, who often tells lies and confuses right and wrong in this Council. Besides, Members from the pro-establishment camp also have the habit of confusing right and wrong and talking black into white, children who are slow-witted will be easily influenced. However, children nowadays are very smart and they know how to distinguish such things, sometimes even better than their parents.

As a matter of fact, by supporting the proposal to appoint a select committee under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance to inquire into the case, we are actually trying to lend a helping hand to the Government, to Hong Kong and to our future, so that we can treat the wound together properly instead of turning a blind eye to the damage done and pretending that nothing has happened. When the Government tells us that things are alright, it actually considers that the problems could always be addressed with stricter combat measures.

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, today, we are debating a motion moved by Mr WONG Yuk-man under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance on setting up a select committee to inquire into the incident, or riot in the words of the Government, which took place on the Lunar New Year's Day and related matters.

Deputy President, Members who oppose this motion dismiss Mr WONG Yuk-man as a trouble-maker with the ulterior motive of smearing the Government by forcing this Council to discuss this matter. Members can see clearly from the debate today that they have spoken their minds instead of remaining silent in the debate today. They have dismissed the serious Police-public clash on the Lunar New Year's Day in Mong Kok either as a continuation or as a result of our protests in the legislature. They even dare say something like this.

Deputy President, let us look at the positions of some stakeholders (such as Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr IP Kwok-him and Mr TAM Yiu-chung) on a few previous riots. The riots in 1956 were too remote from now, and they were just 12600 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 small kids at the time. As for the 1967 Riots, Mr IP Kwok-him said that he supported and participated in it. I do not know how others think, but this was what Mr IP Kwok-him said during an interview. I do not know what Mr CHAN Kam-lam thinks either.

The authorities conducted an inquiry into the 1967 Riots. However, the findings of this inquiry, which covers its cause and development, have not been disclosed and are kept by Britain. Why, Deputy President? Why are the findings kept confidential? Why isn't this the case with the findings of the inquiry into the 1966 Disturbances? The year 1966 also saw the outbreak of disturbances which some describe as riots ― the two terms "disturbances" and "riots" are both used ― and the authorities conducted an inquiry very quickly. In April 1966, people's opposition to the upward adjustment of the Star Ferry fares led to the outbreak of disturbances or riots. The relevant inquiry was completed and published at the end of the same year. The inquiry report was very in-depth, and the inquiry was led by Sir Michael HOGAN, a judge at the time. Why was this inquiry led by the Government? The reason is that the colonial Government needed to "hand in its assignment", an "assignment" setting out the cause of this incident.

Some may wonder why the Government did not "hand in its assignment" by publishing the findings of its inquiry into the 1967 Riots. I can tell Members why. The reason is that the 1967 Riots was a machinated conspiracy modelled on the 3 December Riots in Macao and triggered by pro-communist ultra-leftists under the veneer of various governance blunders of the British Hong Kong colonial government, especially its ruthless suppression of strikes. As Members know, what happened at an artificial flower factory was the immediate cause of the 1967 Riots. At the time, many factory workers protested for wage increases and compensation for overtime work and attempted to stop the employer from closing down the factory. Many workers were dismissed, so they blocked the passageways ― just like what we do today ― and the employer summoned the help of large numbers of police officers and riot police officers. These police officers battered the workers and even the journalists at the scene, much to the anger of many people. But pro-communist activists set up the Hong Kong and Kowloon Committee for Anti-Hong Kong British Persecution Struggle as support for strike workers. They handed out cash to strike workers, and used Chinese enterprises as the base for the riots. All this is not my mere fabrication. Large numbers of monographs on this specific topic are available in the library of the Legislative Council for Members' perusal.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12601

Why mustn't the inquiry findings of the riots be published? Here is the reason. Halfway through the riots, the British minister of state for foreign affairs asked the Chinese ministry of foreign affairs, "Are you going to reclaim the sovereignty over Hong Kong? If yes, please do so. We are prepared to withdraw. We will definitely not behave like the Portuguese Macao administration, which chooses to bow in order to stay." The 1967 Riots was meant exactly to make Britain choose between "bow if you want to stay" and "leave if you refuse to bow". What does that mean? In their words, this means that the riot was supposed to usurp the power of the British Hong Kong administration and bring it to its knees. Then, Hong Kong would be like Macao, where underground communists took control and the colonial government was reduced to a puppet administration. Since this secret diplomacy was a shame and disgrace to both Britain and China, the report and the classified diplomatic documents held by Britain will never be published. Up until today, their contents still remain a mystery. Deputy President, have those zealous rioters, those who were incited to use violence and the victims of violence done any self-reflection today? The authorities have nonetheless refused to look into this aspect.

They also advocated the conduct of inquiry into another riot: the 4 June incident. While people were still mourning the slaughter of their compatriots not long ago, a report on "successful suppression" was already released. Detailing the reason why students took to the streets and the persons who manipulated the student protests, the report accused ZHAO Ziyang, the prime minister who had been dismissed, of being the culprit. Deputy President, this report commanded their approval, and they thought it was well-written.

The serious Police-public clash in Mong Kok, which is dubbed the "Fishball Revolution", is of course incomparable to this incident. But if we want to find out what happened and why it happened, the only way is that the Government as the administrator of Hong Kong must give an account of what it thinks is right or otherwise. The Governments of previous terms have done so. It does not matter even if it refuses to publish the findings after doing so. After the outbreak of the serious Police-public clash in Mong Kok, some academics have asserted that the Government should take up the responsibility of conducting an inquiry. However, the Government argues against such a need, saying that the Police are undertaking an internal review. Speaking of the Police's review, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has already explained that its review merely covers arms 12602 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 and support. Besides, it is only an internal review with an incomprehensive coverage. Without any government inquiry, the Chief Executive hastened to define the clash as a riot, and pro-establishment Members have spoken in this Chamber as if they knew everything from a crystal ball. But how can they possibly know everything? If their points are really sensible, isn't it even more necessary to conduct a thorough inquiry? If they think that … Mr CHAN Kam-lam has given a detailed analysis of this incident and associated it with many irrelevant matters. Don't Members think that it is better to conduct a more thorough inquiry? Why do Members oppose the setting up of a select committee for the purpose of finding out which Members were involved in it? Perhaps Ms Cyd HO was also a participant. I say so because pan-democratic Members are suspected of participating in it! Why do Members refuse to do so? The reason is that the findings of the inquiry must be kept in the dark, such as the Chief Executive's insistence on exaggerating the seriousness of this Police-public clash to the extent of a riot.

Deputy President, the 1956 Riots was machinated by Kuomintang in Hong Kong, and it was honestly equipped with organized support. This is very clear. Inquiry reports were compiled on the 1967 Riots and also the 4 June pro-democracy movement, which was brutally suppressed. The only incident without any inquiry report was the Tiananmen incident of 5 April. In 1976, hundreds of thousands of people protested against MAO Zedong and the Gang of Four at Tiananmen Square for a few consecutive days around the Ching Ming Festival. In the end, the protests were suppressed by armed militias. No inquiry was required for the riots this time around because soon after its suppression on 5 April, MAO Zedong, just like what LEUNG Chun-ying did, already jumped to the conclusion on 7 April that the riots were a machinated conspiracy with counter-revolutionary elements, and DENG Xiaoping must be removed from office as he was the culprit. After the removal of DENG from office, HUA Guofeng was promoted as his successor. You people are employing exactly the same tactic right now.

Years back, many people (including Mr IP Kwok-him and Mr TAM Yiu-chung) asserted afterwards that the Tiananmen incident of 5 April 1976 was a riot of a counter-revolutionary nature. But when DENG regained power, they changed their tone and said that there was no need to conduct any inquiry. At the time, they said in agreement that the words of the Central Authorities must be correct because as everybody could also see from the Tiananmen incident, despite the arrival of militias and prefect teams comprising armed workers at the place, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12603 many people who chanted slogans and put up big-character posters refused to leave all the same, and fierce fights involving both sides even ensued afterwards. So, they questioned what else it could be except riots.

You people are really shameless. Years back, you people followed the tone of the Central Authorities; and today, you people follow the tone of LEUNG Chun-ying. Why did he do that? If a serious riot had indeed broken out in Hong Kong as asserted by him, they could follow the example of the above people and ascribe the repercussions of social conflicts and the resultant protests to those radical pan-democratic Members who sought to voice opposition for Hong Kong people in the legislature. Instigating social conflicts is the chip he counts on in seeking re-election. Up until today, he still maintains his words that people should vote us out. He has used some irrelevant matters … There are bound to be some people who will echo with him and say something similar after my present speech.

The team of governing officials with LEUNG Chun-ying at the nucleus (or the "team of LEUNG fans") has enabled him to exercise his power from the coterie election even more unjustly which he already so exercises, thus leading to the escalation of social conflicts. They have even lied to the Central Authorities, claiming that the 31 August Decision has gained an overwhelming victory in Hong Kong, and Hong Kong people are fond of the so-called "universal suffrage" prescribed by the 31 August Decision (that is, a person must obtain the majority support of the Nominating Committee in order to be qualified for candidature) rather than the universal suffrage we have championed. He is the source of all sins, so he must exaggerate the gravity of this matter.

Frankly speaking, without the 31 August Decision, without the regressive administration of LEUNG Chun-ying since his assumption of office in 2012, we can hardly imagine how the minor clash between the Police and the public on the Lunar New Year's Day would escalate to a large-scale conflict. From what we could see on television that night, the 10 traffic police officers in Argyle Street approached the protesting masses upon seeing them and struck them wantonly with their batons, thus infuriating the masses. We then saw that a police officer pulled the trigger as he was frightened by the counter-attacks launched by some in the protesting masses. Deputy President, on this matter, I cannot see any reason or ground for opposing the setting up of a select committee. As the Government refuses to conduct any inquiry, the Legislative Council should assume this responsibility.

12604 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016

The speeches of royalist Members today remind of the three doctrines in 1984, which read, "War is peace", "freedom is slavery" and "ignorance is strength". Deputy President, I support Mr WONG Yuk-man's motion.

DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, first I report that I am a member of the Independent Police Complaints Council (IPCC). At the IPCC meeting that I attended just now, the Complaints Against Police Office (CAPO) released the number of complaints against the Police regarding the Mong Kok Incident. I rise to speak in support of Mr WONG Yuk-man's motion to appoint a select committee under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (the P&P Ordinance) to inquire into the clashes between the Police and the people caused by the Mong Kok Incident on the first day of the Chinese New Year (CNY).

The incident was the most violent in recent years, and clashes were so fierce that they caused a large number of injuries. Why did the clashes take place on the first day of the CNY? Was it a coincidence? Were there any hidden agendas behind? We will never know the truth without an inquiry. How do we determine the nature of the Mong Kok Incident after all? Even in terms of the naming, we have divided opinions. To put it moderately, we call it Mong Kok incident. Some take it more seriously and call it Mong Kok riot or Mong Kok unrest, while others call it the clashes between the Police and members of the public, same as the wording in the motion. So, was this a clash between the Police and members of the public, a riot or unrest, or was it simply another normal incident? If it was simply a normal incident, we do not need to invoke the P&P Ordinance and appoint a select committee to conduct inquiry then.

As pointed out by us just now, this was not a normal incident as chaos broke out on the very first day of the CNY. Were there any further details and inside stories unknown to the public? Normally speaking, the CNY is a festive moment for celebration, so how come a festive occasion could turn into a night of violence, inflicting injuries and causing bleeding to so many people? We cannot even explain how this incident can be named, and how this can be interpreted in history. However, LEUNG Chun-ying had seemingly scrambled to define the incident as a riot in no time.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12605

At the IPCC meeting held earlier today, Chief Superintendent of Police CHEUNG Kin-kwong, the leader of CAPO, has talked of the Mong Kok Incident. I quote him directly, "The Mong Kok Incident on the first day of the CNY was an organized and plotted incident." Organized and plotted, so the leader of CAPO said. Of course, I would raise further queries about who organized, masterminded and planned the incident. Do Members want to know? The Chief Superintendent of Police of CAPO told me and fellow IPCC members at the occasion of a meeting that the incident in Mong Kok on the first day of the CNY was organized and plotted in advance. I followed up and asked the Chief Superintendent of Police if they had already investigated the whole matter thoroughly, therefore he knew that it was organized and planned beforehand? Had the Police investigated the issue completely? Was the investigation completed? What had been put under investigation? Were there any investigation reports? Who were summoned? All these we do not know. They simply did not give me any answer despite my repeated queries at the meeting.

I will of course entrust Mr Larry KWOK, the Chairman of the IPCC, to go on raising supplementary questions to the CAPO on behalf of me. I trust that the Chief Superintendent of Police did not casually claim about the organized and plotted nature of the incident. Had no investigation been carried out? Should the Police submit the investigation outcome to the Legislative Council for our review if any investigation had been carried out? We may possibly consider that no more inquiry is necessary after reviewing the investigation report from the Police. However, despite my repeated requests at the meeting, I was still unable to get any feedback as to whether any investigation had been conducted. Will it be the case that the report cannot be published? Regardless of the answers to the above, I believe that the Legislative Council still need to find out the truth.

Regarding the Mong Kok Incident which happened on the first day of the CNY, Chief Superintendent of Police CHEUNG Kin-kwong from the CAPO pointed out that they received 28 reportable complaints, involving 30 persons. What were the complaints about? 21 cases involve allegations of police assault, and one of the cases is currently undergoing comprehensive investigation. As allegation of police assault is highly serious in nature, and is a major criminal offence, I went on asking: On what occasions that these alleged police assaults on the people took place? Did these alleged assaults happen during the clashes? Did they occur at the point of arrests? Or in the police vehicle after arrests?

12606 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016

Chief Superintendent of Police CHEUNG Kin-kwong from the CAPO dodged my question, responding, "This is merely your invention, Dr WONG." His fallacy was soon exposed by the staff of IPCC Secretariat. It was revealed that reports on most of the 21 complaint cases about police assault were submitted already. This implies that information is available. One of the complaints was related to events in a police vehicle, in which the complainant claimed that he was beaten in the vehicle after he was put under arrest ― this is simply a claim of course, and no conclusion can be drawn before the investigation is done. As a matter of fact, most cases were related to complaints about police assault at the time of arrest. True, comprehensive investigation is required for all these cases. Bringing out all these issues concerning the CAPO or IPCC, I mean to let present Members of the Legislative Council know that the investigation carried out by the Police focuses only on respective complaints, and the inquiries will concentrate solely on cases against the Police. Moreover, if someone breaks the law, the Police has the duty to gather evidence and investigate the matter after arresting the suspect. At the Chief Superintendent of Police's mention of the organized and plotted nature of the Mong Kok Incident, I have to follow up and ask if the Police has conducted any full inquiry into the Mong Kok Incident, apart from the respective investigation into certain complaint cases. In spite of his refusal to give answers, we will certainly keep on raising further questions in the IPCC.

Therefore, fellow Members, if the Legislative Council does not invoke the P&P Ordinance to hold an inquiry, who can help us understand how the nature of the Mong Kok Incident should be determined? How this event, which took place on the first day of the CNY, should be known in history? Was this an incident, a riot or unrest? Or, should we simply call this event the clashes between the Police and the people? I believe that we should be responsible to history and get a full picture of the developments and nature of the incident. After all, were there any people behind the incident? If so, who were they? I do not want to accuse anyone for masterminding the event without an inquiry. However, as the incident inflicted injuries to so many people, leading to complaints against so many police officers, also causing injuries to so many policemen, is it not my duty as a Member of the Legislative Council to thoroughly look into such a violent event? Will the people consider us shirking our duties if we opt not to do any inquiry and totally ignore the issue without caring how it is named? Will it give the people an impression that the Legislative Council does not want to face the truth?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12607

Therefore, Deputy President, I support this motion. By reviewing or inquiring into the Mong Kok Incident to find out those plotting it behind, we aim to completely understand the incident. Beside the purpose to achieve what is referred to as holding the right persons accountable and determine the nature of the event, we further aim to figure out whether someone had commanded the episode behind the scenes, and whether the incident had any relation with the governance of Hong Kong in which we had reached a point where the people did not even want to celebrate the first day of the CNY, but took to the streets to show their resentment in one go? Was it a spontaneous incident, or a planned one? Do we not want to know the truth? The truth can enable us to review the governance of Hong Kong, while allowing us to understand if the public is really so discontented. Or, was it about any political strategies of election? With all these doubts, do we not wish to find out the answers?

So, Deputy President, I totally cannot understand the rationale of pro-establishment Members if they believe that an inquiry is not necessary. I truly look forward to some reasonable justifications from them. Should they claim that an investigation by the Police is being conducted at present, I have to say, as I have pointed out just now, that the issues concerned are out of the scope of the investigation. Will LEUNG Chun-ying inquire into this? If he was to do so, he would have proclaimed an inquiry at the very first night of the CNY. If the Executive Council had discussed the issue, Ms Starry LEE should have told us whether they had discussed the Mong Kok Incident and how they had determined the nature of the event; and whether she had talked with them about the need for Hong Kong people to know fully about the incident? Even if Ms Starry LEE cannot disclose any information from meetings of the Executive Council, I believe she should clearly explain whether the Hong Kong public should understand the causes of the event and the culprits behind it, if any.

We do not want any further violent clashes and injuries to anyone, regardless of whether they are police officers, normal citizens, students or young people. Why do Hong Kong people need to express their dismay by means of violence, or seeing it as the only solution? Of course we do not think that violence is the answer. The Democratic Party always believes that violence is not the right way of resistance as it cannot help us resolve the deadlock, but leading us to a dead end. However, the question is why violence is escalating and spreading at the moment, making so many people believe that they would rather fight this way despite the high price? I am puzzled as to why pro-establishment Members had supported invoking the P&P Ordinance to 12608 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 inquire into Occupy Central in the past. In fact, they still support this today. How come the P&P Ordinance should be invoked to inquire into Occupy Central, but not the Mong Kok Incident? Should I have wrongly interpreted their viewpoints, they can clarify when they speak later to let us know.

Deputy President, may people have mentioned the riots in 1966 and 1967 just now. As a lecturer of The Hong Kong Polytechnic University (PolyU), during the semesters I teach politics in Hong Kong, which covers studies on the two riots in 1966 and 1967. The Library of PolyU holds the reports of the thorough inquiries on the two riots conducted by the colonial government at that time, in which the comprehensive inquiries aimed not only to uncover the truth, but aimed to help took Hong Kong forward too. If pro-establishment Members consider that we have to put all conflicts aside so that everyone and Hong Kong can step forward, they must deal with the core conflicts in Hong Kong first. They must know why did the incident happen on the first day of the CNY in order to resolve the root cause, instead of leaving the conflicts away, rejecting an inquiry and ignoring the problems, fascinating that Hong Kong will automatically have peace and harmony then.

Deputy President, by asking for an inquiry, we mean to restart the journey for Hong Kong and identify the areas where Hong Kong needs to improve. These were the points of the thorough inquiries done by the colonial government after the riots in 1966 and 1967. A series of social reform had been carried out subsequently. Therefore, the Democratic Party supports this motion.

MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, since the senior management of the Police affirmed that it was an organized and premeditated incident, the Police must know the truth. The public and many participants do not know the truth. Only the Police know the truth, so this can prove that it was obviously an organized and premeditated incident orchestrated by the Government.

After the Mong Kok incident this time around, "689" LEUNG Chun-ying came forward the next day and proclaimed it was a riot. This could prove that LEUNG Chun-ying was the mastermind behind the organized and premeditated riot, right? Earlier, a lot of analysis conducted by various newspapers pointed out that he wanted to cause chaos to Hong Kong by staging a riot, so that he could LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12609 stand a better chance in running for the next term. Upon learning this, the Central Government took immediate action to ban him from doing that. As a result, the level of the incident was significantly downplayed. Dr Helena WONG, I say to you that the Police spokesman was right. The Mong Kok incident which took place on the first day of the Lunar New Year was indeed an organized and premeditated incident, though it was machinated by LEUNG Chun-ying. I would also say that it can even be branded as a counter-revolutionary activity. It caused disturbance in Hong Kong to the detriment of "one country, two systems", so what else could it be if it was not a counter-revolutionary act?

Secretary for Security LAI Tung-kwok is not in the Chamber at this moment. I do not know if the Secretary is absent because he is afraid of dozing off during the lengthy debate of this motion. As a matter of fact, he was caught dozing off by cameras every time he attended the Legislative Council's meeting and was criticized for not doing his job properly. Thanks the Under Secretary for taking the trouble to stand in for the Secretary. The Under Secretary behaves so well that he does not doze off even though he has been sitting in this Chamber for a long time. It seems that he can be promoted to the next higher rank of Secretary. During Legislative Council meetings, the Secretary has been making himself a fool as he is frequently beaten by "the Sandman".

About the topic of riots in Hong Kong, actually there were incessant riots in Hong Kong over the past 60 years. During the Double Tenth Festival in 1956, an incident of tearing off the "blue sky, white sun, and a wholly red earth" flag ― the flag of the Republic of China took place in Hong Kong. Some elder members of my family were deported because of the incident. Therefore, there is some kind of action history in my family and I feel proud of them for having the guts to make a stand and fight. Many forerunners of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB) and the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions who are present in this Chamber have participated in the 1967 riot. At that time, 51 people were killed, 2 000 people were prosecuted, including DAB's TSANG Tak-sing, right? When it comes to riot, violence, death, who is more ferocious than the leftists?

With regards to the trivial incident of Mong Kok, Mr CHAN Kam-lam delivered his speech in seeming earnest that as if his entire family were all slaughtered. He said in all seriousness that the throwing of some bricks would 12610 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 cause the submersion of Hong Kong. How many policemen were killed by the left-wingers of DAB? They chided British Police officers "white skin pigs" and Chinese officers "yellow running dog". How did they insult the policemen who were defending Hong Kong in those years? How many innocent children were killed or had their limbs amputated because of the leftists' bombs attacks? Talking about violence, I must say the Communist Party was quite violent. Under the helm of MAO Zedong, more than 80 million people were killed. Have they ever apologized to people living in Hong Kong and the Mainland for the atrocity? As to these flunkies of the Hong Kong Communist Party, including CHAN Kam-lam, they criticized the militant acts of young people who loved Hong Kong so much and strongly decried the young people's defiance against the totalitarian authorities. Let me tell them, to the younger generation and those who loathe the tyrannical government, their smearing statements and distorted remarks will only fan the flames, enrage the people and add to their discontentment. The level of resistance will definitely intensify. Therefore, please do not think that they are very formidable by beating the drums for the Hong Kong Communist Party and riding roughshod over others. The fact is that people could see their performance and remarks on television, and people's hatred will grow. What follows is more actions with greater intensity.

Let us take a look at history. A riot broke out on Christmas day in 1981 ― a report had been published, Members may read it online if you have time ― an independent investigation report has been completed, unlike the current Hong Kong Government and LEUNG Chun-ying who proclaimed it a riot, but subsequently withdrew the remarks. During the Christmas in 1981, a group of young people marched from Central to Wan Chai. They set fire to cars and broke windows along their way. Seven cars were damaged and 11 people injured. It was a far cry from the Mong Kok incident this time around. Moreover, another incident in 1984 was even more serious, right? The proposed increase of taxis' licence fees had caused the injury of more than 30 people and the arrest of more than 100 people. Therefore, if we talk about social conflicts, there were incessant social conflicts over past 60 years in Hong Kong. Of course, the most valiant, most formidable, most destructive, most damaging incident causing the most people killed, most people injured, and the highest casualties of innocent civilians, was the 1967 riot waged by these Hong Kong Communist Party flunkies. Yet they condemned the incident which took place on the first day of the Lunar New Year a riot, a violent disturbance.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12611

Therefore, the Under Secretary should think about it when he replies later on. How did these forerunners, who are now present in this Chamber, cruelly kill your comrades and colleagues? How did they call your colleagues "white skin pigs" and "yellow running dogs"? Why should you be put under the command of these people? Why should you beat the drums for these people? Under Secretary, you will know how to make a judgment as long as you have that tiny bit of knowledge about history, conscience and social awareness.

Returning to the Mong Kok incident this time around ― I did not participate in that incident, but I have met with several group of people in order to learn more about it. Many people took part in that incident. Looking back at that incident, it can be divided into four parts, while four groups of people in that four intervals may not necessary be connected to each other. For that reason, if the incident was organized and planned, then it must have been organized and planned by the Police and the Government. They must be the masterminds who choreographed the riot ― the "fishball incident", so that this Government could be able to take the credit in front of the Central Government. Everyone knows that at first, the conflict in Mong Kok that took place on the first day of Lunar New Year was stemmed from a hawker issue. Afterwards, the Police displayed the red flag, yellow flag, then pepper sprayed the public in a bid to disperse them. The crowd started to disperse towards the direction of Shantung Street and Portland Street. A clash between the Police and the public took place as the people reached Argyle Street. People were originally gathering near Langham Place. Nobody planned to go to Argyle Street. It was the Police who had herded the crowd to Argyle Street.

The second part is that no other uniformed police officers were deployed in Argyle Street, only traffic policemen were deployed there. Everyone knows that the duties of traffic policemen are very different from uniformed police officers, in particular very different from the "blue berets" and anti-riot squads. A dozen of traffic policemen holding the baton were originally directing the traffic, but as uniformed police officers were dispersing the protesters in Portland Street, and then the crowd in Shantung Street and Portland Street were herded to Argyle Street. By the time they reached Argyle Street, they saw that group of a dozen baton-wielding traffic policemen. A clash between the Police and the crowd took place as one of the traffic policemen was using his baton to beat some of the people coming from the direction of Portland Street. But the crowd reached Argyle Street only because they were herded from Portland Street by the uniformed police officers. Finally, the public were agitated. The group of a dozen traffic policemen were left alone to deal with more than 200 people who 12612 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 were driven away from Portland Street. That's how the clash started. The subsequent actions could be seen on television. The masses were enraged and started to hurl things around. Nevertheless, it was the traffic policeman who beat the public first, and then the crowd clashed with the Police because of their displeasure.

It was strange enough that when the people were chasing and beating the policemen, no other policemen lent a helping hand. It was not until one policeman was pushed to the ground, or he fell after he was hit by an object hurled by the crowd, then the other traffic policeman opened fire, that an anti-riot squad came out from the side street to disperse the crowd. Why would there be such a coincidence? Had the anti-riot squad not arrived the scene by the time their colleagues were beaten up? Were there no policemen on side streets? Why had those riot squads not come out when their colleagues were beaten up? Why did they only come out after the traffic policeman fired a shot? They just waited for a shooting scene, so that the next day's newspapers headlines would read: Mobs become violent, Police open fire. This could be one of the storylines created by LEUNG Chun-ying. What happened in Argyle Street was not connected with the previous incident in Portland Street near Langham Place and it was not planned. It was a natural course of development.

The third part was the so-call the act of throwing bricks, which was also a natural course of development. After the policeman had fire a shot, of course the crowd had to leave. Because the Police were trying to disperse them again and the riot squads dashed forward to disperse the crowd. And just because the people were disgruntled about the firing of a shot by the Police, therefore they just roamed around Mong Kok. I used to lead the rally for democracy and freedom, we just fled in all directions in Central. We ran from Garden Road to Queen's Road Central. The fact that the Police fired a shot and beat up people for no reasons had made people unhappy. Thus under that circumstance, those people would not go home. Therefore they roamed around. When they were roaming around, they found that there were not many policemen around. And then in certain streets, such as Sai Yeung Choi Street, they found a lone police vehicle parked there. Apparently, the Police knew that there were so many enraged people on the scene, but a lone police vehicle parked there without any backup. Of course the crowd would direct their anger at the police vehicle by rounding it up. When a dozen of traffic policemen were facing more than 100 people, surprisingly, they just provoked the crowd. Had they not received any training? More than 100 people were on the scene, yet that group of a dozen of traffic policemen were provoking the crowd. It was surprising enough that LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12613 when the crowd had dispersed and roamed around, the Police just left one single police vehicle to stay there without the protection of police officers. Then there came the scene of a police car being vandalized by the crowd, and that was also captured by the cameras of reporters. Finally, it was the fourth part: The clearance operation.

Therefore, everyone can see that there were questions and doubts about a series of plans. Especially after the Umbrella Movement and a number of confrontations in Mong Kok ― the Umbrella Movement lasted 79 days, and confrontations in Mong Kok occurred practically every day during this period ― I cannot remember how many confrontations I have seen in Mong Kok. Over the years, if something happened in Mong Kok … as far as numerous incidents I have mentioned repeatedly are concerned, especially after the bank run during the 1989 pro-democracy movement, some people would habitually foment troubles in Mong Kok. Experienced police officers and the Government should understand the characteristics and sensitivity of Mong Kok. Yet they just left behind a dozen of traffic policemen and a lone police vehicle without any backup.

(THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair)

For that reason, I would label it as a counter-revolutionary activity orchestrated by LEUNG Chun-ying which was aimed at toppling the Chinese Government and creating disorder in Hong Kong, and I consider it absolutely precise. Just as the pro-Administration and senior government officials said, including the Police, it was a pre-planned and premeditated counter-revolutionary activity which aimed at toppling the Chinese Government and creating disorder in Hong Kong. And it was orchestrated by LEUNG Chun-ying singlehandedly. Therefore, an inquiry is necessary. How can we know the truth if we are not going to investigate this incident? If they say my theory is incorrect, then they should support the setting up of a select committee. In the end, with its investigative powers, it can find and point out that the "the Big Guy" was wrong in making such allegations, right? By then, we may look into the reason why the authorities made such plans and what have caused such problems? Why police officers would act like that and why they were beaten up? How many innocent people were beaten up? All these are the reasons for conducting an inquiry.

12614 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016

MR ALVIN YEUNG (in Cantonese): President, before saying anything else, I would like to cite a paragraph from a newspaper commentary below. The commentary is about a certain incident which is called a "riot" and also about a certain person.

Referring to this so-called "riot", this newspaper commentary says, "It definitely caused some losses and damage to people's life at that time. However, the first ones to be reprimanded should be those who suppressed workers and students … the rulers, rather than the protesters who sacrificed their personal careers, their academic pursuits, their future and even their blood and lives." The paragraph comes from the issue of Ta Kung Pao on 18 May 2015. It expresses profound sadness at the passing away of Mr YEUNG Kwong, one of the most controversial recipients of the Grand Bauhinia Medal since the founding of the Hong Kong SAR.

I believe that even if our Under Secretary is not familiar with this part of our history, the pro-establishment Members who are present, especially those senior ones, must know it well. In addition, they should not have the slightest disagreement with the paragraph in question.

President, what does the paragraph say? It says that the first ones to be reprimanded for the 1967 incident should be the rulers but not the protesters. But regrettably, this principle which was upheld in the past is no longer applicable now. Since the British flag was replaced by the five-star flag, the pro-establishment Members who are present here have seemingly forgotten what happened on that day. Neither can they remember their position at that time.

President, I do not intend to make any value judgment, and I do not intend to give any interpretation of the 1967 incident. I just assume that what Ta Kung Pao says is absolutely correct, I just assume what Ta Kung Pao says is fair and square, and I assume that awarding Mr YEUNG Kwong with the Grand Bauhinia Medal is a right decision. And I further suppose that all the pro-establishment people who supported Mr YEUNG Kwong at that time were all correct. Then, if they were all correct at that time, why do pro-establishment Members say today, in 2016, that it is wrong to conduct an in-depth investigation into another incident which similarly caused social unrest?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12615

President, the United Kingdom is at this very minute conducting a referendum on leaving the European Union. Last week one of their members of parliament, Jo COX, passed away unfortunately. In her first parliamentary speech, this woman in the United Kingdom parliament delivered a line which was widely quoted subsequently and that is: "We have far more in common than which divides us." Put simply, this line means things that unite us in society are far more numerous than those that divide us.

President, I would also like to quote this line to describe the present-day Hong Kong society. I would like to send this quotation to the Secretary for Security and every government official. Is Hong Kong in 2016 even more difficult to deal with than the Hong Kong in 1966 or 1967? This might be true. But aided with our wisdom, our experience, are we not going to find more common interests, more common beliefs among ourselves?

But, President, very unfortunately, we can see none. We cannot see our government officials having such kind of broad-mindedness, such kind of courage to try mending the tears in society. We cannot see our pro-establishment Members having any broad-mindedness, any wisdom, or even any attempt to use the experience accumulated in the past to try mending the deepest fissures possible in society now. Regrettably, what we see is that they point their fingers at our citizens, they point their fingers at those under arrest, and they point their fingers at their colleagues from the pro-democratic camp who are sitting on this side of the Chamber.

President, do the Secretary for Security or even the other pro-establishment Members believe that the Chinese New Year's Day incident was indeed a simple case of violence? I believe this is not what they think, and it is even more unlikely that the pro-establishment Members see the incident as merely an isolated one. But then, we do not see them sincerely trying to solve the problems.

In fact, we share a lot in common in Hong Kong society. Though the Chamber is so factionalized, so volatile, I do not think we cannot find any common ground, including we should have the heart and sincerity to resolve social conflicts. But then, regrettably, our social resources are used against the people, our social resources are used to create more conflicts and divisions. This includes the Security Bureau's demand for extra resources this year to purchase water cannons, demand for extra resources to purchase sound cannons. 12616 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016

President, what are the targets of these devices? They are not going to be used against external enemies, not for "terrorists" as in the words of the other Members, they will be used against the Hong Kong people whom are alive and well as corporeal beings.

President, are we fighting a war now? Are we actually under a most chaotic situation? Why the Security Bureau, which supposedly protects the people, as well as the Hong Kong Police, which supposedly protects the people and has earned their trust, are now seemingly standing on the opposite side of Hong Kong people, as they are made to deal with the Hong Kong people, made to attack the Hong Kong people?

President, Hong Kong people are actually very peace-loving. Since 1966 and 1967, over the years we have seldom met violent event of such a large scale. Is there indeed nobody with common sense who would like to try finding out the underlying causes dutifully? We Hong Kong people who are widely recognized as level-headed and ready to resolve problems with peaceful means would only hurl bricks under emergency. Do you really think that we should not contemplate and investigate this incident?

President, what is truly regrettable is that the Security Bureau has once said that the trial at court is adequately able to find out the truth and underlying causes of the incident. If this remark is spoken with sincerity, it only shows the lack of common sense on the part of the government officials concerned. And if they are not lacking in common sense, they must be lying. The reason is that court trial is only conducted to determine whether a particular person under arrest has committed a relevant deed, but not to find out the truth underlying the incident. What is more, even if it is possible to pass on to the Court and its judges the responsibility of finding out the root of social problems and trying to resolve social conflicts, is this an appropriate conduct of responsible government officials? The answer is just simple and obvious.

President, in a civil society, the interests of various sectors should be balanced. These sectors should not point an accusing finger at each other, and more importantly, should not put all the blame on any one side. However, we have not seen any responsible government official who willingly takes up this moral responsibility. When the balance is lost in society, when society loses its function as a platform for proper communication and resolution of problems, when Hong Kong people do not think that the Council can operate effectively, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12617 they can only resort to violence. This is the eventual outcome which any knowledgeable person can foretell. However, why nobody is willing to do it, nobody is willing to resolve conflicts, nobody is willing to shoulder this weighty responsibility?

President, I earnestly believe that Hong Kong in 2016, Hong Kong people in 2016, Members and government officials in 2016 should be far wiser and far more capable of resolving the current conflicts, than the British-Hong Kong Government in 1966 and 1967, and those Hong Kong people under their rule. Why cannot we achieve what the British-Hong Kong Government has done in 1966 and 1967? Why were the problems resolvable by the British-Hong Kong Government are now unresolvable by us today? After 1997, because of "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" and "a high degree of autonomy", our prosperity should be guaranteed to a certain extent, right? After changing the flag in 1997, our Hong Kong should be even more prosperous and stable than before, right? President, but I still cannot see. I still cannot see any official-in-charge who is willing to embrace difficulties with courage, nor can I see pro-establishment Members who have already taken up half of the seats in the Chamber sincerely trying to resolve problems. President, is Hong Kong in 2016 actually worse than the Hong Kong in 1966 and 1967?

Lastly, before I conclude my speech, allow me to respond directly to two pro-establishment Members who have criticized without naming those legal practitioners for their role in the Mong Kok incident. I do have offered assistance to relevant persons and I do have visited the Mong Kok Police Station to help those under arrest after the outbreak of the incident. President, first of all, I am a lawyer. As a lawyer, while I absolutely do not approve of the use of violence in the Mong Kok incident, allow me to reiterate that I read law so as to protect those who may have their legal rights infringed upon. If any pro-establishment Member fails to see the value of the rule of law, I consider them undeserving Legislative Council Members. But I do not think they are actually unable to see it. I think they are just using their hands to cover up their eyes, their conscience.

President, before I put an end to my speech, allow me to provide certain figures to this Council. Eighty-three persons have been arrested for involvement in the Mong Kok incident. So far, 11 of them have been released while having no case to answer. These are not the final figures, and it is entirely possible that, in the days to come, more people will be acquitted, more can gain the freedom they should have as they have no case to answer. These figures tell us that 12618 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 pro-establishment Members should not toe the line too closely. I would also hope the community at large understand that the arrests made by the Police are not always justified as some people are arrested by mistake. Therefore, I sincerely call on the pro-establishment Members not to point their fingers at those under arrest, for some of these people might be innocent.

President, finally, I would like to point out to the pro-establishment Members in particular that if they do not believe in the legal system, I am going to let them know here that: if one day, they themselves or their families are arrested, for political or other reasons, and need to seek help from any one lawyer in Hong Kong, I am sure that these lawyers will certainly overlook the Members' political stance and render help to them.

I so submit. Thank you President.

DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, the riots in Mong Kok occurred on Lunar New Year Day and lasted till the early morning of the next day ruined the festive joy of all Hong Kong people. Before noon on the second day of the Lunar New Year, I visited Sergeant WONG, a Police Community Relations Officer of Yau Tsim Mong District injured in the incident. When we (I went with another person) visited him in the hospital, he was suffering from fractured cheekbone, because of which he needed to receive an operation the next day. Even so, he was still happy to share with us his feelings and thoughts. Why even our police officers were assaulted? At that time we all had this question in our minds. But Sergeant WONG gave us a very touching answer. He said, as early as he first joined the Police Force, he was already prepared to get injured for protecting people and maintaining social order. In the riots, when he was covering some young people and helping them to leave the dangerous site, some people, probably also young people, threw bricks at him, and he was injured. What he found most heartbreaking is, as a Police Community Relations Officer, all along he has a heart to help young people and wants to open up more opportunities for them through various means including the Police Magazine. But ironically, he was hurt by the young people in the riots, some of them even viewed him as their enemy, he said with tears in his eyes, though the doctors and nurses reminded him not to shed tear as he would soon receive an operation to treat the fractures on his cheekbone. After listening to Sergeant WONG's lamentation, I believe one just could not help asking, what has fuelled such radicalism among our young people?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12619

I am obliged to show you this magazine again ― I think I showed it once before in the debate on the Policy Address. On the cover of this magazine, it reads, "The first brick that I threw out". I can get some clues from the speeches given by some colleagues earlier. Seemingly, the speeches given by a number of Members on the riots in Mong Kok want to flatter those young people. At that time the young people might have lost their mind … in fact, there could be several possibilities; I will talk about that later. I think it is dangerous to flatter those young people and make them think they were doing something heroic and great. According to my memory, "Long Hair" disapproved of resorting to violence at the outset. I recall that he once made such a remark in public. I hold that Members should at least expressly disapprove of using violence, and should not describe the incident as if it is a great milestone or a significant historical event. As adults, should we analyse this incident in a composed manner as we are supposed to be more mature and experienced as compared to the young people?

There was one time that I and a spokesperson of a radical group who can speak rather fluent English were interviewed by Backchat, an English language radio programme. I do enjoy interviewed by Backchat as its host is very good in asking questions while maintaining a neutral stance. During the programme, at one time that man, I mean the spokesperson of the radical group, said he was there in the riots, but at another time he said he was not ― mind you that this man is not Legislative Council Member. Later on, he said at that time he was overseeing the big picture through a computer. When asked if he expected the riots to occur on that day, he said it was within their expectation. The host further asked if the riots were planned because according to the press, some pointed bamboo sticks were found near the site. It seemed that there was some sort of preparation, and the bamboo sticks can be used as weapons once things run out of control. That man said they did expect that something would happen on that day, and in case of confrontations, the fighters may need to use something as weapons (I think this is probably what he meant). At this point, even the host could not help refute that the pointed bamboo sticks could be used to harm people. The spokesperson stuttered and did not give any direct reply.

Anyway, he admitted that they had expected this incident even before the first day of Lunar New Year. In the aftermath of the incident, there were lots of discussions about the riots on the Internet. While I am not an Internet geek, but according to some active Internet users, the messages that "something big and unusual" would happen on the first day of Lunar New Year had been 12620 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 disseminated on the Internet a few days before the incident. In this connection, I would like to ask the Secretary for Security to clarify later on, who disseminated these messages on the Internet to summon the crowd? Everyone knows that nowadays it is easy to summon people from all walks of life through the Internet.

As to whether the riots were planned in advance or people just came out spontaneously, I believe many people came out to join the protest spontaneously. But certain people may have foreseen that in case of confrontations, the crowd would lose control and throw whatever things they can get, or some of them may even attack police officers out of their rage for the Police. The young people, in particular, are impulsive. The teenagers aged 13, 14 or 15, 16 can be influenced easily. If you tell them they are doing something great, if you tell them to jump from a height, they would do so as if they are hypnotized. But should we really encourage them to jump off a cliff, and applaud them for being brave and great, and call the violent riots an incident? I think we should at least admit the fact that some people had used violence in the riots.

Earlier on, Dr Helena WONG mentioned that the Independent Police Complaints Council has received 20-odd complaints so far, all of which of course are against the police officers. But can we view the case in a calm and objective manner? At least this is what I want to do. I am of the view that the police officers were highly restrained that night. As Members can imagine, the police officers in other countries would not be that restrained. Some said the crowd was stirred when a police officer shot into the sky in order to protect another officer who was beat by some protesters at that time. But it could be the wish of certain people to instigate the crowd. I maintain that the Police Force was highly restrained in the incident. Basically, all police officers were clear that it was a political incident, hence none of them meant to harm the people. If you have the opportunity to chat with a police officer, he would tell you he definitely does not wish to see any young people getting injured in the incident as it is a very serious matter, he would rather himself to be the one injured. Hence, we should not put the blame on the Police one-sidedly. Moreover, antagonizing the Police against the young people and public will not do any good to Hong Kong.

As the Legislative Council Member representing the Kowloon West constituency, I have frequent contacts with the Police Force and Police Community Relations officers of Yau Tsim Mong District. I can tell you that they have made many efforts indeed. As Members are aware, Yau Tsim Mong District is composed of various communities. It has a compact and complicated LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12621 structure like an onion. In addition to carefully handling the complicated relationships between various communities, the Police Force is also dedicated to help young people find the right development direction. There were occasions that the Police actively joined hands with us to organize anti-drug promotional programmes. Hence I would first call on our community not to antagonize the Police.

Besides, just now Mr Albert CHAN said the incident was caused by LEUNG Chun-ying. I would say this is truly a subjective and biased conclusion drawn by Mr CHAN. Secretary, I really hope that the Government can proactively conduct investigation into the incident. Many cases manage to evade criminal conviction under the common law. As I once pointed out at the Panel on Administration of Justice and Legal Services, we have no other option but conducting investigation case by case. If several cases occur almost at the same time, we are eager to look into these cases.

I talked about an English language radio programme just now. I have to say that the host of the programme is very experienced. I recalled that the spokesperson of the radical group once said something like "It's almost at war now". He used the word "war". One of the audience members, a foreigner, called in and said, "You called this a war, do you really know what a war is? I am a journalist from the battle fields. I wonder if Hong Kong people really know what a war is." At that time, he said the word "war" clear and sound. Perhaps he wanted to instigate the young people further to the extent that they would not only throw bricks, they would even throw out petrol bombs. The person who only persuades others to take action is the smartest, he is not even on the site, hence he will not have to bear any consequence. Those who listen to him and take actions are fools. The host kept asking the spokesperson of the radical group whether he was on site in the riots. But he replied in vague lest he would be in trouble. A moment later he said he had only left messages on the Internet. We really have no idea whether he was on site in the riots.

What is pathetic is, some people even encouraged and praised the young protestors. Should we still praise these young people for eventually causing the riots? Any sensible person would disagree to poisoning our young people by such insensible flattery. While Hong Kong society is not perfect, it is not that hopeless. As I said just now, even one of the audience members called in to refute, "What is wrong with you to call this a war?" Everyone should speak the truth. Hong Kong has its problems indeed. We all have our limitations and 12622 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 want to fight for something better. But recently, some people always use negative and destructive methods … It is not until these few weeks that the Legislative Council has managed to make some progress and passed a number of bills.

We should be pragmatic, and let young people know that there are two sides to the same coin. We can encourage them to debate rather than take things to the extreme, as they could be sentenced to imprisonment or have criminal records for the rest of their life. But for those who disseminate instigating messages through the Internet behind the scene, they would love to see extreme and violent behaviours by the young people, they may even love to see serious bloodshed. That is what they call a genuine historical event. In my view, relatively speaking, the Police Force was highly restrained. We must objectively tell the truth that some police officers were also injured in the incident.

The residents of Yau Tsim Mong District find this kind of incidents most annoying. I have to tell the instigators or young participants of the Mong Kok riots that their behaviours are not heroic at all, on the contrary, they have caused serious nuisance to the livelihoods of local residents. Do you guys think it is heroic to make such an uproar on the first day of Lunar New Year? Do you know that your behaviours have offended many local residents? Originally, the pedestrian zones in Yau Tsim Mong District were to provide a relaxing space for the residents. But the frequent occurrence of riots, commotions or conflicts in the district has scared the people away. The only thing that local residents can do now is to frequently file nuisance complaint with the relevant authorities. Do you see the problem? The District Council even has to review the pedestrian scheme of the district due to the fact that recently fewer people use the pedestrian streets for fear of the above said nuisances. Do you guys realize that your behaviours were selfish and obstinate, and you have wrongly trusted someone who set you on?

We find the incident heart-breaking. If you ask me whether the incident was controlled by someone behind the scene, according to what I heard in the radio programme, I tend to believe that there is a mature force behind the scene. As to whether it is just a single force, I think these people are very smart in that they know how to manipulate the crowd. Many young people responded to the call voluntarily, they went to the designated venue and joined the crowd. To them, of course their participation was spontaneous and not planned. Yet some LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12623 people should have anticipated all these to happen in advance, hence there were messages on the Internet foretelling that something big and usual would occur on Lunar New Year's day.

We should pay tribute to the police officers in the front line as well as the entire Police Force, who had put themselves under immense risks in the incident. Having said that, the Government should seriously review why there were messages foretelling the occurrence of the incident disseminated on the Internet, and most importantly, why the authority concerned seemed to be unprepared when the incident actually occurred. Our hearts are heavy for the conditions of the police officers injured.

President, I so submit.

MR SIN CHUNG-KAI (in Cantonese): President, I believe some people have again called on the public through the Internet to take action on 1 July. I think the Secretary for Security is also aware of the news.

I speak in support of the motion moved under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (the P&P Ordinance) by Mr WONG Yuk-man to inquire into the clashes which took place in Mong Kok. In fact, some Members also presented earlier in this Council a petition to inquire into the incident and requested that the petition be referred to a select committee. Members certainly should be aware that, unlike select committees established by the P&P Ordinance, those established by petitions are not vested with the power of summoning public officers. Members certainly should also be aware that the chance of having this motion passed today or tomorrow is remote. Even if the motion is passed, it is impossible to conduct an inquiry within the term of office of this Legislative Council because there is inadequate time left before this session ends on 15 July. Nevertheless, I hold that we should voice out our support for conducting an investigation.

Of course, a better approach would be to follow the approach of the investigation on the lead water incident and form an inquiry commission made up of judges to comprehensively look into this incident. I believe this would be a more appropriate approach. Regarding the lead water incident, the Government has responded quickly, so to speak, to it. By January, the Government already announced the establishment of an inquiry commission and the commission has 12624 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 already completed its report recently. The report on the lead water incident suggests a few constructive measures to the Government. The measures may involve quite a large number of people, but they are, nevertheless, some positive results which the departments can draw on. Hence, we should not underestimate the power of an inquiry.

If we initiate an inquiry into the Mong Kok incident, what should the inquiry cover? The coverage can be extensive indeed, which should include the sequence of events and the enforcement actions taken. And the things we want to know the most are the remote causes and the trigger point of the incident, why young people would take to the street, why matters as minor as selling fish balls and clashes between hawkers and enforcement officers would have ended up in a serious riot and what can be done to prevent similar incidents from happening again. These are the issues that we consider necessary to comprehensively inquire into.

I still remember that I was not in Hong Kong on the night of the incident. I only learnt about it in the early hours of the second day of the Chinese New Year when I woke up and read the news on the Internet. The Democratic Party responded quickly to the Mong Kok riot. In its statement, the Democratic Party says that it does not tolerate and condemns any violence and acts of arson; it expresses deep resentment at the assault on the journalists reporting the incident and condemns the violent attacks on the front-line police officers; and it sends sympathy to the injured. The Democratic Party is of the view that a comprehensive investigation should be conducted on the assault on police officers and a police officer firing warning shots into the air, and that the result of the investigation should be made public and the offenders be brought to justice. The Democratic Party requests the Government to conduct a full-scale probe into the deep-rooted causes to the serious conflicts in society, including the breaking point of the accumulated public grievances, the loss of ruling authority of the Government and the hawker policy which has led to the incident.

We maintain that no one should resort to violence in Hong Kong. If violence did take place, investigation should certainly be conducted. Apart from a criminal investigation, which the Government must conduct and I believe it is conducting, an investigation into the whole incident should also be conducted. Hence, we support this motion. Although the motion probably cannot obtain the endorsement of this Council, we hold that we must let the public, or even the Government, understand that despite the fact that the term of office of this LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12625

Legislative Council is about to end, we should not let the incident be dismissed lightly and we should continue to investigate the incident when the Legislative Council starts its new term. The Police will consolidate their 80 or 90 cases of criminal investigations into a report, but this internal report cannot replace a comprehensive investigation conducted by an inquiry commission.

Of course, different people may have a different stance on the incident and ours has been stated in the statement issued by the Democratic Party just read out. Society is beset by serious conflicts and many deep-rooted causes could be the trigger for the incident. If we do not find out these causes, it would be difficult to take any precautionary measures. But finding out these causes may reveal the many blunders committed by the Government or stir up conflicts. So, is this the reason why the Secretary for Security opposed the motion just now?

I still remember the Secretary for Security saying that this is an organized and premeditated incident. A superintendent also said at a meeting of the Independent Police Complaints Council, as pointed out by Dr Helena WONG just now, that the riot is an organized and premeditated incident. Of course, an investigation has to be carried out in order to confirm whether it is truly an organized and premeditated crime. But as the Secretary for Security said so, I would have to believe him. But should he not at least find out the people or group that conspire to stir up the incident? The Government says that the incident is an organized and premeditated crime, but conducting a criminal investigation cannot find out the plotters or conspirators.

I receive a copy of the Epoch Times every day. The newspaper claims that C Y LEUNG is the plotter who conspired and planned the incident. The Secretary for Security will certainly say that the Epoch Times is unreliable. But he had better provide the evidence to prove that the Epoch Times has fabricated the news and that the claim is not true. Now, a press media has claimed that C Y LEUNG is the plotter behind the Mong Kok riot, though I do not believe it either. But why does the Secretary for Security refuse to conduct an investigation as he is so sure about the riot as being an organized and premeditated incident? What is the advantage of refusing an investigation? The advantage is that it can prevent the public from knowing or the one being investigated from disclosing the last straw which has caused the incident because the last straw may very possibly be pointing towards the blunders committed by this Government.

12626 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016

It has almost been 19 years since our reunification with China. I mean there are just several days before the 19th anniversary. The largest number of people taking to the street took place in 2003 during the past three Governments. Some people say that 500 000 people took to the street in that year and some say even more. There are more people taking to the street during this Government than the previous one. But as far as I know, the number of protesters is still less than the number of protesters in 2003. Having said that, I believe the serious violence, including acts of arson, that we saw in the riot that broke out on the streets in Mong Kok is something that has never happened in the past 50 years.

I witnessed a similar riot that took place in around 1966 or 1967 and I was still a child then, but there was not any riot as brutal in the decades that followed. Of course, I do not include the demonstration led by Korean farmers at the Ministerial Conference of the World Trade Organization (WTO) because it is not a local incident but one that is stemmed from the WTO negotiation. Other than that demonstration, no local riots broke out in Hong Kong in the past 50 years. The Government affirms that the incident is an organized and premeditated riot, but it flinches from finding out the people who organized, plotted and co-ordinated the riot. It is indeed hard to understand what is the real intention of the Government.

I may be subjective. I am not a member of an inquiry commission. I do not have sufficient evidence to draw any conclusion. But we have seen the few major events broken out in society under the governance of the current Administration, including the 79-day-long Occupy Central movement during which Admiralty, Mong Kok and Causeway Bay rather than Central were occupied. Dissension among people seems to get increasingly bitter in the series of events, and the incident which took place on the Mong Kok streets this February is one of such events. I am not sure if similar unrests would take place in the movement that some people now call upon other people through the Internet to join on 1 July at the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong SAR in Sai Wan. Does the Government have any measures or counteractions to prevent similar incidents from happening again?

Frankly, there can be hard and soft counteractions. A hard counteraction is that the Government can deploy more police officers to prevent or suppress any riots. But we are not looking for hard counteractions. What the Government needs to do is to formulate a measure to resolve or address social conflicts. This is not something that the Secretary for Security alone can do. Perhaps, what he LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12627 can do is to find out how the Police can respond quickly to these so-called social movements should such movements break out again. This is what he can do within his terms of reference. But it does not mean that he can stem the problem by doing so. We need to address social dissension and conflicts and minimize internal disputes in society.

I wonder if the recent Hong Kong visit of ZHANG Dejiang to meet with the opposition camp is a friendly gesture of Beijing, but C Y LEUNG has followed suit and made some friendly gestures as well. Indeed, dialogue is good for society right now in Hong Kong, so as to minimize conflicts and antagonism. This is the only way for society to progress forward. The four-year governance led by C Y LEUNG is quite the opposite of our aspiration. Whenever he stirred up a new conflict, he met with stronger resistance. If he manages to serve for another term of office, I am worried that unprecedented conflicts will break out in Hong Kong in the coming five years and the situation will become even worse.

We all know that the motion will not be passed. But if we do not find out a solution to these conflicts, governing Hong Kong will be difficult and the chance of having universal suffrage will be slim. How could universal suffrage be possible under the 31 August framework? And how can the governance be smooth if there is no universal suffrage? How are we going to properly resolve the internal conflicts and minimize disputes and dissension? We have to look for the answers to all these questions and this is way out of the terms of reference of the Secretary for Security. Actually, the Secretary for Security should not be the public officer to make replies in this debate. At least, the Chief Secretary for Administration should have come and made replies. It is because this conflict concerns not only the Security Bureau, but also other Policy Bureaux. It concerns the entire administration. More importantly, this conflict has to be resolved under the leadership of a government which has the trust of the people. No matter what message C Y LEUNG has received from Beijing or what gesture he has to make, he does not have the ability to convince the people that he can resolve the present problem.

Coming back to this motion, I hold that conducting an investigation is important because without it, the truth can never come to light. I hope that the Secretary for Security can later reply my question: given that he is so sure that the incident is organized and premeditated, why does he refuse to find out who plotted and conspired the incident?

12628 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016

MS EMILY LAU (in Cantonese): President, I rise to speak in support of Mr WONG Yuk-man's motion on appointing a select committee to inquire into the clashes that occurred on the first day and second day of the Lunar New Year between the Police and members of the public in Mong Kok under the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance.

As Mr SIN Chung-kai said just now, even if the motion is passed today, the Legislative Council has not enough time to conduct the inquiry. However, it is a matter of principle to request a fair inquiry. Therefore, we need to give our support, and we hope that one day we can look into the incident in order to clear up the truth and let members of the public know what had happened.

President, just now the Secretary said he would certainly object to that proposal. He also said that the purpose of an inquiry was to find out the facts and the crux of the issues and to prevent the recurrence of similar incidents. I agree with that. But he immediately said that there was no need to conduct an inquiry, and that the Legislative Council was not the appropriate platform for conducting an inquiry, as it would only politicize the matter. Besides, he said that the inquiry could not help to solve the problem. I consider that all of his above arguments were illogical. The reason is that if there are problems … For example, many colleagues have pointed out just now that the incident was rather serious; it was not just because policemen were beaten up and people beaten up by the Police, or journalists, policemen, members of the public were all injured, and bricks were hurled around. That is not all. There must be some deep-rooted conflicts behind all these. Furthermore, why members of the public were so infuriated? Was it really an organized and premeditated act? Why did so many people come out to protest? Some said that people came to the scene once they heard about a commotion was initiated. But why had our society developed in that way?

President, perhaps you also remember that we met with Mr ZHANG Dejiang, Chairman of Standing Committee of the National People's Congress on the 18th of last month. I also told him that we were now in the darkest time of Hong Kong since the handover of sovereignty. The situation was the worst and the entire community of Hong Kong was seriously torn apart. All of these were the results of the policies of Beijing and the LEUNG Chun-ying regime. Members of the public were infuriated, and many things could not be implemented. Members of the public ― especially young people ― consider that they have no future, therefore some of them called for independence.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12629

Even though our society is in a dire situation, surprisingly, the Secretary said there was no need for an inquiry. Yet he said the incident was organized and premeditated. Just now he said that a Deputy Commissioner of Police was looking into the matter, but he was actually investigating the internal matter of the Police. After the incident, we have heard that the Commissioner of Police had to go to different police stations to tender his apologies, because a lot of policemen were infuriated that they were totally unprepared for the incident. They also questioned why things had developed in that way. For that reason, I have no objection to the present inquiry of whether or not there was a problem with the Police's equipment and how could the safety of policemen be enhanced. Nevertheless, why did the Secretary consider that it was not necessary to inquire into the incident and why had such conflicts had emerged in our society?

Honestly speaking, I do not know clearly when the Police will publish its inquiry report. But if they just come out and present the one-sided views, then how can they address all sorts of questions in society? By then, people will chide them. But do they really need to be chided by the people before they are willing to conduct some serious inquiries? In the lead in water incident, they decided to conduct a judicial inquiry. They were probably willing to investigate as problems really emerged after members of the public had consumed the drinking water, in particular pregnant women and children. Then, so many people were injured in this incident, and the Secretary said that a number of cases would be sent to the Court, but just now my fellow Member Mr YEUNG said that some of them were released. Yet, criminal prosecution is unable to find out the causes for those deep-rooted conflicts in society. Therefore, I think the Administration is just burying its head in the sand. Nonetheless, they should not only care about themselves, they should solve the problems for Hong Kong.

Therefore, some people said that Hong Kong has lost its ability to solve problems, and it is not unbeknownst to everyone that just because we have this executive authority. Whenever something has happened, they will use the same argument to respond. President, just now I have heard the speech of Dr Priscilla LEUNG. Honestly speaking, she should support the inquiry eventually. She said the Police had done a good job and had shown restraint, and she would not oppose to certain actions. Nevertheless, why would such situation emerge, that is, people beat up some policemen, and some policemen beat up the public? We do not wish to see serious conflicts between the Police and members of the public, too, therefore we consider that an inquiry should be conducted. However, she made some remarks, and then she said nothing about whether or not she would support the motion. 12630 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016

President, although there are just few days before the adjournment of this term of Legislative Council, it does not mean that some very important problems need not to be addressed when this term of Legislative Council ceases its operation. Therefore, we hope there will be a fair and unbiased inquiry. However, it is impossible to solicit for the support of the pro-Administration. Sometimes, when things that everyone considers reasonable are presented to this legislature for discussion, we will see unreasonable criticisms and a feast of pretexts. Why should we not address things properly? Now nobody says someone is totally right or totally wrong. Just because of the serious nature of the incident, and members of the public are extremely concerned that similar conflicts would erupt again. Otherwise, it was not necessary for the Government to send some people to glue bricks to pavements before ZHANG Dejiang visited Hong Kong. Therefore, some people wondered why the Government only knew to glue bricks to pavements when such a serious social conflict was erupting in Hong Kong? It was rather laughable. When should it glue bricks to pavements again in future? It does not necessary mean that similar incident will not happen even bricks are glued.

For that reason, we suggested that we should find a solution in a calm and dispassionate manner. We should not do nothing as what the Secretary has suggested. He said that no inquiry was needed because the incident was being live telecasted all night. How can we discuss with a man of low standards like him? Could it be said that no inquiry is needed when there is a live telecast? If so, then a lot of cases should not be tried at all. If we can launch the inquiry, we can invite witnesses to come and talk about where they were on that night, what they had seen and why such things had happened, and were such clashes premeditated and organized. If the Legislative Council is not going to investigate, the judicial authorities may also be tasked to investigate the incident. It is because we consider that the incident is worthy of in-depth study and we should look into the reason why the incident had erupted. Moreover, a more important point is that just as the Secretary said in his opening remarks, we have to prevent the recurrence of similar incidents in future. That is what we all want. If the Government is reluctant to do it, how can it prevent the recurrence? The Bureau would only conduct the report about the Police. It would only mention its study of the need to fortify the equipment and the purchase of water-cannon vehicles. But will it be able to solve the problem? I hope he should not fool other people anymore.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 23 June 2016 12631

President, for that reason, we are not hoping that it can be done within this term of Legislative Council, as they will not support and they will not do it. However, we consider the people of Hong Kong deserve an inquiry which will thoroughly investigate the cause of this serious conflict incident which took place on the first day of the Lunar New Year. Besides, some people said the hawkers policy was also a proximate cause, others dismissed it. Opinions were widely divided. Therefore, I support the conduct of an inquiry. Moreover, I do not hope the recurrence of similar incidents. Please do not say that something big will happen again, another eruption will occur. We do not want to see such things, because the Democratic Party is totally against all kinds of violence. However, very often, institutional violence will give rise to other forms of violence. For that reason, despite the fact that the motion of today will not be passed, we will give our support to it. We also hope that there will be a fair and unbiased inquiry to find out the cause of the incident. We hope these incidents will not occur again in future.

I so submit.

SUSPENSION OF MEETING

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now suspend the meeting until 9 am tomorrow.

Suspended accordingly at 7.54 pm.