LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 201
OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Wednesday, 24 October 2018
The Council met at Eleven o'clock
MEMBERS PRESENT:
THE PRESIDENT THE HONOURABLE ANDREW LEUNG KWAN-YUEN, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE JAMES TO KUN-SUN
THE HONOURABLE LEUNG YIU-CHUNG
THE HONOURABLE ABRAHAM SHEK LAI-HIM, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE TOMMY CHEUNG YU-YAN, G.B.S., J.P.
PROF THE HONOURABLE JOSEPH LEE KOK-LONG, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE WONG TING-KWONG, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE STARRY LEE WAI-KING, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHAN HAK-KAN, B.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHAN KIN-POR, G.B.S., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE PRISCILLA LEUNG MEI-FUN, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE WONG KWOK-KIN, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MRS REGINA IP LAU SUK-YEE, G.B.S., J.P.
202 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
THE HONOURABLE CLAUDIA MO
THE HONOURABLE MICHAEL TIEN PUK-SUN, B.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE STEVEN HO CHUN-YIN, B.B.S.
THE HONOURABLE FRANKIE YICK CHI-MING, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE WU CHI-WAI, M.H.
THE HONOURABLE YIU SI-WING, B.B.S.
THE HONOURABLE MA FUNG-KWOK, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHARLES PETER MOK, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHI-CHUEN
THE HONOURABLE CHAN HAN-PAN, B.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG, S.B.S., M.H., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE KENNETH LEUNG
THE HONOURABLE ALICE MAK MEI-KUEN, B.B.S., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE KWOK KA-KI
THE HONOURABLE KWOK WAI-KEUNG, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE DENNIS KWOK WING-HANG
THE HONOURABLE CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG WAH-FUNG, S.B.S., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE FERNANDO CHEUNG CHIU-HUNG
DR THE HONOURABLE HELENA WONG PIK-WAN
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 203
THE HONOURABLE IP KIN-YUEN
DR THE HONOURABLE ELIZABETH QUAT, B.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MARTIN LIAO CHEUNG-KONG, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE POON SIU-PING, B.B.S., M.H.
DR THE HONOURABLE CHIANG LAI-WAN, S.B.S., J.P.
IR DR THE HONOURABLE LO WAI-KWOK, S.B.S., M.H., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHUNG KWOK-PAN
THE HONOURABLE ALVIN YEUNG
THE HONOURABLE ANDREW WAN SIU-KIN
THE HONOURABLE CHU HOI-DICK
THE HONOURABLE JIMMY NG WING-KA, J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE JUNIUS HO KWAN-YIU, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE HO KAI-MING
THE HONOURABLE LAM CHEUK-TING
THE HONOURABLE HOLDEN CHOW HO-DING
THE HONOURABLE SHIU KA-FAI
THE HONOURABLE SHIU KA-CHUN
THE HONOURABLE WILSON OR CHONG-SHING, M.H.
THE HONOURABLE YUNG HOI-YAN
204 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
DR THE HONOURABLE PIERRE CHAN
THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHUN-YING, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE TANYA CHAN
THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG KWOK-KWAN, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE HUI CHI-FUNG
THE HONOURABLE LUK CHUNG-HUNG, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE LAU KWOK-FAN, M.H.
THE HONOURABLE KENNETH LAU IP-KEUNG, B.B.S., M.H., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE CHENG CHUNG-TAI
THE HONOURABLE KWONG CHUN-YU
THE HONOURABLE JEREMY TAM MAN-HO
THE HONOURABLE GARY FAN KWOK-WAI
THE HONOURABLE AU NOK-HIN
THE HONOURABLE VINCENT CHENG WING-SHUN, M.H.
THE HONOURABLE TONY TSE WAI-CHUEN, B.B.S.
MEMBERS ABSENT:
THE HONOURABLE JEFFREY LAM KIN-FUNG, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE PAUL TSE WAI-CHUN, J.P.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 205
PUBLIC OFFICERS ATTENDING:
THE HONOURABLE MATTHEW CHEUNG KIN-CHUNG, G.B.M., G.B.S., J.P. CHIEF SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION
THE HONOURABLE WONG KAM-SING, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT
THE HONOURABLE NICHOLAS W. YANG, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY
DR THE HONOURABLE LAW CHI-KWONG, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE
THE HONOURABLE JOHN LEE KA-CHIU, S.B.S., P.D.S.M., J.P. SECRETARY FOR SECURITY
THE HONOURABLE FRANK CHAN FAN, J.P. SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING
PROF THE HONOURABLE SOPHIA CHAN SIU-CHEE, J.P. SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH
THE HONOURABLE MICHAEL WONG WAI-LUN, J.P. SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT
CLERKS IN ATTENDANCE:
MR KENNETH CHEN WEI-ON, S.B.S., SECRETARY GENERAL
MISS ODELIA LEUNG HING-YEE, DEPUTY SECRETARY GENERAL
MS ANITA SIT, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL
MS DORA WAI, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL
206 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members to the Chamber.
(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members entered the Chamber)
TABLING OF PAPERS
The following papers were laid on the table under Rule 21(2) of the Rules of Procedure:
Subsidiary Legislation/Instruments L.N. No.
Peak Tramway (Safety) (Amendment) Regulation 2018 ... 171/2018
Peak Tramway Ordinance (Amendment of Section 3(3)) Notice 2018 ...... 172/2018
Air Pollution Control (Non-road Mobile Machinery) (Emission) (Amendment) Regulation 2018 ...... 173/2018
Merchant Shipping (Seafarers) (Working and Living Conditions) (Amendment) Regulation 2018 ...... 174/2018
Merchant Shipping (Seafarers) (Official Log Books) (Amendment) Regulation 2016 (Amendment) Regulation 2018 ...... 175/2018
Merchant Shipping (Seafarers) (Amendment) Ordinance 2013 (Commencement) Notice 2018 ...... 176/2018
Merchant Shipping (Seafarers) (Working and Living Conditions) Regulation (Commencement) Notice ... 177/2018
Merchant Shipping (Seafarers) (Allotments) (Amendment) Regulation 2016 (Commencement) Notice ...... 178/2018
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 207
Merchant Shipping (Seafarers) (Health and Safety: General Duties) (Amendment) Regulation 2016 (Commencement) Notice 2018 ...... 179/2018
Merchant Shipping (Seafarers) (Hours of Work) (Amendment) Regulation 2016 (Commencement) Notice ...... 180/2018
Merchant Shipping (Seafarers) (Crew Accommodation) (Amendment) Regulation 2016 (Commencement) Notice ...... 181/2018
Merchant Shipping (Seafarers) (Official Log Books) (Amendment) Regulation 2016 (Commencement) Notice ...... 182/2018
Merchant Shipping (Seafarers) (Repatriation) (Amendment) Regulation 2016 (Commencement) Notice ...... 183/2018
Merchant Shipping (Seafarers) (Safety Officials and Reporting of Accidents and Dangerous Occurrences) (Amendment) Regulation 2016 (Commencement) Notice ...... 184/2018
Merchant Shipping (Seafarers) (Medical Stores) (Amendment) Regulation 2016 (Commencement) Notice ...... 185/2018
Merchant Shipping (Seafarers) (Code of Safe Working Practices) (Amendment) Regulation 2016 (Commencement) Notice ...... 186/2018
Merchant Shipping (Seafarers) (Provisions and Water) Regulation (Repeal) Regulation (Commencement) Notice ...... 187/2018
Merchant Shipping (Seafarers) (Ships' Doctors) Regulation (Repeal) Regulation (Commencement) Notice ...... 188/2018
208 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
Merchant Shipping (Seafarers) (Fees) (Amendment) Regulation 2016 (Commencement) Notice ...... 189/2018
Administrative Appeals Board Ordinance (Amendment of Schedule) Order 2016 (Commencement) Notice... 190/2018
Pharmacy and Poisons (Amendment) (No. 5) Regulation 2018 ...... 191/2018
Designation of Libraries (Amendment) Order 2018 ...... 192/2018
Registration of Persons (Application for New Identity Cards) Order 2018 ...... 193/2018
Registration of Persons (Application for New Identity Cards) Order (Repeal) Order ...... 194/2018
Financial Institutions (Resolution) (Loss-absorbing Capacity Requirements―Banking Sector) Rules ...... 195/2018
Securities and Futures (Financial Resources) (Amendment) Rules 2018 ...... 196/2018
Statute Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance 2018 (Commencement) Notice ...... 197/2018
Closed Area (Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Port and Hong Kong Link Road) Order (Commencement) Notice ...... 198/2018
Cross-boundary Movement of Physical Currency and Bearer Negotiable Instruments Ordinance (Amendment of Schedule 1) (No. 3) Notice 2018 ...... 199/2018
Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Port and Hong Kong Link Road Closed Area (Permission to Enter) Notice (Commencement) Notice ...... 200/2018
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 209
Immigration (Places of Detention) (Amendment) Order 2017 (Commencement) Notice ...... 201/2018
Immigration Service (Designated Places) (Amendment) Order 2017 (Commencement) Notice ...... 202/2018
Import and Export (Electronic Cargo Information) (Amendment) Regulation 2017 (Commencement) Notice ...... 203/2018
Road Traffic (Registration and Licensing of Vehicles) (Amendment) Regulation 2017 (Commencement) Notice 2018 ...... 204/2018
Other Papers
No. 2 ― Hong Kong Council on Smoking and Health Annual Report 2017-2018
No. 3 ― Report of changes made to the approved Estimates of Expenditure during the first quarter of 2018-19 Public Finance Ordinance : Section 8
No. 4 ― Fish Marketing Organization Financial Statements and Independent Auditor's Report for the year ended 31 March 2018
No. 5 ― Vegetable Marketing Organization Financial Statements and Independent Auditor's Report for the year ended 31 March 2018
No. 6 ― Marine Fish Scholarship Fund Report, Financial Statements and Independent Auditor's Report for the period from 1 April 2017 to 31 March 2018
No. 7 ― Agricultural Products Scholarship Fund Report, Financial Statements and Independent Auditor's Report for the period from 1 April 2017 to 31 March 2018
210 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
No. 8 ― Companies Registry Trading Fund Annual Report 2017-18
No. 9 ― Government Flying Service Welfare Fund Report by the Controller, Government Flying Service on the Administration of the Fund, Financial statements and Report of the Director of Audit for the year ended 31 March 2018
No. 10 ― Office of the Communications Authority Trading Fund Report 2017/18
No. 11 ― Property Management Services Authority Annual Report 2017-18
No. 12 ― Protection of Wages on Insolvency Fund Board Annual Report 2017-18
No. 13 ― Hongkong Post Annual Report 2017/18
No. 14 ― Urban Renewal Authority Annual Report 2017-18
No. 15 ― West Kowloon Cultural District Authority Annual Report 2017/18
Report No. 2/18-19 of the House Committee on Consideration of Subsidiary Legislation and Other Instruments
Report of the Bills Committee on Inland Revenue (Amendment) (No. 3) Bill 2018
Report of the Bills Committee on Employment (Amendment) Bill 2018
Report of the Bills Committee on Inland Revenue (Amendment) (No. 4) Bill 2018
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 211
QUESTION UNDER RULE 24(4) OF THE RULES OF PROCEDURE
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Questions. Apart from six oral questions for this meeting, Mr Gary FAN will ask an urgent oral question under Rule 24(4) of the Rules of Procedure.
After Mr Gary FAN has asked the urgent question, and the Secretary for Transport and Housing has given reply to the question, Members may ask supplementary questions. Members who wish to ask supplementary questions please press the "Request to speak" button as early as possible, so that we can estimate when to start the first oral question.
Having regard to the situation, I will as far as possible allow Members to ask supplementary questions if they so wish. To allow more Members to ask questions, questions raised by Members should be as concise as possible. Members should not make arguments when asking questions.
Urgent measures to prevent and deal with large-scale disruptions of railway services
MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): President, before I ask the urgent question, I would like to raise a point of order to you. Since you have mentioned just now that you will as far as possible allow Members to ask supplementary questions if they so wish, I wish to enquire if all Members who have already pressed the "Request to speak" button will be allowed to raise their supplementary questions.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I will adjust the time limit on this urgent question according to the situation as far as possible.
MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): Do you mean you will allow the urgent question time to last one to two hours?
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I will decide according to the situation. Please raise your urgent question.
212 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): On the early morning of the 16th of this month, staff members of the MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL") completed the tests on a new signalling system for the MTR Tsuen Wan Line and reverted to the existing system. However, they found that the signalling systems of the Tsuen Wan Line, the Island Line and the Kwun Tong Line had all broken down simultaneously and could not be fixed before the first trains commenced service. The signalling system of the Tseung Kwan O Line also broke down later. As a result, all these four railway lines could only provide limited services during the morning rush hours. This also caused severe knock-on effect and chaos on the road traffic, affecting hundreds of thousands of members of the public. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council, given that MTRCL is gradually replacing the signalling systems of various railway lines, whether the Government and MTRCL will take immediate measures to prevent the relevant works from causing disruptions of railway services, and whether they will expeditiously formulate contingency plans (including alternative public transport services) to deal with large-scale disruptions of railway services?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): President, during the morning peak hours on 16 October, train services of the MTR Island, Tsuen Wan, Kwun Tong and Tseung Kwan O lines suffered from service disruption. Although train service was not suspended, the carrying capacity of the four railway lines were reduced with limited train service with intervals of about 12 to 15 minutes. The incident covered a wide area affecting numerous passengers. The Government and the MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL") are sparing no efforts to look into the cause of the incident in order to avoid recurrence. Regarding the question raised by Mr Gary FAN, I will reply from the following aspects.
Sequence of events
In the early morning on 16 October, MTRCL conducted testing of the new signalling system along the Tsuen Wan line, during which both the new and existing systems functioned normally. Before 5:00 am, MTRCL switched back the signalling system to the existing one to prepare for train services. At 5:28 am, the Operations Control Centre found that trains on the Island, Tsuen Wan and Kwun Tong lines were unable to receive target speed instruction. Out of safety concern, trains on these three lines were switched to manual mode at LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 213 reduced speed from the start of train service at around 6:00 am. During the period, the over-speed protection function of the trains continued to function in ensuring railway safety.
Engineering personnel of MTRCL immediately carried out emergency repair works. Having failed to recover the system, engineering personnel then attempted to reboot the signalling system of the respective lines one by one. At 5:52 am before the first train commenced service, MTRCL informed the Emergency Transport Co-ordination Centre ("ETCC") of the Transport Department ("TD") and issued amber and red alarms consecutively according to the established contingency plan, requesting other public transport operators to enhance services. During the emergency repair works, the Tseung Kwan O lines also suffered from signalling fault and trains were switched to manual mode at reduced speed. Upon rebooting the computers at the stations along the four railway lines, emergency repair works were completed one after another by 11:45 am and train service gradually resumed to normal frequencies.
Contingency Arrangements
Upon receiving MTRCL's notification, taking into account the severity of the incident, ETCC of TD upgraded its operation level to Level 2,(1) led by directorate staff of TD, and deployed additional staff to coordinate other public transports and to provide emergency support. The Centre urged MTRCL to disseminate information to passengers and closely monitor and manage passenger flow in stations. It also contacted and requested franchised bus and tram operators to enhance service and sent additional staff to assist passengers in queuing. With TD's coordination, 11 routes of franchised bus, 24 additional trams and the Star Ferry enhanced its service during the incident to assist in picking up affected passengers. During the period, TD disseminated information to the public through media, website and mobile applications, and also deployed personnel to key affected stations. The Electrical and Mechanical Services Department ("EMSD") also deployed personnel to MTRCL's Operating Control Centre and Kowloon Bay Central Equipment Room to observe train operations and monitor the repair works.
(1) Under normal circumstances, the Emergency Transportation Co-ordination Centre operating 24 hours a day will handle daily minor traffic accidents at Level 1. In the event of small-scale pre-planned activities, serious road or tunnel incidents, serious or widespread disruption of public transport services, the operation of the Co-ordination Centre will be upgraded to Level 2 and additional staff will be deployed. 214 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
During the incident, MTRCL deployed an additional 400 staff to assist passengers, including conducting crowd control at stations. MTRCL also updated the public on the relevant information through media briefings, its mobile applications, and broadcasts at stations and inside train compartments. During the incident, ticket gates of each affected station were switched to a specific mode, of which passenger fare was not deducted.
Investigation and review
According to the initial investigation by MTRCL, the incident was likely caused by unsmooth operation and data processing of the existing signalling system software. After resetting, all systems along the lines have returned to stable operation. Based on the above mentioned initial investigation findings, EMSD has requested MTRCL to continue in-depth investigation, while conducting an overhaul on the related equipment of the signalling system and submit a detailed report in two months. MTRCL has set up an investigation panel. It shall arrange overseas and local experts to assist in the investigation, and conduct a comprehensive review on the system with the signalling system supplier. Directions of the detailed investigation include data processing synchronization arrangements of the signalling systems undertaken by two suppliers, whether there are any potential software compatibility problems, and whether the interconnection and communication of the railway lines are smooth. EMSD will continue to monitor the investigation work.
TD will also review the existing contingency plan, including the arrangements of free shuttle buses by MTRCL during the incident, and whether there is room for other public transport operators to enhance services during the incident, in order to improve the handling of similar incidents in future. However, it should be noted that shuttle bus service is an emergency supplementary measure with limited carrying capacity, and would be subject to factors such as road conditions, which can hardly replace normal train service.
In regard to Member's question on whether the incident is related to the signalling system upgrading project, according to the signalling system alarm log of MTRCL, the incident indeed occurred after MTRCL switched back the signalling system to the existing one and operated it for some time. There was no evidence showing correlation between the incident and the signalling system upgrading project. That said, MTRCL has further strengthened its monitoring and maintenance of the existing systems when testing the new signalling system, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 215 and has deployed additional personnel to stand by at stations' signalling equipment room to expedite the repair works. Separately, EMSD has discussed with MTRCL to temporarily segregate the interconnection of railway lines to avoid them to be affected by one another under similar incidents. As mentioned above, EMSD and MTRCL including the expert panel set up by MTRCL will also review whether the incident was indeed not related to the signalling system upgrading project when conducting the in-depth investigation.
MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary has not answered the parts of the question relating to the insufficiency of emergency shuttle service arranged between MTRCL and the Public Omnibus Operators Association ("POOA") under the supervision of the Government, and the absence of the said arrangement on 16 October. MTRCL has 10 shuttle buses on standby, how come not even one bus was deployed on that day? Under the emergency arrangement formulated between MTRCL and POOA, upon notification by MTRCL, POOA is required to provide at least seven emergency shuttle buses within 30 to 45 minutes, an additional 40 buses within 60 to 90 minutes, and about 100 emergency shuttle buses after two hours. Secretary, why, under the supervision of the Government, was this arrangement not implemented at all by MTRCL on 16 October? Besides, is this emergency shuttle bus service insufficient to tackle the incidents which may possibly happen in the future?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): President, I thank Mr FAN for his supplementary question. Indeed, when a railway incident happens, both MTRCL and the Government will have discussions with public transport operators. As I pointed out earlier, in terms of franchised bus service, a total of 75 franchised buses running 11 routes were deployed on that day to enhance its service. With the enhanced service of these 11 routes, the overall carrying capacity was increased by 40%. However, we also reckoned that the carrying capacity of buses surely could not absorb fully that of trains. At the same time, we also communicated with tram and ferry companies for service enhancement purposes. Just now Mr FAN mentioned that MTRCL did not arrange free shuttle bus service on that day. This is indeed a fact which we have also followed up on with MTRCL, and we also have some views on whether the relevant arrangement was the best to the incident. Therefore, we will follow up on this incident with MTRCL seriously.
216 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
In general, the shuttle bus service provided by MTRCL is a point-to-point service. For instance, when the service of a railway line is disrupted, shuttle bus will be provided to link up certain stations along the line. However, when four railway lines were also affected on that day, we believed that we should try every possible means to assist members of the public in moving about. This is our attitude and I believe this is in line with the objective of Members. We will also follow up on the matter with MTRCL in due course. As I have also mentioned just now, we will go back and examine whether TD will formulate better relief measures as part of the future contingency arrangement to address traffic incidents.
MR CHAN HAN-PAN (in Cantonese): President, according to the Secretary's reply earlier, MTRCL did not arrange franchised buses or shuttle buses on that day. As a result, many passengers were at a loss when they got out of the stations to find heavy traffic jams and people flooding the streets. As such, the entire contingency system really needs to be reviewed in many aspects. Yet there are no representatives from MTRCL here today, thus making it impossible for us to question them why no shuttle buses were provided on that day. Nevertheless, Secretary, since the testing of the signalling system concerned was still going on, I would like to ask whether the Government has evaluated the chance of having similar risks in the future. In case a similar incident occurs in future, what kind of contingency mechanism the Government has in place to deal with it? Given the extensive impact it may impose, will the Government ask employers to allow their staff to be absence from work on that day?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): President, I thank Mr CHAN for his supplementary question. As I have mentioned earlier, we have communicated with the Subcommittee on Matters Relating to Railways ("the Subcommittee") regarding the details of the incident, and also urged MTRCL to finish the in-depth investigation as soon as possible. MTRCL is required to give a detailed account to the Subcommittee and Members next week.
Just now Mr CHAN asked whether similar incidents would occur and whether we would draw up temporary measures to minimize the occurrence of similar incidents. According to the initial investigation findings and the information provided by MTRCL, we reckon that there was no evidence showing LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 217 correlation between this incident and the signalling system upgrading project. Besides, the two contractors of the existing system, i.e. Siemens Limited and Alstom Hong Kong Limited, as well as the supplier of the upgraded signalling system for the Tsuen Wan Line, have confirmed respectively that this incident has anything to do with the existing and the new signalling systems. Nevertheless, EMSD will continue to do follow-up work to confirm that this statement or the initial investigation findings are accurate.
Under the circumstances, as I have also mentioned earlier, EMSD has already instructed MTRCL to disconnect the various railway lines under the control system so that they can operate separately and thereby avoid any disruption of railway services of the four lines simultaneously as in this incident. We hope that this arrangement can boost public confidence. As regards routine and monitoring work, we have urged MTRCL to communicate and coordinate with TD every morning before operation so as to make sure that similar incident will not occur. Besides, if there are any signs showing that the service is being affected, we hope that the public can be notified as early as possible so that they can get prepared earlier. In regard to the question of whether it is appropriate to go to work under such circumstances, the Government of the Special Administrative Region ("SAR") has already said on many occasions that under the existing law and situation, we will appeal to employers to be more understanding of the employees who may have difficulties in going to work, and be people-oriented as far as possible in making appropriate arrangements. We of course do not want any incident to occur, but in case there is any public transport delay, our attitude is that we will, first of all, make public announcement as soon as possible and try our best to deploy other means of public transport to alleviate the impact on members of the public.
MS TANYA CHAN (in Cantonese): President, I am now holding a list showing the train delays of MTRCL happened in this year alone, i.e. 2018. In sum, the blue part shows the delays of more than 30 minutes. We can all see that the blue part occupies almost the whole list. Among the delays of more than 30 minutes, some of them of course occurred during peak hours. But then, this list has already excluded the delays of Light Rail trains. I certainly know that the Government has set up a penalty mechanism with MTRCL, and I believe that the incident which has left us a deep impression is the one happened in 2017, the Kwun Tong Line …
218 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Tanya CHAN, it is not the time for you to express your views.
MS TANYA CHAN (in Cantonese): I am just making reference to some basic information.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I have to remind Members that this urgent question is raised out of the concern that railway services may be disrupted by MTRCL's gradual replacement of signalling systems for various railway lines. As such, Members should not discuss other issues here.
MS TANYA CHAN (in Cantonese): This information is closely related to this subject matter. It is because while there were incidents where the service was disrupted for over 10 hours in the past, under the penalty mechanism, only the train with the longest delay will be taken into account. Let me cite an example. For an incident in 2017, the penalty was only $2 million as the calculation basis was only the longest delay of 83 minutes of a Kwun Tong Line train, whereas the total number of hours during which the public were affected by this disruption of railway service was …
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Tanya CHAN, please raise your supplementary question directly.
MS TANYA CHAN (in Cantonese): President, I need to provide some background information. The total number of hours during which the public were affected was 10 hours. And this time, the delay was close to six hours.
In 2014, the maximum penalty in Singapore was already …
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Tanya CHAN, I have already reminded you a couple of times that you should not express your views. Please raise your supplementary question immediately.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 219
MS TANYA CHAN (in Cantonese): President, I am providing some basic information for the Secretary's consideration.
In 2014, Singapore already made some changes, and the maximum penalty is now 10% of the gross fare revenue. Since the mechanism in Hong Kong is based on that of Singapore, will we raise the penalty level in the light of the multiple delays?
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): In accordance with Rule 26(4) of the Rules of Procedure, a supplementary question shall not introduce matter which is not related to the original question or answer. Hence, if the supplementary question is not related to the original question, the Secretary can choose not to answer.
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): President, I thank Ms CHAN for her views which I have listened carefully and jotted down. We will review the situation after the meeting.
MR ALVIN YEUNG (in Cantonese): President, in this incident, the service of all four railway lines was disrupted and the general public of Hong Kong were all affected. In the main reply, the Secretary said that during the incident, an additional 400 staff were deployed to assist passengers. But this is obviously not enough when considering the road traffic conditions or the needs of the public on that day. May I ask the Secretary whether there is any alternative measure? In case there is a similar incident or even more severe incident in future, what kind of measure will the SAR Government come up with? Will it have any criteria or basic requirements regarding the number of staff members involved, like how many will be required to be deployed by MTRCL to assist passengers and to divert the affected passenger?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): President, I thank Mr YEUNG for his views. Speaking of public transport, the SAR Government's transport policy is underpinned by public transport with railway as the backbone, coordinating with the current trend of "green commuting" in smart cities across the world. On the front of mass transportation, since railway, in particular, has massive carrying capacity and is highly cost-effective, it is an environmentally-friendly form of transportation.
220 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
In Hong Kong, of the daily passenger trips involving 12 million commuters, 90% are made on public transport, and 40% among them are made on railways. On average, over 5 million passenger trips are made using the railway network every day. Of course, there are also other modes of public transport. For example, about 4 million passenger trips are made by bus every day. However, in the event of a railway incident, the impact will be massive for sure. In fact, ancillary services provided by buses, minibuses and taxis are available along railway lines and particularly the busy sections, operating and coordinating to offer the public some more choices.
As I have mentioned earlier, in the event of a railway incident, considering the carrying capacity of 2 000 passengers per train as compared to less than 200 per bus, the road traffic will be relatively congested. What we can do is to provide some relief measures to minimize the impact on the public.
Just now the Member asked under what conditions a certain number of staff would be deployed to assist passengers should such an incident occur. According to our understanding, MTRCL made a temporary measure on that day to deploy many colleagues in the office or on the way to office to assist passengers directly at various stations. As regards the number of staff members that can be considered appropriate, I believe this has to be studied by MTRCL on its own, but we surely will follow up on this matter. To us, the most important issue is to provide the public with clear information and alternative means of transport.
Under the circumstances mentioned, no matter how many staff members we have deployed and how many ancillary means of transport we have provided, we can only relieve the situation caused by the delay or service disruption but not resolve the problem. I hope everybody understands this basic difficulty. Of course, as I have highlighted earlier, regarding the contingency arrangements, the issues we will follow up on in future include the deployment of other modes of public transport and early dissemination of information to the public through mobile applications, the media and all other means so that they can be aware of the situation and be prepared.
MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese): President, many members of the public criticize the Government for the lenient penalty it has imposed on MTRCL. Many people also say that in order to prevent the occurrence of such kind of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 221 large-scale incidents, the most simple and direct approach is to review the penalties and the most direct option is to refund passengers. I wish to ask the Secretary whether the Government will, after this incident, consider reviewing the mechanism and imposing heavier penalties on MTRCL, instead of allowing MTRCL to take the public for a fool in offering half fares to passengers for only one day.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr KWONG, I have to remind you that your supplementary question has already digressed from the main question. However, I will still invite the Secretary to answer.
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): Thank you, Mr KWONG. Regarding the penalties and MTRCL's fare reduction arrangement mentioned just now, we know that MTRCL is seriously following up on the matters. We will urge MTRCL to give a detailed account at the Subcommittee meeting next week.
We are now seriously following up with MTRCL on the penalty in relation to this incident, in the hope that we can reach a consensus with MTRCL and MTRCL will respond squarely to the issues regarding the severity of the incident and the manner it was handled. We also expect to give a full account at the Subcommittee meeting next week.
MR MICHAEL TIEN (in Cantonese): Secretary, since this question today is indeed too urgent, I am sure that MTRCL has not yet submitted a report to you, but maybe I can give you a helping hand here. As I understand, MTRCL changed the signalling system 20 years ago …
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Michael TIEN, you can only raise your supplementary question now and should not explain on behalf of MTRCL.
MR MICHAEL TIEN (in Cantonese): I know, but this point is related to my supplementary question.
222 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Please raise your supplementary question directly.
MR MICHAEL TIEN (in Cantonese): The new system set up by MTRCL this time is an enhancement of the old system, and the computer program concerned was written by MTRCL's own staff. The fact that the enhanced system broke down upon completion means that the system itself has problems. MTRCL does not use that enhanced system now but reverts to the old Tsuen Wan system which has been in use for 20 years. We can thus be sure that such incidents will not occur again; besides, the segregation of the interconnection of various railway lines also serves to prevent occurrence of incidents. The incident which lasted for 10 hours or five hours on that day would actually have been resolved in half an hour, if someone had ordered to segregate the interconnection of the four railway lines. However, no one has any knowledge of the old system, and those who have such knowledge were all retired. It is because MTRCL is a listed company which has to be careful in calculating the costs …
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr TIEN, please raise your supplementary question directly.
MR MICHAEL TIEN (in Cantonese): My supplementary question is very simple. Singapore also had similar experience last year when the whole system collapsed right away after the old system running for 20 years was replaced. Next year, Tsuen Wan line will switch to the new system. In regard to system switching, the past practice adopted by the Kowloon-Canton Railway was that before using the new system, a team of staff would be deployed to work for three months in the software production company to get familiarized with the new system and to debug the program. To "debug" means to eliminate errors and make sure that the new system will not break down when in use. My understanding is that MTRCL does not have this practice. Will the Secretary undertake to urge MTRCL to immediately form a team of staff to carry out the debugging exercise in these three months, so that when the new system for the Tsuen Wan line is in use next year, the Legislative Council will not need to discuss another related urgent question?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 223
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): Mr TIEN is indeed an expert of railways. However, I also have to clarify here that the signalling system in Hong Kong is different from the one in Singapore which Mr TIEN mentioned just now. Nevertheless, his comments are noted by us.
MTRCL already has initial investigation findings as to what actually happened to the signalling system on 16 October. In this connection, we have urged MTRCL to verify the findings by experts and asked our colleagues in EMSD to seriously follow up on the matter and confirm whether the investigation findings are accurate. Hence, we will put on record the views mentioned by Mr TIEN just now. We also hope that at the Subcommittee meeting next week, a detailed and full account can be given to Members.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Michael TIEN, which part of your supplementary question has not been answered?
MR MICHAEL TIEN (in Cantonese): The Secretary has not responded to the most important part of my supplementary question. Will the Secretary ask MTRCL to send a team of staff to work for three months in the software production company and to debug the program? Otherwise, when the new system for the Tsuen Wan line is in use next year, there may have serious problems.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr TIEN, you have already pointed out the part of your supplementary question which has not been answered. Secretary, do you have anything to add?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): I thank Mr TIEN for his supplementary question. As I said just now, the view of Mr TIEN have been clearly heard by us and would be put on record.
DR ELIZABETH QUAT (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary have mentioned about smart mobility just now. However, the service disruption of all four railway lines this time has really demonstrated that MTRCL is anything but smart, and that the contingency mechanism has long been ineffective. In fact, 224 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 this is not the first MTR incident. But this time, many members of the public still could not receive any notification, they had no idea how long the delay would last or what had really happened, and no messages could be received inside the train compartments. Passengers could not get on the train, get off the train or leave the station. They could not do anything but were stuck there for several hours. It is a matter of course that they are full of grievances.
May I ask the Secretary whether the contingency mechanism of MTRCL needs to meet a sufficient set of requirements and criteria set by the Government? Besides, the existing penalties that may be imposed on MTRCL by the Government do not cover failure of the contingency mechanism. In any future incident, if MTRCL fails to activate the mechanism or meet the requirements, like failing to provide any shuttle buses as in this incident, will the Government take such situations into account when imposing a penalty? Furthermore, if the management level fails to activate the contingency mechanism, should the penalties include deducting the remunerations and year-end bonuses of the management level?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): I thank Dr QUAT for her views. MTRCL has a contingency plan for any service delay and will take immediate actions in accordance with the situation. For instance, if the service is delayed for eight minutes or the delay is believed to take more than eight minutes, MTRCL has to make timely announcement. When 20% or more of the carrying capacity is being affected, MTRCL is required to issue amber alarm. When the delay may last as long as or more than 20 minutes, MTRCL is required to issue red alarm, so that the public can know clearly about the situation and choose their means of transport. At the same time, MTRCL also needs to notify ETCC of TD such that we can coordinate with other public transport operators with a view to alleviating the inconvenience caused to the public. As regards whether MTRCL has done sufficiently in this incident, I hope that a full account can be given at the Subcommittee meeting next week.
I understand that while Members are dissatisfied with or angry at the penalty mechanism, the public are also highly dissatisfied with it. We hope that after serious discussion with MTRCL in due course, we can review as to how better arrangements can be made under the circumstances. However, I also wish to highlight here that any penalty mechanism must be rational and sensible, and also relatively proportional.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 225
In our detailed discussions on various penalties in the past in this Council, we considered that the penalty must be commensurate with the fault. Besides, the most important point is that any penalty mechanism cannot and should not impose any pressure on the staff responsible for repairs and operation, and thereby impact on the operational safety of railways. I hope that in our discussion later on, we can help Members understand that this is one of our considerations.
MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): President, apart from the impact on the public, what is most worrying is the unknown cause for this incident. On the day of the incident, MTRCL gave us an explanation, but on the following day, it disproved what it had said earlier. People are thus concerned about the possible repeated occurrence of incidents. Besides, as proven by facts in these past few years, the occurrence of such incidents is getting more frequent.
In the main reply, the Secretary has mentioned several times that the incident is not related to the signalling system upgrading project. I find it very weird, because the investigation panel set up by MTRCL is still looking into the matter, and in fact, this incident did happen around the time of testing. How can he rule out the possibility at this moment and say that the incident is not related to the switching of the signalling system?
President, my supplementary question is related to the investigation panel concerned. In the main reply, the Secretary says that MTRCL has set up an investigation panel, and it shall arrange overseas and local experts to assist in the investigation―I wonder if Mr Michael TIEN will be one of them―while full assistance from the signalling system supplier will also be rallied. Nevertheless, can the Secretary take this opportunity to tell us about the timetable and the people who will participate in the investigation? Although the panel is led by MTRCL, I believe the public should also be informed of the details.
Besides, what are the roles of EMSD and the Government? Will the authorities participate in the investigation conducted by this panel? It is because the main reply says that EMSD will continue to monitor the investigation work. Does it mean that the Secretary will not be a member of that panel, but will patiently wait for the submission of the panel report after the investigation is finished and then procrastinate further for a period of time; or the Secretary will proactively participate in the investigation of this panel so that the progress of work can be expedited?
226 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Charles Peter MOK has raised a number of supplementary questions. Secretary, you can choose to answer one of them.
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): President, I thank Mr MOK for his views and supplementary questions. Regarding the initial investigation findings, Mr MOK asked why we were so sure that there was no correlation between this incident and the new signalling system. As I also mentioned earlier, upon completing the tests on the new signalling system, we already reverted to the existing signalling system and the operation was normal. But shortly afterwards, the incident happened. Certainly, in conducting investigation, MTRCL, the signalling system supplier, the supplier providing transitional service and the colleagues from EMSD have all made initial assessments. It is truly impossible for us to be totally sure, but according to the information that we have got so far, we have confidence that there is no correlation between the incident on 16 October and the transition to the new signalling system. Nonetheless, we have already urged EMSD to further study the data in detail.
Concerning the membership of the independent investigation panel, it comprises two overseas experts and one Hong Kong expert, and they are Mr Michael HAMLYN, Mr Bruce MACDOUGALL and Prof HO Siu-lau. As an independent expert consultant to the Government, EMSD will scrutinize the findings of MTRCL's investigation panel. Therefore, we hope that the role of EMSD can be placed on a more independent level so as to make sure that the Government's investigation will not be affected by any opinions from MTRCL.
I hope that this arrangement can give some confidence to society that the investigation findings will be fair, open and impartial. In regard to the investigation findings, we will also urge MTRCL to give an account to society and Members.
MR VINCENT CHENG (in Cantonese): President, the contingency measures for this incident were highly undesirable. On that day at Mei Foo Station, I could only hear scanty information being broadcasted and many people were at a loss about what to take as the alternative means of transport. The contingency mechanism of MTRCL is really problematic.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 227
At present, when anything happens to one railway line of MTRCL, its other railway lines will be unable to function. My supplementary question is: What contingency measures will be put in place by the Government if MTR is in total gridlock again? And how can MTRCL's coordination with other transport operators be enhanced?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): President, I thank Mr CHENG for his supplementary question. We do agree with the views of Mr CHENG. Nevertheless, regarding the scenario just mentioned by Mr CHENG, which poses a question on how we are going to handle the case if the railway network of Hong Kong comes to a standstill, this really needs a lot of wisdom to come up with a solution. This is because as I said earlier, out of the more than 12 million passenger trips we have every day, and over 5 million use railway as the means of transport. We will marshal all public transport resources to alleviate the impact, such as the 4 million passenger trips carried by buses, some 2 million passenger trips carried by minibuses, and even the 1 million passenger trips carried by taxis; but then, the sum of such capacities is only 7 million passenger trips. We can enhance the frequency and arrangement of the deployment, which includes making use of tram service and advising passengers to use the Western Harbour Crossing or take ferries to relieve the impact on the harbour crossing railway lines. Anyway, it is indeed difficult to handle the additional 5 million passenger trips with the combined carrying capacity of only 7 million passenger trips.
In this regard, some of the planning and development proposals contained in the Railway Development Strategy 2014 can actually help to relieve the situation. For example, the East Kowloon Line that we have referred to can maintain a balance with the Kwun Tong Line, while the North Hong Kong Island Line can also support the Island Line. I believe that the overall planning, when realized in future, will provide great help to the situation just said. Before the completion of these railway lines, we will discuss and study again the ways which can strengthen the relief measures and alleviate the impact on the public should this situation arise.
MR AU NOK-HIN (in Cantonese): President, I notice that Secretary Frank CHAN has confirmed in his reply to previous questions MTRCL's failure to provide shuttle bus service, and that he does have some issues with such failure. 228 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
I also wish to thank the Secretary for answering the question which I have pursued for a long time. In the main reply, he has finally pointed out that ETCC of TD, taking into account the severity of the incident on that day, upgraded its operation level to Level 2.
In regard to operation Level 2, TD has a set of guidelines known as "Action Checklists on Emergency Public Transport Services for Breakdown of MTR". This set of Action Checklists has, to a certain extent, answered the supplementary question raised earlier by Mr Vincent CHENG. When the service of various railway lines are disrupted, we can refer to this Action Checklist for emergency and contingency measures. Given that MTRCL has not provided any shuttle bus service in this incident, does the Government admit that some people have not acted according to the established procedures? Will the Government consider amending or reviewing the Action Checklists?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): President, I thank Mr AU for his supplementary question. The Operation Level 2 mentioned by Mr AU just now is the arrangement to cope with an emergency and this is an appropriate level in this case.
In the process, as mentioned by Mr AU just now, MTRCL did not make use of any shuttle bus. I have already mentioned in my response to other Members that the emergency shuttle bus service of MTRCL is mainly used for connecting different sections of a railway line when the railway service of a certain section is disrupted. But since the operation of the whole railway line or every station of the line came to a halt on that day, it was not an appropriate move to make use of the emergency shuttle buses.
We have already made it clear that under such circumstances when we have no other alternatives, any arrangement which can make moving about easier for passengers should also be considered and provided by us. We have already expressed our views to MTRCL. I hope to explore ways to provide a better arrangement to help ease and relieve the traffic and passenger flows in case any railway incident happens in future. All relevant views will be taken into consideration.
(Mr AU Nok-hin stood up, intending to ask another question)
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 229
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr AU Nok-hin, the Secretary has already answered your supplementary question.
MR LUK CHUNG-HUNG (in Cantonese): President, why were there so many railway incidents in recent years? Any incident must be related to system failure, and if there is a system failure, the system has to be repaired.
A railway employees' trade union has conveyed some information to me and I would like to know whether Secretary Frank CHAN knows about it. In order to save money and to develop into an independent kingdom by pursuing profits, MTRCL cuts the budget of its maintenance department each year, including the budget for increasing manpower or upgrading hardware. I would like to confirm whether the Secretary is aware of this or whether the Secretary has looked into this issue. A lack of resources will cause the maintenance department to have manpower shortage. Besides, with the opening of new railway lines, MTRCL is deploying some manpower to work for the new railway lines, thus causing the old railway lines to suffer a chronic manpower shortage and a very slow hardware upgrading process.
I want to know, also to ask, whether the Government can undertake to conduct a comprehensive review on this matter, as well as require MTRCL to make sure that its maintenance department has sufficient manpower and to improve its staff remuneration so as to retain and attract talented people, with a view to ensuring that MTRCL can provide excellent maintenance service to prevent frequent occurrence of railway incidents.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Since this supplementary question has already digressed from the scope of the main question, the Secretary can choose not to answer.
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): President, I thank Mr LUK for his views and supplementary question.
As we understand, MTRCL spends over $8 billion each year on upgrading and maintaining its assets, and it also attaches great importance to the recruitment and retention, training and deployment of manpower. MTRCL has set up the MTR Academy, the exact purpose of which is to enhance the quality of railway operation and the sustainable supply and development of railway services.
230 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
Regarding staff remuneration packages, as a major enterprise in Hong Kong, we have never overlooked our corporate social responsibility. We have also expressed that view to MTRCL on many occasions, in the hope that it will do more in respect of its corporate social responsibility.
MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, even if this accident is not related to the testing of the signalling system and it only coincidentally happened after the tests, as explained by the Secretary, I still think that MTRCL has at least committed a mistake in failing to be sufficiently prepared despite its full knowledge of those risks, and it has also failed to enable the public to get sufficiently prepared.
May I ask the Government whether, after learning from this lesson, it will require MTRCL to notify the entire population of Hong Kong in advance and inform them of the contingency arrangements for different routes before conducting in future any tests which may have subsequent risks, so that the public can get prepared?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): President, I thank Mr CHU for his views. MTRCL has been conducting the installation testing of the new signalling system for over a year. If I recall correctly, it has been going on for more than a year or may be nearly two years.
Before launching this project, we have explained to the public many times through media publicity that there would be installation testing involving the switching between the new signalling system and the old system every night, and in the morning the system would be switched back to the existing one for operation. In fact, this is just like performing "brain switching surgery" every night and then switching back to the old brain in the following morning; as such, the risks involved in the process is very high indeed. Hence, when MTRCL is doing the work concerned, it is conducting many risk assessments simultaneously and considering what emergency and contingency measures should be adopted.
Following our preliminary understanding which has been confirmed by MTRCL, this incident has nothing to do with the testing of the new system and its compatibility with the old system. This has proved that the work done previously is effective in preventing the occurrence of unnecessary incidents.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 231
Of course, we will give a detailed account of this incident to Members at the Subcommittee meeting next week. Perhaps after listening to the statement from MTRCL or the Government, Members may wish to present further views to us.
MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Cantonese): The supplementary question I put to the Secretary is whether we will be notified. What I mean is whether we will be notified in advance of the testing conducted in the following night, rather than being notified two years ahead of the testing to be conducted in the following few years. What I mean is giving notice the night before the testing is conducted.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHU, please sit down. Secretary, do you have anything to add?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): President, I would like to add that we already notified the public a year ago, and we are doing the same work every night. Hence basically, we have been doing the work of this project for a long time and will continue to do so.
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Secretary, this incident of service disruption of four railway lines caused by the failure of the MTR signalling system is unprecedented. Not only was MTR being affected, but other means of public transport also had to face seriously chaotic situations due to the sudden influx of passengers.
Does the Secretary know that on Hong Kong Island, for example, two tram stations seemed to have merged into one as too many people were waiting for the tram? The scenario was extremely dangerous as there were a few hundred people waiting at the carriageway. When people think that this is a traffic disaster, TD says that this incident of service disruption of all four railway lines has not reached the disaster level. The public find this remark very mean, and some people ask whether an incident will not be regarded as having reached disaster level if no casualties are involved.
232 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
My question is: Will the authorities withdraw the remark that this incident of service disruption of all four railway lines is not a disaster; and if not, will the Government give a detailed account of the kind of incidents that are classified as disaster level incidents according to the Government's definition?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): President, I thank Mr CHAN for giving us an opportunity to clarify the issue. From the day of the incident till now, the Government, including TD, has not made the remark referred to by Mr CHAN just now. In fact, when learning about the incident on that day, TD already did its very best to coordinate with and mobilize other public transport operators to assist the public, with a view to alleviating the impact on them when they move about.
Admittedly, from media reports to on-site observations on that day, we learn that the public encountered great difficulties when using other modes of public transport, and we also learn about the merging of two trams stations into one as mentioned by Mr CHAN just now. As I said earlier, the delay of three to four railway lines has a very extensive impact, affecting numerous passengers. Given the capacity constraints of other modes of public transport, we can only do our best with what we can deploy.
However, what is most important is that the Government, including TD, has maintained a high level of vigilance and made corresponding efforts in this incident. Hence, it is our hope that the general public and Members in this Chamber can understand that our colleagues have not made the above mentioned remark.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, which part of your supplementary question has not been answered?
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Is this a disaster level incident?
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, do you have anything to add?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 233
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): President, as far as the Government's contingency measures are concerned, we do not have any level known as disaster level.
MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary just said that there is no level known as disaster level, but there is a level named Level 2. In the main reply, the Secretary says that taking into account the severity of the incident, ETCC of TD upgraded its operation level to Level 2 on that day. However, there is also an operation level named Level 3, as the operation can be in three different modes, namely Level 1, Level 2 and Level 3. Concerning Level 3, the operation of ETCC will be escalated to Level 3 (i.e. Joint Steering Mode Operation) to handle major incidents that warrant high level steer and coordination among departments.
May I ask why the operation level was not upgraded to Level 3 on that day? And what was the position of the leading official in this ETCC on that day?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): I thank Mr TAM for his question. The operation of ETCC of TD is indeed under the three different modes of Level 1, Level 2 and Level 3. Level 1 is the normal mode of operation, Level 2 is to respond to the situation that I referred to earlier on, and Level 3 is to respond to major incidents as mentioned by Mr TAM just now.
Nevertheless, generally speaking, Level 3 is to respond to some planned events, including the commissioning of major transport infrastructure and the handling of the aftermath of a typhoon, which are situations we can expect and prepare beforehand. Concerning the difference between Level 2 and Level 3, please allow me to make a brief introduction. Under the operation mode of Level 2 on that day, basically, we have maintained close liaison with all the transportation operators, the police force and other law enforcement related institutions. The only difference between this level and Level 3 is that at Level 3, the representatives of all public transport institutions have to be present at ETCC for better communication.
234 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
On that day, right after the occurrence of this incident, which was an emergency, our colleagues were already working just like under the mode of Level 3. Through mobile phones and various kinds of communication methods, we mobilized all representatives of public transport institutions to come to our ETCC for direct communication. We also asked them to send some staff, including themselves, to the scene to offer assistance.
Therefore, there is a difference between Level 2 and Level 3, and we may review what they should be called in future. But anyway, I can assure Members that on that day, the SAR Government, including colleagues from TD, already tried their best, irrespective of the mode of operation for the situation, to mobilize all resources and maintain comprehensive and close communication with all public transport operators, with a view to offering relief and supporting measures to the public as far as possible.
(The President noticed the placard at Mr Gary FAN's seat)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Gary FAN, please take down your placard as I cannot see the Members behind you.
(Mr Gary FAN moved away the placard)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Jeremy TAM, which part of your supplementary question has not been answered?
MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): Because I was just asking …
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Please point out the part of your supplementary question which has not been answered.
MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): President, I am pointing out the part which has not been answered.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 235
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): You only need to point out the part of your supplementary question which has not been answered.
MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): Please let me raise the question that I wanted to raise earlier and that is, why was the operation level not upgraded to Level 3? Otherwise, under this tier system, Level 3 will only be nominal. The Government found it unnecessary to upgrade the operation level to Level 3 because it thought it could handle the situation then, but that should not be the case.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Jeremy TAM, please directly point out the part of your supplementary question which has not been answered.
MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): President, I have already pointed out the part which has not been answered.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Jeremy TAM has already pointed out the part of his supplementary question which has not been answered. Secretary, do you have anything to add?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): President, I thank Mr TAM for his follow-up question. As I just said, it depends on how you call them. I have explained the actual difference between Level 2 and Level 3, and have also explained how my colleagues handled the incident. I believe I have already answered Mr TAM's question.
MR WILSON OR (in Cantonese): President, this incident of service disruption of four railway lines has attracted an avalanche of grievances among the public across the territory. I was at Tiu Keng Leng Station on that day and was also affected.
236 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
As emphasized many times by the Secretary earlier, when such an incident happens, the authorities will launch the contingency measures. But we have actually seen the kind of contingency measures put in place by MTRCL. May I ask the Secretary about the division of labour between the Government and MTRCL in respect of the contingency work? Frankly speaking, their contingency measures did not work out well in each case. Do they need to conduct a review seriously to explore any room for improvement in the future contingency plans?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): President, I thank Mr OR for his question. I believe that the public have some strong views about the MTR service, especially the contingency measures during the incident, in this period of time. However, if people could give the matter its fair deal and discuss it in a calm manner, and take into consideration the scope of impact and the wide area affected in this incident, they would understand that we could only try our best to tackle that situation.
Under this premise, when observing the incident happened on that day or some past incidents, our understanding is that MTRCL, all public transport operators, our colleagues in TD and the Government team, as well as the business sector and members of public in Hong Kong, were earnest to give us advice and provide services in respect of this incident. For instance, some commercial groups arranged free shuttle buses to take people from the urban areas to the New Territories. This has exactly shown that we were doing everything possible to assist the public, with a view to enabling them to move about with greater convenience and less difficulties.
Nevertheless, I hope the public can understand that in the face of such an incident with extensive implications and profound impact, everyone involved has already discharged his role dutifully and done his best. In my opinion, we have already given an account to the public. Of course, as a member of the public, I am still dissatisfied and even angry. But under the circumstances, what can we ask for? We can ask the Government and even the public bodies concerned to do better, and the Government and the public service bodies will continue to explore and study how to do better.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 237
However, there is a limit to everything. I therefore hope that people will give a suitable degree of appreciation to the public bodies (including MTRCL, public transport operators and all those who have given us assistance). Of course, I am not saying that we did nothing due to the situation then. As I have observed, all the parties concerned have already done their best. Hence, on behalf of public transport operators, all colleagues on the front line and the management level, I raise this opinion for the sake of fairness.
MR LAM CHEUK-TING (in Cantonese): President, back in last year when the Kwun Tong Line experienced a 10-hour delay, we already wrote to the Secretary asking for a review of the penalty mechanism applicable to MTRCL. A penalty of only $2 million was imposed in respect of the incident at the time, but the Secretary replied that the penalty mechanism had been effective and no revision was intended, for fear that the repair personnel might otherwise be pressured to rush their work, thus putting railway safety at risk. According to the Secretary's reply I heard just now, he has come to believe that a review of the penalty mechanism should be sought with MTRCL. Now then, I would like to ask the Secretary if he is going to utterly contradict his past self. Alternatively, will he hold on to today's notion that the mechanism is unsatisfactory, flawed and unable to reflect the seriousness of the problem? Did he make a wrong decision in not reviewing the penalty mechanism back then?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): President, I thank Mr LAM for his comments and supplementary question. The penalty mechanism was examined once during the review of the fare adjustment mechanism in 2017. I believe Mr LAM was referring to the situation of that time. In recent days, we have seen the incident occur. Public views, and even the dissatisfaction expressed by Members, are fully clear to us. For any system, timely responses may be essential even at different times. As for the penalty mechanism, would an increase in penalty be effective? If such an increase is necessary, how should it be implemented? Is it feasible by cancelling directors' fees as suggested by some Members? On the other hand, is it possible to ensure operational safety during the process of punishment without affecting service quality? All these aspects warrant our comprehensive review.
238 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
Meanwhile, I personally will maintain an open attitude and look forward to receiving your views in this regard. However, we hope that, rather than hinging solely on the level of fine, the effectiveness of the penalty should be regarded as a more important consideration in the punishment process. Just now, in response to some Members' well-meaning questions, I have also offered an explanation on behalf of the frontline colleagues of the public bodies. However, I can assure you that, I will nevertheless personally oversee and expedite the review exercise, and seriously follow up on future contingency arrangements with the colleagues in the Transport and Housing Bureau and TD.
MR LAM CHEUK-TING (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary has not answered my supplementary question. What I asked was whether the Secretary had made a wrong decision back then in refusing the request for a revision of the penalty mechanism with MTRCL?
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, do you have anything to add?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): President, as I just said, there would be appropriate considerations at different times and in different situations. The review back in that year was at a point in time and space different from the current situation. As I have just said, I am open to any opinions. I believe I have responded to Mr LAM's views.
MR SHIU KA-CHUN (in Cantonese): President, although the MTRCL management described the phenomenon of four railway lines being paralysed on 16 October as unprecedented, I share the belief of many Hong Kong people that by no means will this be the last time. The Secretary has talked a lot just now about many issues, such as the communication efforts made across government departments and between government departments and public bodies, but how was the communication between the Government and the public? I wish to ask: In addition to Hong Kong's tropical cyclone warning signals and Hong Kong's rainstorm warning signals, will the Hong Kong Government consider introducing LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 239
Hong Kong's traffic warning signals, so that there will be "Amber Traffic", "Red Traffic" and "Black Traffic" in addition to "Amber Rainstorm", "Red Rainstorm" and "Black Rainstorm"?
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This supplementary question has obviously digressed from the scope of the main question. Secretary, do you wish to reply?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): President, let me respond to Mr SHIU's comments. For all matters relating to or affecting the public, the Government team will make announcements as soon as possible under the principle of honesty and openness. As regards the tropical cyclones or rainstorms that Mr SHIU just mentioned, and even the traffic incident we discussed earlier on, it is also our usual practice to immediately make a public announcement. Moreover, we will disseminate information to the public through mobile applications, all social media and public channels as soon as possible. Our approach is consistent with that of the Observatory, and both cover the same range of media.
(Mr SHIU Ka-chun stood up, intending to ask another question)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr SHIU Ka-chun, your supplementary question is irrelevant to the main question, and I have already let the Secretary reply just now. Please sit down.
MR LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, Secretary, it was a disaster as members of the public were at a loss as to what to do next when four railway lines simultaneously paralysed during the busiest commuting hours. Given that this was no ordinary incident, it is understandable that the Government might have reached its wits' end. But then, can an increase in manpower put the public at ease? Will additional bus routes convince the people that the matter has been well settled? No. The incident is believed to have occurred before 5:00 am and come to the Government's knowledge at 5:28 am, but why were members of the public kept totally in the dark, such that 240 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 they all came flooding into the consequently jam-packed MTR stations? Judging from these circumstances, was it true that MTRCL had notified all members of the public through a mobile application as Secretary just claimed? I think the Government should review the method for notifying the public upon occurrence of an incident. It is just unreasonable to leave people at a loss about what to do and with no choice but to enter the MTR stations to get trapped inside with no trains to ride on. Secretary, could you comment on this situation?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): President, I thank Mr LEUNG for the information and the supplementary question. Mr LEUNG has just raised the issue of awareness of the situation. It is true that MTRCL first discovered the incident, and was thus the first to become aware of it. According to our information, MTRCL has taken the initiative to give the relevant information to the media. As shown in our records, MTRCL notified TD at 5:52 am, and TD subsequently issued the information for public knowledge. TD disseminated the information through its mobile application "HKeMobility", social media, radio and the press.
Is there any room for improvement in the process? We will consider it in parallel with the later examination. In other words, if and when MTRCL is aware of some situations that may affect people when they commute to work and school or move about, will it be driven by a stronger sense of crisis to make relevant announcements as early as possible? There are chances that MTRCL can successfully fix the fault right after the announcement, but even if members of the public remain unhindered by the potential impact they have been notified of, they are aware of the incident and able to make arrangements accordingly. In the course of remedy, what was the exact reason why MTRCL did not notify the Government until it failed in its repair attempts? When MTRCL encounters a problem, will it be more desirable to notify the Government as soon as possible? I think there is room for review. We look forward to giving detailed accounts of the situation and satisfactory replies at a meeting next week of the Subcommittee formed under the Legislative Council.
DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, Secretary, the Government should be held responsible for MTRCL's failure to fulfil its obligations. I was among the hundreds of thousands of people affected that day. I had to walk LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 241 from Prince Edward Station to Kowloon Tong Station. Several students seemed to have waited there from 8:00 am to 10:00 am and were still unable to go to school. Therefore, from a user's perspective, I believe that money may not solve the problem, as I certainly heard the Secretary say. MTRCL often informed us, and notably different District Councils also shared such remark, that with more railway lines serving the districts, some bus routes had to be cancelled. This situation was often evaluated in terms of money because MTRCL said that it would otherwise be unable to maintain operation. Regarding the penalties and contingency mechanism, I hope that the Government will strengthen two aspects. First, I think that in addition to the duration, another factor that should be taken into consideration in calculating the penalty is the part of the rush hours being affected …
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Priscilla LEUNG, many Members have raised questions on the penalty, but the penalty is irrelevant to the main question. Please raise your supplementary question immediately.
DR PRISCILLA LEUNG (in Cantonese): Yes, but please let me finish first, President. I just wish to let the Secretary know that we should not just resort to the existing mechanism. In my view, the Board of Directors should be punished as well and be held collectively responsible. Second, regarding the notification mechanism applicable during rush hours, I think the Government should monitor MTRCL and the bus companies. Particularly, under the circumstances where four railway lines are simultaneously paralysed, there should be a backup mechanism apart from the provision of feeder bus routes, just in case the current contingency measures fail to tackle the problems on the roads. In the event of such an incident, I believe that the coordination and collaboration between the bus companies and MTRCL is what members of the public are most concerned about.
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): President, I thank Dr LEUNG for her views and question. The cost and penalty mentioned by Dr LEUNG should be duly handled and balanced. We should impose punishment in a reasonable and restrained manner, with a view to bringing safe and reliable results without compromising the quality of railway 242 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 services for the public. As regards the notification mechanism and the backup mechanism, as I said earlier, the notification and response in relation to such incidents in future, or even other arrangements that may alleviate the impact on the public, form the basis of our future study propositions.
Regarding the cost and penalty, as far as I understand, MTRCL has offered to make a half-fare arrangement on certain days in the future as a gesture of goodwill after the incident. I know that MTRCL is preparing the details in this regard, with a view to giving an account of such to Members at the Subcommittee meeting next week. Punishment is necessary, but if the corporation concerned can handle the matter with corporate social responsibility, I would like to see some encouragement, apart from punishment, so that it can show its goodwill by making some compensation for the inconvenience caused to the public.
DR CHENG CHUNG-TAI (in Cantonese): I wish to ask the Secretary whether he knew that MTRCL had scheduled system tests for all lines during the commuting hours on Monday, 15 October? The entire incident has highlighted the absence of common sense and wisdom in our public administration. How was it possible that the system tests for all the railway lines in Hong Kong were not scheduled for weekends and long holidays but unnecessarily on work days instead? My question is very simple. What the Secretary needs to answer is whether he knew the date scheduled by MTRCL for the tests fell on a work day? If he had known that, why did he not suggest that the tests be conducted on a certain holiday, at weekends or on long holidays? Should you also punish yourself? This is just a matter of common sense.
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): President, I thank Dr CHENG Chung-tai for his comments. Dr CHENG asked whether the Government knew of such an arrangement for 15 October, a work day. I hope Dr CHENG Chung-tai has listened to my earlier reply. I have made it clear that the renewal of the signalling system did not begin on 15 October, but a year ago. "Brain switching" is carried out every night, and a lot of publicity efforts have been made through the media in this regard. Such updating exercises involving the signalling system are conducted daily. Upon completion of the railway operation every day, the new system is installed and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 243 tested. Afterwards, the old system will be reconnected and tested to ensure smooth operation before the railway service is restored in the morning. So, I hope this fact can answer the question Dr CHENG raised just now.
MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): President, I have heard the Secretary say many times that all means of public transport were deployed whenever a serious traffic incident occurred and when all four MTR lines were paralysed, but what I have heard so far seems that only road-based transport modes were included in the comprehensive public transport system to help alleviating serious traffic incidents. I wish to ask the Secretary why water-borne transport modes were not included in the system to assist in dealing with emergencies. Is water-borne transport found unsuitable or not included in the Secretary's considerations at all?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): President, I thank Mr WU for his question. In case of an incident, particularly a public transport incident, TD will communicate with all public transport operators. Since passenger trips by road-based transport hugely outnumber those by water-borne transport, our focus is on the former. As far as water-borne transport is concerned, we also have a contingency measure in place. For example, if a serious traffic accident occurs on the Tsing Ma Bridge, or even on the North Lantau Highway, we have an emergency plan with the ferry company, under which additional ferries will be deployed to transport passengers from urban areas or other districts to the pier near the airport. On that day, we also contacted Star Ferry for assistance. However, as Members also understand, and I said earlier as well, since the railway lines in Hong Kong have cross-harbour sections, the ferry service frequency was also increased on that day.
MR LAU KWOK-FAN (in Cantonese): President, the current failure of four MTR lines affected wage earners across the territory. As the Government says that its policy is to designate railway as the backbone, MTRCL should shoulder a heavier responsibility.
Today, Members want to directly hold MTRCL accountable, but there is no representative of MTRCL in attendance. Punishment is a reasonable form of accountability, but the current penalty levels do not seem to reflect the weighting 244 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 attributable to MTRCL. Everybody finds the levels of fine quite low, and that is why MTRCL has not learned any profound lessons. Earlier on, the Secretary also said that we should not just look at the amount. I wish to ask the Secretary: What else will the authorities do to hold MTRCL accountable, apart from imposing a fine?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): President, I am grateful for Mr LAU's views. For any commercial organization that provides public transport service, and any major stakeholder in Hong Kong as well, both overall corporate governance and accountability are very important. Therefore, in addition to the penalty review we mentioned earlier on, it is necessary that MTRCL's Board of Directors discusses what happened, and then figures out how to deal with the situation. We certainly do not wish to see the same thing happen again in future, but if a similar situation arises, what contingency measures or arrangements are in place to help minimize the inconvenience to the public? We have communicated with the counterparts at MTRCL in this regard. We also look forward to further discussion with the Board of Directors later. I believe it is the due responsibility of a commercial organization, and a public body as well, to have its board of directors engage in fact-finding and give direct responses.
MR CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, MTRCL has apologized for the incident and explained the causes afterwards. In my view, however, as MTRCL is the major means of transport for Hong Kong people, the four-line failure has caused not only immense inconvenience to the public but also utter chaos to the traffic, thus affecting the international image of Hong Kong and laying bare the inadequacies of MTRCL's operational management. In disregard of its social responsibility, MTRCL has failed to put in the first place a mechanism that facilitates the public's daily travel.
Therefore, I wish to ask the Secretary: As the largest shareholder of MTRCL, has the Government considered, in addition to imposing punishment in accordance with the mechanism, other penalties that can push MTRCL forward in improving its services and prevent similar situations from arising, given that a small fine has no deterrent effect on this mammoth corporation?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 245
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): President, I am grateful for Mr CHEUNG's views and supplementary question. Mr CHEUNG has mentioned just now MTRCL's performance in operational management, as well as its disregard of public interest. I wish to offer an explanation here.
MTRCL's management and Board of Directors put both the corporation's operational management and the public interest at a very high position. In practice, we will discuss the development of various matters and even some aspects of performance. We will also urge the management to implement improvement measures aimed at enhancing corporate performance through a self-perfection and self-review process, and to follow up on its social responsibility and provision of excellent railway service to Hong Kong people.
As regards other comments, we have taken notice and will consider them in due course.
DR PIERRE CHAN (in Cantonese): President, the recently revealed incidents have exposed serious problems in MTRCL's governance. As mentioned by many Members and the Secretary, the current penalty mechanism has obviously failed to hit home hard enough. As a result of the massive disruption to railway service, members of the public arrived late to work. Many people thus had their attendance bonus deducted, ranging from several hundred up to one thousand dollars.
I wish to ask the Government and the Secretary whether it is possible to introduce additional penalties during the review of the penalty mechanism and emergency measures, such that those who have suffered a deduction of attendance bonus can claim their losses back.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This supplementary question has also obviously digressed from the scope of the main question. Secretary, do you wish to reply?
246 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): President, I am grateful for Dr CHAN's views. In response to the inconvenience caused to members of the public by transport incident-induced service delay, the authorities have all along sought to alleviate the impact on the public through coordination, and each incident would be reviewed with a view to providing better service.
Regarding Members' allegation that some workers had their attendance bonus deducted because of being late to work as a result of the delay, the SAR Government holds the view that employers and employees in Hong Kong should understand and accommodate each other under any circumstances. Employers are also called on to show due consideration for workers in difficult situations beyond their personal abilities, so as not to cause them any unnecessary income losses. We have also directed MTRCL to issue certificates for the railway service disruption, which can hopefully prove that individual workers were affected by the train service delays during their commute to work, thereby seeking empathy from their employers to spare them the deduction of attendance bonus.
MR ABRAHAM SHEK (in Cantonese): President, I declare that I am a non-executive director of MTRCL. Quite a number of Members have put forward their views today. I will also relay them back to the Board of Directors, but I would like to raise a point. Regarding the new and old systems, MTRCL has preliminarily indicated that the two current matters are unrelated. I do not wish to see the Secretary treating some fake and self-proclaimed experts as real ones. That Member is not an expert. Therefore, I hope that such folks will not be encouraged to make up untruths to misinform the public solely for political purposes.
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): President, I thank Mr SHEK for his alert. I have just made it clear that the preliminary investigation of the incident found that the current incident has nothing to do with the tests of the new signalling system. I have clearly pointed it out. Therefore, I hope that Members or the press reporting on the deliberation of the Council will send this message out. This is very important because some Members are concerned about possible recurrence of this incident in the future if it is related to the new signalling system. I have already pointed out repeatedly LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 247 that, first of all, the relevant system contractors, including Alstom and Siemens, and the contractor for the updated system, namely Alstom-Thales DUAT Joint Venture, have also confirmed that both matters are unrelated.
Meanwhile, EMSD has examined the preliminary information and data, and clearly stated that the two matters are believed to be unrelated. However, we need to ensure that the findings are 100% correct, so we will continue to follow up. Therefore, I wish to make a clear statement here, that is, the incident that occurred on 16 October was not directly related to the new and old signalling systems.
MS YUNG HOI-YAN (in Cantonese): President, I have heard the Secretary say many times today that the incident is unrelated to the switching between the old and new systems, meaning that the problem did not arise from the switching, but I would like to ask why it took six hours to repair the system before it could be reset to a stable state. Is there something being kept back from us? Or is it just an excuse that problems with machines and systems are to blame? I do not believe that the public will accept this proposed solution or view. Is MTRCL's current problem a result of human errors or delays in communication?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): President, I thank Ms YUNG for her supplementary question. We totally agree that, whether as a member of the public or a representative in the Council, we are considerably dissatisfied, and even angry, with the fact that it took a rather long time to finish the repair work and return the service to normal from the incident on 16 October. We will also seriously follow up on the incident. As an initial step, we have already sought information from MTRCL, and I have also personally listened to their explanation.
In this regard, I hope Members may give us some more time, because we will give a comprehensive and detailed account upon returning to the Subcommittee meeting next week. It is true that some special circumstances did arise during the incident. I believe that after a detailed and in-depth account is given at the Subcommittee meeting, Members can make a fair judgment and give us advice on the situation concerned.
248 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Questions. First question.
New railway projects
1. IR DR LO WAI-KWOK (in Cantonese): President, the Railway Development Strategy 2014 ("the Strategy") published by the Government in September 2014 has recommended that seven new railway projects be completed within the planning period of up to 2031, but such projects do not include a coastal railway between Tuen Mun and Tsuen Wan. So far, the Government has not yet announced the detailed proposals and the implementation timetables for the seven railway projects, resulting in the public waiting eagerly and railway construction personnel worrying about their subsistence as they will be jobless. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) given that at present residents of a number of districts (particularly Kowloon East and Tuen Mun) often face serious traffic congestion, whether the Government will expedite the implementation of the railway projects recommended by the Strategy and at the same time consider afresh, adopting the thinking of "letting railway provide impetus for development", the construction of the coastal railway between Tuen Mun and Tsuen Wan; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
(2) given that the Hong Kong Section of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link has been commissioned and the Shatin to Central Link will be completed in the coming few years, and in order to avoid railway construction personnel suffering from the plight of "overworking to death at one time and starving to death at another time", whether the Government will consult the construction industry when it draws up the implementation timetable for each railway project so as to ensure that the various projects will commence in an orderly manner; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and
(3) as the Third Comprehensive Transport Study, which was completed as early as in 1999, has become outdated and irrelevant to the needs of Hong Kong's latest development, whether the Government will LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 249
expeditiously embark on the fourth comprehensive transport study, so as to meet the needs for cross-boundary transport networks and support facilities arising from the Development Plan for a City Cluster in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Bay Area; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): President, my consolidated reply to Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok's question is as follows:
Having regard to the indicative implementation window recommended in the Railway Development Strategy 2014 (RDS-2014), the Transport and Housing Bureau had invited the MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL") to submit proposals for the implementation of the Tuen Mun South Extension, Northern Link, East Kowloon Line, Tung Chung West Extension and North Island Line. MTRCL submitted proposals for these five railway projects to the Government in end December 2016, end March 2017, end July 2017, end January 2018 and end July 2018 respectively. The Transport and Housing Bureau, the Highways Department and relevant bureaux/departments are evaluating the proposals and have requested MTRCL to provide additional information and supplement details. In carrying out the evaluation, our main focus is to ensure that the proposals are practically feasible and can bring maximum benefits to the society.
Due to the tight housing supply and the potential housing supply that may be brought about by railway development, the Government is reviewing the proposals for the Tuen Mun South Extension and Northern Link and will strive to undertake public consultation on these proposals as soon as possible. We will also carry on with the detailed planning for the East Kowloon Line, Tung Chung West Extension and North Island Line, and will embark on detailed planning for Hung Shui Kiu Station and the South Island Line (West).
In line with established procedures, prior to the finalization of any new railway scheme, we will consult the public, including the Legislative Council and the relevant District Councils, on the detailed alignment, locations of stations, mode of implementation, cost estimate, mode of financing and actual implementation timetable of the scheme. The construction industry may also express their views through relevant channels. The Government (including the Development Bureau) reviews manpower of the construction industry and 250 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 coordinates implementation of public works of the Government, so as to implement the public works (including infrastructure projects) in an orderly manner.
Besides, when formulating RDS-2014, our consultant at that time evaluated in detail the feasibility of constructing a railway along the coastline between Tuen Mun and Tsuen Wan. According to the consultant's analysis, the local population is mainly concentrated at the eastern and western ends of the coastline between Tuen Mun and Tsuen Wan; while the development density of the remaining areas is relatively low and no basis for new source of passengers is anticipated. Meanwhile, due to the technical difficulties involved, solely the construction cost of a railway along the coastline between Tuen Mun and Tsuen Wan is expected to be very high. RDS-2014 states that the cost-effectiveness of Tuen Mun-Tsuen Wan Link can hardly be established, according to the information at that time; and in the longer term, the Government would consider revisiting the railway proposal if there are further changes in the planning circumstances and population as well as an increase in transport demand in the coastal areas between Tuen Mun and Tsuen Wan, or other relevant new considerations in the planning for development in the region.
The Chief Executive just mentioned the Lantau Tomorrow Vision in the Policy Address. A part of the proposed railway corridor as referred to in the Lantau Tomorrow Vision is similar to the alignment of Tuen Mun-Tsuen Wan Link (Tuen Mun to Tsing Lung Tau). The Transport and Housing Bureau plans to take forward the "Strategic Studies on Railways and Major Roads beyond 2030" (RMR2030+ Studies) on the basis of the conceptual spatial requirements to be firmed up under the "Hong Kong 2030+: Towards a Planning Vision and Strategy Transcending 2030" ("Hong Kong 2030+ Study"), which is being conducted by the Development Bureau and the Planning Department. Based on the latest planning information, including cross-boundary transport data, RMR2030+ Studies will examine the demand and supply of the transport infrastructure, including railways and major roads, in Hong Kong between 2031 and 2041, and study the loading of the heavy rails in the Northwest New Territories beyond 2030. We will consider the planning studies and the recommended strategic transport corridors in relation to the Lantau Tomorrow Vision, as well as looking into the layout of the proposed railway and major road infrastructure with regard to the transport infrastructure required for the longer-term strategic growth areas of "Hong Kong 2030+ Study" (such as the New Territories North), to ensure that the planning of large scale transport LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 251 infrastructure can meet the needs of the overall long-term land use developments of Hong Kong. RMR2030+ Studies will also examine the impact of the proposed transport infrastructure on the existing transport network and formulate corresponding strategies. The Panel on Transport expressed support for the above studies in June 2017. Since "Hong Kong 2030+ Study" has not yet been finalized, we will seek funding approval in due course for implementing RMR2030+ Studies.
The Government completed the third comprehensive transport study ("CTS") in October 1999. The study comprised three main aspects: (i) planning of transport infrastructure; (ii) the roles, positioning, and coordination of each public transport mode; and (iii) other topical transport studies. The third CTS laid down a number of broad directions, including (1) better integration of transport and land use planning; (2) better use of railway as the backbone of the passenger transport system; (3) provision of better public transport services and facilities; (4) wider use of advanced technologies in traffic management; and (5) implementation of more environmentally-friendly transport measures. These broad directions remain applicable today.
After completion of the third CTS, the Transport and Housing Bureau has been conducting different studies for the various aspects of CTS. On planning of transport infrastructure, the Government announced the "Railway Development Strategy 2000" and RDS-2014 in 2000 and 2014 respectively. The Government also conducted regular internal reviews on the planning of strategic road projects in Hong Kong; took forward major road projects including Central-Wan Chai Bypass and Island Eastern Corridor Link, Central Kowloon Route, Tseung Kwan O-Lam Tin Tunnel, Cross Bay Link, etc. in a timely manner; and will commence RMR2030+ Studies. On public transport services, the Government recently announced the "Public Transport Strategy Study" in June 2017. On topical transport studies, the Government will continue to implement various measures to relieve road traffic congestion, including conducting a study to comprehensively review the hierarchy and level of tolls of all government tolled tunnels and the Tsing Ma and Tsing Sha Control Areas, and taking a series of short-term and medium-to-long-term measures to relieve inadequate parking spaces in various districts by increasing their supply, and actively prepare for the Electronic Road Pricing Pilot Scheme in Central and its Adjacent Areas, etc.
252 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
The above studies on different transport topics can basically serve the purpose of a CTS. Moreover, compared to the previous approach of conducting an one-off CTS to cover the above three main aspects, the Transport and Housing Bureau considers that the arrangement of conducting studies on different aspects and topics at appropriate times, on the one hand, allows flexibility to respond effectively to the ever-changing traffic demand arising from local developments. On the other hand, it is a more suitable approach to complete the studies in an orderly and flexible manner for early promulgation of the findings of each study, without undergoing protracted preparatory and coordination process for an extensive study and with resources progressively deployed.
IR DR LO WAI-KWOK (in Cantonese): President, in the Railway Development Strategy 2014 ("the Strategy") published four years ago, the Government recommended the completion of seven new railway projects within the planning period of up to 2031. Given that there are only 13 years left and there is public anticipation that such new projects, which will bring significant improvements to our railway network, can be completed and commissioned in phases, the Government should give the relevant proposals the green light as early as possible so that at least some of the projects can be kick-started. However, in his main reply, the Secretary for Transport and Housing has evaded answering the part of my question about which Hong Kong people and members of the engineering sector are most concerned, that is, the implementation timetable for the seven new railway projects.
May I ask the Secretary, given that the Transport and Housing Bureau already published the Strategy as early as four years ago, can he present to this Council a draft implementation timetable of the projects? Is it because the Government still has no concrete plan for these railway projects? Why is it still not possible to launch the construction works of some local extension lines?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): President, I thank Ir Dr LO for his supplementary question. As I stated just now, the Strategy has recommended the implementation of a total of seven railway projects, and I have reported on the progress of five of them. In the light of the latest social developments, such as our housing supply, and how we should tie it in with railway planning and construction, so as to bring about synergy effects of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 253 providing transportation services and housing at the same time, we need to spend some time on making some consolidation in the process, having regard to the latest social developments and aspirations of the community.
As for the implementation timetable, I already pointed out just now that the Government had basically conducted a lot of studies on and reviewed the proposal for the Tuen Mun South Extension, and would consult the Legislative Council later on. On the whole, our attitude is one of launching a project once it is ready for implementation and undertaking public consultation on a proposal when its planning is completed. On this premise, we will endeavour to expedite the pace.
Nevertheless, I hope Ir Dr LO will understand that under the circumstances described just now, we have to take some new elements into consideration, and some of our work needs to give regard to the planning and implications of the Lantau Tomorrow Vision in order to avoid duplication. In particular, with regard to the Lantau Tomorrow Vision mentioned just now and the Tuen Mun-Tsuen Wan Link, the mutual effects they will create on one and the other should be considered in parallel, because there is a need to achieve seamless integration of the development of a district with its population growth and ancillary transport facilities. Hence, in this connection, we hope Ir Dr LO will give us more time to do a good job of the work. We will come back to the Legislative Council to undertake public consultation on the proposal as early as possible.
MR KENNETH LAU (in Cantonese): President, according to past discussions at the Lantau Development Advisory Committee and the public consultation paper of the "Hong Kong 2030+: Towards a Planning Vision and Strategy Transcending 2030" ("Hong Kong 2030+ Study"), under the basic concept and alignment plan of transport infrastructural development for East Lantau Metropolis, a road was proposed to be constructed to link up Hei Ling Chau and Tung Chung via Mui Wo and South Lantau, thereby providing a through road connecting South Lantau with North Lantau, and linking up Lantau Island further with New Territories West and various districts. However, as reflected by the road traffic route proposed now for the Lantau Tomorrow Vision, Mui Wo will no longer be adopted as the starting point and the whole alignment has shifted to the direction towards Discovery Bay. As a result, the needs of residents in South Lantau and Mui Wo will be totally neglected, and such a design has obviously deviated from the planning made in "Hong Kong 2030+ Study".
254 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
The population of South Lantau is comparable to that of Discovery Bay, but when it comes to the comparisons made in such aspects as the intensity of tourism activities, passenger volume, the number of tourist attractions and usability, there is indeed a greater need to provide an additional land trunk road in Mui Wo than in Discovery Bay.
I asked Secretary Michael WONG a similar question yesterday, but would like to hear the reply from the Transport and Housing Bureau today. What exactly is the road alignment planned for the Lantau Tomorrow Vision? Will the relevant railway or road network be extended to Tung Chung via South Lantau and Mui Wo?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): President, I thank Mr LAU for his supplementary question. There are both similarities and differences between the East Lantau Metropolis mentioned just now and the Lantau Tomorrow Vision. Members may recall that with regard to the development of Lantau Island, a direction of "Development in the North, Conservation for the South" has been mapped out, and to my understanding, the concept is also applicable to the Lantau Tomorrow Vision.
As for the provision of ancillary transport facilities in future, as well as the planned alignment of railway lines or even major roads in Lantau, I understand that the Development Bureau will apply to the Legislative Council later for funding to conduct a study in this respect. I am sure our colleagues in the Development Bureau fully understand Mr LAU's views expressed just now, and I will also convey them to relevant officers in the Bureau, so that they will take them into consideration in the study in future. I hope this can address the concerns of Mr LAU.
MR FRANKIE YICK (in Cantonese): President, I would like to follow up the question raised in part (3) of Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok's main question. With regard to the fourth comprehensive transport study, the Government still maintains its general direction and considers that the problem can be resolved with the adoption of some piecemeal measures.
I would like to tell the Secretary that if the problem can really be solved by adopting the method suggested by him, we will not be facing such a serious problem of traffic congestion now. The Government started its planning on the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 255 widening of Tai Po Road (Sha Tin Section) only lately, but the traffic congestion problem at the road section is so serious that its users have been pouring out endless grievances, and measures should indeed be taken in advance to tackle the problem. The Government often suggests that the problem can be addressed in a piecemeal manner, but I am sure this approach is certainly not agreeable to the general public.
When debating a motion moved by me in 2015, this Council agreed that the Government should launch the fourth comprehensive transport study, but no action has so far been taken to conduct the study, and as reflected in the reply given to the same question today, the Government's stance in this respect remains unchanged. May I ask the Secretary whether the Government will seriously reconsider our request? If the approach adopted to address the problem is feasible, the road traffic condition in Hong Kong will not have been so poor.
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): President, I thank Mr YICK for his views and supplementary question.
Basically, we do not object to the idea of undertaking an overall and comprehensive transport planning study, but consideration should be given to the approach adopted for conducting the study. First of all, a comprehensive transport study will need to cater to every aspect, and it will be a rather time-consuming process which requires some consolidations. Past experiences reveal that under some circumstances, there will be certain implications on the timing of completing the study. What we are trying to say is that when conducting a study on the three main aspects, we should consider how the study can be undertaken in a more timely manner to effectively respond to our social development and traffic demands, and this is the perspective we are trying to adopt in addressing the issue. This exactly was our objective when we consulted the Panel on Transport earlier and secured its support for undertaking the "Strategic Studies on Railways and Major Roads beyond 2030".
It is because as far as infrastructural support for our transportation network is concerned, an overall blueprint should first of all be drawn up. And under the existing public transport policy, the guiding principle of drawing up such an overall blueprint is to develop a public transport-oriented system with railway as the backbone. Hence, we should first work on the planning of major roads and railway lines, and then flesh out the planning with other detailed studies within 256 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 this framework. In this connection, I think we do share the same views of Members, only that our views are different on the timing, sequence or arrangements for handling the relevant work.
During the course of conducting the study, we will adopt the concept of developing a comprehensive transportation strategy. I hope that in taking forward work in this respect in future, more communication can be made with Mr YICK and members of the transport sector, so that we may tap collective wisdom and carry out a better study or planning.
MR CHAN HAK-KAN (in Cantonese): President, railway operations in New Territories East were twice paralyzed recently on a relatively major scale. The first incident occurred when Hong Kong was struck by Typhoon Mangkhut, after which railway operations were affected by the incidence of a large number of tree collapse cases. The second incident occurred earlier when two cases involving passengers falling onto railway tracks were recorded within three days, thus rendering it impossible for residents in Tai Po and the North District to take the East Rail Line and travel to Kowloon. Under the existing arrangements in our railway network, commuters on the east side and the west side of the territory have to rely respectively on the East Rail Line and the West Rail Line for travelling to and from Kowloon, but the two railway lines are not linked up.
As a matter of fact, the construction of the Northern Link has been proposed to link the East Rail Line up with the West Rail Line, but discussions in this respect have been going on for nearly 20 years, yet no action has been taken so far to implement the railway project. I wonder what are the reasons. Is it due to the overwhelming number of railway incidents, and the inability on the part of MTRCL to tackle these incidents and take forward the construction of the Northern Link, or is it due to the Government's reluctance to implement the railway project for the time being? If it is because of MTRCL's failure to resolve the numerous internal problems concerning the East Rail Line, and the Secretary is therefore not confident that MTRCL should be entrusted with the implementation of the project, can the construction or operation of the Northern Link be entrusted to another organization? Secretary, without the Northern Link, how can the congestion problem currently plaguing the East Rail Line be resolved when the development project in the North East New Territories is taken forward in future to accommodate a new population of 180 000?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 257
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): I thank Mr CHAN for his views and supplementary question. If we look at the matter from a comprehensive perspective, it is true that, as pointed out by Mr CHAN just now, the railway network in Kowloon and the New Territories is already covered by the East Rail and the West Rail, and the Shatin to Central Link will link the two railway lines up in the south, so that passengers taking the East Rail Line may interchange to the West Rail Line direct. If the construction of the Northern Link is taken forward, loop rail services will be available and passengers may choose to take different railway lines in a clockwise or counter-clockwise direction. It is indeed the best arrangement for any major world city to develop its railway network into a loop like this to allow two-way flow of passengers.
We have never stopped working on the implementation of the Northern Link and Kwu Tung Station. MTRCL already submitted its proposal for the implementation of the Northern Link in March 2017, and as I have pointed out earlier, the Transport and Housing Bureau, the Highways Department and relevant bureaux/departments have evaluated the proposal and requested MTRCL to furnish additional information.
Besides, Members need to understand why public consultation has yet to be conducted for the planning of the Northern Link, apparently as suggested by Mr CHAN. Because when planning for the implementation of the Northern Link, we have actually faced many challenges, such as the impact of the project on residents in the rural areas, the development and conservation of ecologically important sites, and how we should maintain liaison with bureaux in charge of the development in new areas to ensure coordination of different development plans in future. Moreover, there have been much discussions on many different occasions to explore whether the train stations of this railway line should be built above-ground or underground, whether land should be reserved for the development of housing or train stations, etc., and dissenting views have been expressed on these issues. In this connection, before undertaking the relevant implementation work, we should first achieve a greater consensus in society through an interactive process, and gain a comprehensive understanding of such issues mentioned just now as alignment, provision of train stations, ancillary facilities and overall development.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Second question.
258 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
Application of immunotherapy in Hong Kong
2. MR CHAN HAN-PAN (in Cantonese): The Nobel Committee has earlier decided to award this year's Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine to two immunologists to commend their breakthroughs in treating cancers with immunotherapy. Although immunotherapy has been proven to be effective in treating cancers, and has brought a ray of hope to quite a number of cancer patients, the Hospital Authority ("HA") has not adopted immunotherapy as a regular treatment for cancers. As a result, patients cannot receive immunotherapy treatment even though they are willing to pay for such treatment. Besides, the medications needed for immunotherapy are costly. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council whether it knows if HA:
(1) has drawn up a timetable for adopting immunotherapy as a regular treatment for cancers; if HA has, the details; if not, the reasons for that;
(2) arranged immunotherapy-related training for its health care staff in the past three years; if HA did, the details; if not, the reasons for that and when HA will make such arrangements; and
(3) will add the medications needed for immunotherapy to the Hospital Authority's Drug Formulary either as a drug on the list of special drugs subsidized by public funds, or on the list of self-financed drugs with safety net; if HA will, the details; if not, the reasons for that?
SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, the Government and the Hospital Authority ("HA") place high importance on providing optimal care for all patients, including cancer patients, and assuring patients of equitable access to safe, efficacious and cost-effective drugs under the highly subsidized public health care system. My reply to the various parts of the question raised by Mr CHAN Han-pan is as follows:
(1) Drugs for cancer treatment can be classified into different types according to the types of treatment such as traditional chemotherapy, targeted therapy, immunotherapy and hormonal therapy, among which immunotherapy is a new type of cancer treatment. Medications for immunotherapy are mainly intravenously injected LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 259
into a patient's body to boost or supplement his/her own immune system, so that it will kill or suppress his/her cancer cells. Doctors will consider the condition and wish of a patient in deciding what type of cancer treatment is suitable for the patient including immunotherapy, and immunotherapy is one of the cancer treatment options.
(2) On the technical side, the current injection method of immunotherapy drugs is similar to that of other anti-cancer drugs, and does not require any additional techniques. That said, continuous on-the-job training is provided for health care professionals for professional development and for them to learn about the clinical application and the side effects of drugs in treating different diseases so as to keep abreast of the ever-changing scientific development and meet the clinical needs of patients.
(3) HA has an established mechanism for regular appraisal of new drugs and review of its Drug Formulary and coverage of the safety net, and would make changes as appropriate. The process is based on scientific and clinical evidence, taking into account the safety, efficacy and cost-effectiveness of drugs and other relevant considerations, including international recommendations and practices as well as professional views, so as to ensure equitable and rational use of public resources as well as the provision of optimal care for patients.
At present, there are three immunotherapy drugs listed as self-financed items ("SFIs") on the HA Drug Formulary ("HADF") for treating four types of cancers, namely skin cancer, renal cell cancer, lung cancer as well as head and neck cancer. Nivolumab, a type of immunotherapy drug for treating skin cancer, has been covered by the Community Care Fund Medical Assistance Programme since August 2018. Patients with clinical needs and meeting specified criteria may apply for drug subsidy to use this drug.
We understand the financial pressure and economic burden on patients, as well as their strong aspiration for listing certain drugs on HADF and including them in the scope of subsidy under the safety net. To shorten the lead time for introducing suitable new drugs to 260 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
the safety net, HA has, since 2018, increased the frequency of prioritization for including SFIs in the safety net from once to twice a year. HA will also liaise with pharmaceutical companies from time to time on setting up risk sharing programmes for certain suitable SFIs. Under the programmes, HA, patients and pharmaceutical companies would contribute to the drug costs in specific proportions within a defined period, or the drug treatment costs to be borne by patients would be capped, with a view to facilitating patients' early access to specific drug treatments.
HA will continue to keep abreast of the latest development of clinical and scientific evidence, listen to the views and suggestions of patient groups and follow the principle of rational use of limited public resources to review HADF under the established mechanism and to include suitable self-financed drugs as special drugs or under the coverage of the safety net so as to benefit more patients in need.
MR CHAN HAN-PAN (in Cantonese): President, given that some types of immunotherapy are not included as a regular treatment for cancers, doctors who wish to adopt immunotherapy for patients have to make applications on an individual basis. This practice is indeed very troublesome and discourages some doctors from adopting this treatment option. I thus wish the Secretary to know that this is inappropriate. Immunotherapy has been proven efficacious and the immunologists concerned have been awarded the Nobel Prize. The Government should comprehensively consider accepting more immunotherapeutic treatment options to help people to receive optimal medical treatment.
An end-stage liver cancer patient came to me yesterday. He manages to get immunotherapy for his cancer but the annual cost of medication is as much as some $200,000 to $300,000. He cannot afford it, but his cancer already reaches end stage and there is no other alternative drugs. Hence, may I ask the Secretary, apart from discussing twice a year the prioritization of self-financed items ("SFIs") for inclusion into the safety net, does the Hospital Authority ("HA") have any other means to give these end-stage cancer patients greater hope?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 261
SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, I thank Mr CHAN for his question. In fact, I already mentioned this just now. Regarding cancer treatment, HA has been using different treatment options including conventional chemotherapy, targeted therapy, etc., and immunotherapy is also an treatment option. Of course, HA has a very important task, namely adopting the optimal medical treatment for patients, especially end-stage cancer patients. I believe HA will monitor whether patients are given the optimal medical treatment and look after their best interest. When new drugs scientifically and clinically proven safe and efficacious become available, HA will consider as soon as possible bringing them under its existing mechanisms in accordance with its established mechanism.
Certainly, I believe the clinical condition of a patient, his suitability of using different drugs and the diagnosis and opinion of his doctor are also very important. Hence, we will keep under close watch any new treatment options for cancer patients, with a view to giving them the optimal treatment.
DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, new cancer treatment options are ever-changing. This is why many doctors say that cancer may be regarded as a chronic illness controllable with drugs. Immunotherapy is a relatively new treatment option with less side effects and more specific efficacy.
The Secretary points out in the main reply that these drugs are vetted and approved by HA and the Department of Health, and that HA has to consider the efficacy and safety of these drugs when it decides whether or not to add them to the HA Drug Formulary ("HADF"). In this case, instead of classifying these immunotherapeutic drugs in HADF as SFIs, why does HA not place them in the scope of subsidy of the safety net direct? Given that these life-saving drugs must be prescribed by doctors, and patients cannot buy or use them on their own, the Secretary should place these drugs in the safety net direct, instead of classifying them as SFIs. Is the Secretary willing to do this?
SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, I thank Dr Fernando CHEUNG for his question. HA doctors will consider the condition and wish of a patient in deciding the type of treatment that is most suitable for the patient. Like I said just now, immunotherapy is one of the cancer treatment options and other treatment options have their respective efficacies. Hence, doctors have to consider the clinical condition and wish of a patient, which is also 262 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 important. HA doctors will provide the optimal treatment for patients based on clinically proven practices and also, like I just said, the clinical condition of patients. This is also very important.
Moreover, HA has established treatment guidelines on medications for different diseases; and it has also increased the frequency of prioritizing SFIs for placement in the safety net from once a year to twice a year. HA will continue to review the present needs and include suitable drugs in the existing mechanisms of HA.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Fernando CHEUNG, which part of your supplementary question has not been answered?
DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): My supplementary question is not about the clinical judgment of doctors because this is obvious …
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHEUNG, please directly point out the part of your supplementary question that has not been answered.
DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): She has not answered why HA cannot place those SFIs which are already in HADF in the scope of subsidy of the safety net direct.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHEUNG, you have pointed out the part that has not been answered. Please sit down. Secretary, do you have anything to add?
SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): Let me make a simple supplementary point. The SFI mechanism is one of the existing mechanisms of HA and it has been proven. Regarding the introduction of new drugs by HA and the availability of SFIs, or other better means, to help patients with financial needs, HA has other safety nets for these patients, including the Community Care Fund ("CCF") and the Samaritan Fund.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 263
DR ELIZABETH QUAT (in Cantonese): President, many citizens have made enquiries recently about immunotherapy because everyone knows that this treatment option may give patients a bigger chance of recovery and cause less side effects compared with targeted therapy. But according to my enquiries with some pharmaceutical companies, applications for inclusion of immunotherapeutic drugs into HADF are still being processed after a lapse of 18 months. So, there seems to be a time lag between the drug inclusion mechanism of the Government and HA to meet the needs of the people and catch up with advancements in technology.
I thus wish to know whether the Government has any new mechanism to explore how best to speed up the inclusion of new drugs scientifically proven efficacious. And given that new drugs are usually costly, how will the Government help patients' access to these drugs expeditiously?
SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, I thank Dr Elizabeth QUAT for her supplementary question. HA has an established mechanism for new drug appraisal and review of the existing HADF and the scope of subsidy of the safety net. The scale of these reviews is expanding every year. In this process, HA will review evidence-based medicine and the attainment of the goal of rational use of public resources; the opportunity cost and principles such as facilitating patients' right of choice will also be considered; and the most important consideration is certainly the safety, efficacy and cost-effectiveness of drugs, as well as other related factors, including international recommendations and practices and changes in technology. Dr QUAT mentioned some new medical advancements just now. HA will also take note of these changes, as well as the development of diseases, the medication compliance of patients, their quality of life and the practical experience of drug application, as well as the views of professionals and patient groups.
Regarding the review of new drugs, especially more costly drugs, HA will prudently examine related treatment options and consider, for instance, whether a certain option is financially sustainable, with a view to providing the optimal treatment for patients. In this regard, as I already said just now, HA has increased the review frequency from once a year to twice a year. HA will continue to keep under close watch the latest development of treatment options that are good to patients, on both fronts of medication and technology.
264 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr QUAT, which part of your supplementary question has not been answered?
DR ELIZABETH QUAT (in Cantonese): I said just now that some pharmaceutical companies spent 18 months on introducing their drugs into HADF. Can the increase of the review frequency to twice a year resolve this problem? In fact, will it still be not enough?
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr QUAT, you have pointed out the part of your supplementary question that has not been answered. Secretary, do you have anything to add?
SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): We will continue to examine the situation. HA has just increased the review frequency from once a year to twice a year. But we will continue to monitor the situation and see if anything else can be done to optimize the present mechanism.
DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, the present health care policy of Hong Kong is that no one will be deprived of optimal health care services because of lack of means; and optimal health care services are based on doctors' clinical diagnoses and judgment. If a certain drug (especially a life-saving drug) is, in a doctor's opinion, the best treatment option for a patient but the drug is a SFI, the patient will be denied the optimal care if he cannot afford the SFI.
The SFI mechanism is in itself contradictory to, or clashing with, the policy of Hong Kong. I thus wish to ask the following question. Some cancer patients in Hong Kong are diagnosed by public-sector hospital doctors that they should best be prescribed these drugs for their cancer, but they cannot use these drugs because of financial difficulties. In these cases, the drugs are available, but they do not have the means. Secretary, can you pre-empt something like this from happening, so as to live up to the health care policy pledged by you?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 265
SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, I thank Dr Fernando CHEUNG for his supplementary question and view. Regarding the present health care policy, HA will provide the optimal treatment option for all patients, including cancer patients. Regarding medication, this is only part of the treatment for cancer patients. Certainly, some of these drugs are very expensive, and that is why we also have different approaches. These include considering placing these drugs in HADF, or including them in the scope of subsidy of CCF or the Samaritan Fund. However, I also wish to point out that in addition to providing medications for cancer patients, HA has also been increasing resources to cater for the special needs of cancer patients, including strengthening cancer diagnosis services, increasing oncology beds, strengthening surgical operation services and radiotherapy services, as well as nursing care services.
Hence, we will do a holistic review of the types of cancer therapy for patients. HA will strengthen related services based on available resources. We also attach great importance to treatment of cancers, and actually, not just treatment. The Policy Address this year has announced that we will formulate a cancer strategy, which will conduct a holistic review of cancer prevention, surveillance, control, treatment and recovery.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Fernando CHEUNG, which part of your supplementary question has not been answered?
DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary is still evading my supplementary question. I am saying that the policy of the Government is that no one will be denied of optimal medical care because of financial means. No other thing than a doctor's diagnosis can better show what is optimal medical care. Why does the Government not provide these drugs for cancer patients?
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHEUNG, you have pointed out the part of your supplementary question that has not been answered. Please sit down. Secretary, do you have anything to add?
266 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, in fact, I already repeatedly pointed this out just now. There are many types of optimal treatment for cancers, and immunotherapy is only one of them. For instance, conventional chemotherapy and new targeted therapy, among others, are also optimal treatment options for cancer patients. And HA also provides these types of therapy.
MR CHAN HAN-PAN (in Cantonese): President, as the saying goes, "saving lives is as urgent as putting out a fire". By the time there is an outcome of the Government's review, cancer patients will be dead. The Secretary said just now that cancer patients could also have their cancer cured with other drugs or by targeted therapy. But the problem is that if a cancer patient has no other drugs that can cure his cancer and his doctor confidently suggests him to use immunotherapy which is not subsidized under the safety net of the Government, the patient will have to pay for the drug. I have this specific question for the Secretary. Given this loophole of the safety net, will the Secretary consider setting up a new item under CCF to help patients who have been recommended by their doctor to use drugs not included in the safety net?
SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, I thank Mr CHAN for his supplementary question. In fact, as I mentioned just now, as regards the new drug review, I believe HADF, the safety net and its scope of subsidy are all important elements of the review. This is done on the basis of scientific and clinical evidence, taking into account the safety, efficacy and cost-effectiveness of the drugs. If we consider it necessary and appropriate to include these drugs after comprehensively examining all of these factors, we will communicate with CCF on a regular basis and timely bring these drugs under the scope of subsidy of CCF. In fact, different drugs, especially drugs for cancers, have been brought annually under CCF in the past few years using substantial resources, and many patients have used the drugs. Hence, we will keep in view the work in this regard, so that patients can receive optimal medical treatment.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Han-pan, which part of your supplementary question has not been answered?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 267
MR CHAN HAN-PAN (in Cantonese): The Secretary has not answered my supplementary question. My supplementary question is simple. I asked whether the Secretary would consider setting up a specific item under CCF to help patients who have been recommended by their doctor to use drugs not included in the safety net …
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, you have pointed out the part of your supplementary question that has not been answered. Secretary, do you have anything to add?
SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): I do not have any particular points to add. In fact, CCF and HA have all along maintained communication. If there is a need to set up any items or add any drugs to CCF, I believe it is one of the items of discussion between HA and CCF.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Third question.
Labour interests and rights of employees who perform duties during and immediately after inclement weather
3. MR HO KAI-MING (in Cantonese): President, as super typhoon Mangkhut which hit Hong Kong last month had caused extensive damage to the community, the authorities needed to deploy considerable manpower for the recovery efforts. During the time when the typhoon was gradually moving away from Hong Kong, the majority of employees needed to go to work while the transport networks were partially paralyzed, which put them in an extremely awkward position. Regarding the protection of labour rights and interests of employees who perform duties during and immediately after inclement weather, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it knows the number of workers engaged by outsourced service contractors who participated in the clearance work during and after the typhoon, and a breakdown of such number by job type; whether the Government will consider granting a special hardship allowance to those workers and regularizing such an allowance; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
268 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
(2) of the number of reports received by the Government in respect of employees who sustained injuries while commuting to and from work during the time when Mangkhut hit Hong Kong; and
(3) how the Government will step up the protection of the occupational safety and health as well as other labour rights and interests of those employees who perform duties during and immediately after inclement weather; whether it will enact legislation to protect those employees who are unable to go to work owing to natural disasters against wage deduction, being withheld good attendance bonuses or dismissal; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): President, after consulting the relevant bureaux and departments, my consolidated reply to the Member's question is as follows:
(1) Individual government departments would, taking into account their different operational requirements, tender and enter into a wide range of service contracts with their selected outsourced service contractors, each prescribing specific requirements and different scope of services, such as property management service, street cleaning and public hygiene, estate security and cleaning, parks and roadside horticultural maintenance service, or repair of various systems etc. As the scope and service requirements of different departments on outsourced service contractors vary from one another, and the Government does not have a standard list of outsourced service contracts that deal with the cleaning work during and after the storm, we do not have a definite number of additional staff employed by outsourced service contractors in handling the cleaning work in association with this storm. Besides, we understand that quite a number of existing outsourced service contracts already contain clauses on a requirement to perform cleaning work during and after typhoons. As such there would not be figures on extra manpower so incurred under these service contracts.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 269
As there is no employment relationship between the Government and employees of outsourced service contractors, the Government does not have the practice of granting a special hardship allowance to these workers. On the other hand, as we understand, some service contractors would grant a special hardship allowance to their employees according to individual circumstances.
Despite the above, the Government is very concerned about the employment terms and conditions as well as the labour benefits of non-skilled employees engaged by government service contractors. The Chief Executive has just announced in her Policy Address measures for enhancing the protection of these non-skilled employees. These include the provision of at least 150% of wages to non-skilled employees for working under Typhoon Warning Signal No. 8 or above. The improvement measures will be applicable to government service contracts which are tendered from 1 April 2019 onwards and rely heavily on the deployment of non-skilled employees. Other improvement measures include the entitlement to a contractual gratuity and statutory holiday pay upon employment for not less than one month. To provide incentives for outsourced service contractors to enhance the wage rates of their employees, we will also increase the technical weighting in marking schemes for tender assessment to not less than 50%, and increase the weighting for "wage level" as an assessment criterion to at least 25 marks out of 100 marks in the technical assessment.
(2) The Labour Department ("LD") does not keep employees' compensation claims statistics involving cases on accidents occurred to employees whilst travelling to and from work.
(3) LD attaches great importance to ensuring the work safety of employees. During regular inspections at workplaces, in particular those of high-risk industries such as the construction industry and the container handling industry which involve outdoor work activities, Occupational Safety Officers pay attention to the work arrangements and contingency measures in relation to working under inclement weather conditions. LD has been urging employers to avoid assigning employees to work during inclement weather such as typhoons and rainstorms. If it is inevitable for an employee to work 270 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
during inclement weather, the employer should assess the relevant risks in advance so as to ensure the work hazards are properly controlled, and adopt so far as is reasonably practicable the necessary measures to minimize the risks.
As regards employees' compensation, the Employees' Compensation Ordinance ("ECO") provides that when Typhoon Signal No. 8 or above or when the Red or Black Rainstorm Warning is in force, the employer is in general liable to pay compensation under ECO if an employee sustains an injury or dies as a result of an accident while travelling from his place of residence to his place of work by a direct route within a period of four hours before the time of commencement of his working hours for that day, or from his place of work to his place of residence within a period of four hours after the time of cessation of his working hours for that day.
The nature and requirements of different jobs in various trades and industries vary from each other. Certain essential services need to maintain different levels of operation even under inclement weather conditions. The extent of impact caused by typhoons to public transport and road systems may differ. It is not practical to regulate work arrangements of employees under specific circumstances through across-the-board legislation, as it will overlook the operational needs of different industries and the community as a whole. It will also affect the flexibility of employers and employees in working out their work arrangements.
Taking into account the general interests of employers, employees and the community, LD has published the "Code of Practice in times of Typhoons and Rainstorms" to provide practical guidelines on work arrangements, resumption of work as well as calculation of wages and holiday arrangements under such circumstances. LD will continue to promulgate through various channels to remind employers to provide reasonable and practicable means having regard to the actual conditions and adopt a flexible approach so as to ensure the safety of employees, maintenance of good labour-management relations as well as the smooth operation of the organizations.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 271
MR HO KAI-MING (in Cantonese): President, wage earners were really unfortunate this month, having experienced respectively the onslaught of Typhoon Mangkhut and a serious failure of the Mass Transit Railway. They are likely to have their good attendance bonuses withheld due to the dereliction of duties on the part of the Government in both instances. Many of them have relayed to us that their wages and leave days were deducted by their employers as a result. It can thus be seen that when employees have to go to work as usual under such circumstances, particularly in the aftermath of a typhoon where public transport services have yet to resume, they may have to suffer certain losses.
May I ask the Government if it will, apart from encouraging employers to be understanding towards the wage earners of their own volition for the sake of maintaining good labour relations, consider putting in place a mechanism to enhance protection for the rights and interests of wage earners? How is it going to protect employees against unreasonable treatment in the aftermath of natural disasters if it does not establish such a mechanism?
SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): President, I have already mentioned in my main reply just now our views on this issue. Basically, we are certainly glad to hear Members' views, in particular those concerning whether the relevant arrangements currently adopted in the aftermath of a typhoon (e.g. when the Typhoon Warning Signal No. 8 is already lowered) warrant improvement. We are prepared to receive views. Yet, we think that in the realistic circumstances, it is difficult to handle the issue by taking an across-the-board approach by way of legislation or other procedures. It requires, after all, discussion between employers and employees on the specific arrangements for different scenarios.
MRS REGINA IP (in Cantonese): President, many recovery efforts are not yet completed after Hong Kong was hit by Typhoon Mangkhut. At present, fallen trees can still be seen littering the streets, and the situations in remote areas in the New Territories and the outlying islands are even more serious. I wonder if the Government relies on outsourced service contractors to undertake post-disaster recovery efforts. I have been given to understand that they have neither sufficient manpower nor gear to carry out such work.
272 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
May I ask when the Government will consider seeking assistance from the Chinese People's Liberation Army Hong Kong Garrison ("the Hong Kong Garrison")? Under Article 14 of the Basic Law, the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region may ask the Central People's Government for assistance from the Hong Kong Garrison in the maintenance of public order and in disaster relief. And so, under what circumstances will the Government consider doing so? I noted that the Hong Kong Garrison has rendered assistance this time around in the form of volunteer service. Prior to the reunification, however, the then incumbent government would call out the Hong Kong Volunteer Defence Corps and other auxiliary services to undertake such efforts. Did the Government follow this practice on this occasion, and under what circumstances will it seek assistance of the Hong Kong Garrison?
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Which public officer will give a reply? Chief Secretary for Administration, please.
CHIEF SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION (in Cantonese): I thank Mrs Regina IP for her supplementary question. Before all else, I would like to make a clarification. Actually, two oral questions to be asked later on will also touch on the issue of post-typhoon recovery efforts. First, I wish to clarify that the Hong Kong Garrison only rendered volunteer service on this occasion for public good, similar to the case of other Hong Kong citizens and organizations lending a helping hand by taking part in the recovery efforts. Sparing no effort in carrying out recovery efforts, the Government is grateful to and welcomes all individuals, organizations or institutions that offer to render assistance in this regard. A lot of fallen trees and dead branches out there on the roads are still not yet cleared owing to the significant impact of the recent typhoon, but they can be disposed of later as they will neither obstruct traffic nor pose risks to people's safety. Those which did affect people's daily life had been dealt with at once. That is to say, we prioritize our work on basis of the degree of urgency.
(THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, MS STARRY LEE, took the Chair)
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 273
We believe we in the Government have the capability to undertake the recovery efforts in the aftermath of the recent typhoon without calling out the Hong Kong Garrison. In fact, the Civil Aid Service was mobilized then and training at the Fire Services Training School was even temporarily suspended during the most critical period so that its trainees and staff could also give a hand. Hence, we have adequate surge capacity to deal with the aftermath caused by the recent typhoon.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mrs Regina IP, which part of your supplementary question has not been answered?
MRS REGINA IP (in Cantonese): I do know that the assistance of the Hong Kong Garrison was rendered on a voluntary basis this time. And I believe everyone here knows this, too. So the Chief Secretary needs not make any clarification. My question is: Based on what criteria or policies will the Government decide to seek assistance of the Hong Kong Garrison? Certainly, many organizations had mobilized their volunteers in the aftermath of the last typhoon …
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): You have already stately clearly the question to which a reply from the Chief Secretary for Administration is sought. Please sit down.
MRS REGINA IP (in Cantonese): But he did not give a reply indeed.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Chief Secretary for Administration, please.
CHIEF SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION (in Cantonese): When shall we make such consideration? Well, the answer is simple. In our opinion, only under special circumstances and when there is a genuine need shall we consider requesting assistance of the Hong Kong Garrison. We shall not make such requests so lightly. It is not necessary to involve the Hong Kong Garrison when we are sufficiently capable of dealing with the situation.
274 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, regarding the recovery efforts in the aftermath of the recent typhoon Mangkhut, we can see that the efforts were undertaken by workers engaged by outsourced service contractors of the Government. Actually, given the insufficient manpower, fallen trees or garbage in various places (in particular certain important trunk roads) were not cleared immediately. Disregarding their own personal safety, some members of District Councils even proceeded to remove the fallen trees personally. I think so doing will pose dangers.
I have a question about this particular scenario. Since the provision of government subsidy for outsourced service contractors to engage additional manpower is not prescribed in the existing outsourced service contracts of the Government, the contractors can only do so at their own expense. This is crucial to contractors who will not deploy additional manpower at such a moment, or more expenses will be incurred while profit will decrease. In this case, the existing workers will have to bear greater pressure at work and industrial accidents will thus occur more easily. Hence, I have this question for the Government. As stated by the Chief Executive today, improvements in particular a wage increase will be made to the contents of government outsourced service contracts, will the Government, apart from introducing a wage increase, allow the contractors the flexibility to increase a certain percentage of manpower so that they can officially recruit additional staff in a bid to afford employees better protection in terms of industrial safety, including providing insurance compensation? Otherwise, if such recovery efforts were undertaken by people working as volunteers, they will not be compensated in case of injury. And so, will the Government consider including such content in introducing changes or improvements to government outsourced service contracts?
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Which public officer will answer this supplementary question?
SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): Deputy President, actually we will consider this issue in the review, but what Mr LEUNG said just now refers to introducing relevant terms in all government outsourced service contracts to cope with the sudden increase in workload. However, such terms are already present in some of those contracts. I think Mr LEUNG meant LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 275 to ask if recruitment of a certain percentage of additional manpower can be stipulated in the terms to cater for the sudden increase in workload after typhoons. Insofar as the objective circumstances of the recent case are concerned, I believe no one could determine beforehand if contractors should increase whether 10%, 20%, 30%, 100% or a certain percentage of manpower. Therefore, the most reasonable approach for dealing with the contents of contracts under such circumstances will probably be changing the existing contents of contracts or drawing up new contracts to cater for the additional workload in question. I believe we can draw reference from the recent experience when considering relevant matters in future.
Yet, I hope Members will appreciate the fact that given Hong Kong's current unemployment rate of 2.8%, there was actually no additional local manpower available for deployment readily even though we wanted to deal with the typhoon aftermath either by increasing immediately the number of new service contracts or manpower, unlike some countries where manpower from other states or cities can be deployed to undertake recovery efforts in the wake of typhoons. In Hong Kong, people may wish to explore the feasibility of deploying manpower from neighbouring places to render assistance, but this is obviously not a practicable solution for the time being.
At present, given that many of the contract staff had to take up much extra work in the aftermath of the last typhoon, it was necessary to prioritize their duties (e.g. whether some of the workers should be told to put aside their routine duties specified in the contracts and deal with the recovery efforts first in the aftermath of the typhoon). What we have to consider is work priority, and an increase in manpower is not possible in most cases.
MR POON SIU-PING (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the main question asked by Mr HO Kai-ming just now is about protecting the rights and interests of workers who have to work in inclement weather but the Secretary said just now that legislation will not be enacted on this. As a matter of fact, while some workers were unable to go on duty due to obstruction of traffic caused by the recent typhoon, trade unions have received cases in which workers were subjected to punitive wage deduction for being absent from work or late. Of course, among them are workers of the public sector and hospitals. Some of such cases were settled after intervention by trade unions.
276 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
The recent experience reveals precisely the discrepancies between the existing code of practice and the Employment Ordinance ("EO"). I once raised the point in the past that an employer could deduct an employee's wages for the latter's absence from work under EO. And so, I really have no idea how the Secretary is going to deal with such conflicts in case they do happen. Although he said at the moment that he hoped employers will be sympathetic towards their employees, but must we really have to wait until an employee sues his employer for wage deduction and that the Court eventually rules that the employer can deduct the employee's wages for absence from work then the Government will proceed to amend EO in order to stipulate the requirement that employers cannot deduct the wages of employees for absence from work due to inclement weather?
SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): Deputy President, we are greatly indebted to the various trade unions that offered practical assistance in dealing with labour disputes in the past but, of course, LD would also mediate in a timely manner. However, Members should understand the point that, although we call upon employers to treat their employees well and consider how to deal with each case in the light of the actual situation, it is difficult to deal with the issue of whether an employee's wages should be deducted for absence from work in a particular scenario by the enactment of one single statute or introduction of one single guideline. Actually, we cannot make any generalization for particular situations. For example, a worker, whose place of residence is quite far away from his place of work, manages to report for duty after a typhoon, whereas another worker who lives near his office does not turn up for work. How are we supposed to make a guideline for this scenario? Do we need to provide guidelines for different scenarios with regard to such specific details as the travelling time required, whether the employee goes to work on foot or by taking transport? In fact, it is subject to the consideration by individual employers and employees with regard to the actual needs of work. Of course, our colleagues in LD will mediate to help settle any labour dispute by all means.
MR KWOK WAI-KEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the countermeasures taken by the Government in the aftermath of Typhoon Mangkhut are criticized as measures ending up with a whimper rather than a bang and making slow progress in recovery efforts. Yet, the Government said that it was the strong winds and astonishing destructive force of Mangkhut that made work progress unsatisfactory. Upon being requested to grant a special hardship LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 277 allowance to those workers who were on duty to undertake the heavy workload of recovery efforts in the aftermath of Typhoon Mangkhut, the authorities responded purely from an administrative perspective, saying that the Government did not have any direct employer-employee relationship with them. And now, considering that the Government had once make a point in the past indicating that outsourcing services was by no means tantamount to outsourcing employer responsibility as well, does it mean to go back on its own words simply by ignoring the safety and extra toil of those workers?
SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): As the Government attaches great importance to workers' safety, LD has given special weight to safety issues in drawing up the relevant code of practice. Regarding those high-risk trades and more dangerous jobs in particular, LD officers will pay special attention to the relevant arrangements during regular inspections at workplaces. And they will also check if relevant instructions on arrangements for work in inclement weather are present in the working guidelines since the Government attaches great importance to workers' safety.
MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): Secretary, and Chief Secretary, do you or do you not understand why the vast majority of the public was infuriated at the Government's not announcing an official day off on 17 September back then? Why did the media accuse the Government of not taking people's lives seriously? It was precisely because of ECO mentioned in part (3) of the Secretary's main reply. The Government did not announce an official day off even after Typhoon Warning Signal No. 8 had been lowered to Typhoon Warning Signal No. 3 then. And so wage earners had to go out for work when both the motorways and pavements were still littered with loads of fallen trees, obstacles and garbage that posed hazards to them since they must overcome all the obstacles on the way to work. Yet, such hazards are not covered by employees' compensation insurance policy under ECO. Therefore, Members belonging to various parties and groupings do hope that the Government will enact legislation to plug the loophole. Why was such call of ours not heeded?
SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): Deputy President, actually, it is stipulated in ECO that an employer is liable to compensating an employee who sustains injuries in an accident on the way to and from work within a period of four hours in inclement weather, including the 278 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 period when Typhoon Warning Signal No. 8 is in force. It is precisely for this reason that the Government called upon employers to deal appropriately with relevant arrangements for workers to go on duty in inclement weather.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Fourth question.
Preventing coastal and low-lying locations from being affected by storm surges and flooding
4. MR KWOK WAI-KEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, super typhoons Hato and Mangkhut hit Hong Kong respectively in August last year and September this year, with the concomitant storm surges and rainstorms causing severe flooding in a number of coastal and low-lying locations and inflicting serious damages. The affected locations included Heng Fa Chuen, Tseung Kwan O South and Lei Yue Mun. Some scientists have pointed out that global warming has resulted in the sea level rising continuously and extreme weather conditions being increasingly common. As a result, occasions of coastal and low-lying locations being affected by storm surges and flooding will become increasingly frequent. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the respective locations which were affected by storm surges and flooding during the periods when Hato and Mangkhut hit Hong Kong, and set out by location the names of those affected public housing developments, private housing estates and villages;
(2) whether the Drainage Services Department ("DSD") will examine placing the locations mentioned in (1) onto its List of Flooding Blackspots, and carry out improvement works thereat; and
(3) whether it has plans to carry out flood prevention works such as constructing breakwaters, floodwater storage tanks and seawalls, placing dolosse, and undertaking dredging works, at the aforesaid locations which are susceptible to storm surges and flooding; if so, of the details of such plans; if not, the reasons for that?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 279
SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the geographical position of Hong Kong makes it susceptible to weather-related threats such as tropical cyclone, rainstorm and storm surge. In particular, some low-lying coastal or windy locations are vulnerable to seawater inundation caused by extreme storm surges and/or huge waves.
After the passage of severe typhoon Hagupit in 2008, the Government has identified several locations vulnerable to serious seawater inundation and established an early alert system with a view to alleviating their impact on the local residents. DSD has formulated action plans for these locations, which mainly involve deployment of contingency response teams to handle flooding, provision of temporary pumping facilities and carrying out temporary flood-proofing measures. Besides, the Government has installed rock-armoured bunds, concrete walls, gabion walls and water-stop boards in some low-lying areas. After the super typhoon Hato last year, DSD has reviewed the action plans and enhanced them as necessary. In response to the extreme storm surge caused by the Super Typhoon Mangkhut, DSD and the Home Affairs Department kept close liaison with the affected residents to understand how they were affected by the flooding, and to review and enhance the existing flood-relief measures as necessary.
As climate change goes drastic, threats induced by extreme weather are expected to be more frequent and severe. The Government takes the topic of climate change seriously, and established in April 2016 the Steering Committee on Climate Change under the chairmanship of the Chief Secretary for Administration. Besides, the Civil Engineering and Development Department ("CEDD") has established the Climate Change Working Group on Infrastructure to coordinate the work among various works departments on tackling climate change, actively conduct relevant studies, align design standards, and uplift the resilience of major public infrastructures.
Having consulted relevant departments, I provide a consolidated reply to the three parts of the Mr KWOK's main question as follows:
(1) During the passage of typhoon Hato last year, some low-lying coastal or windy locations were exposed to the threat of seawater inundation caused by extreme storm surges and/or strong waves. Under typhoon Mangkhut, many places experienced their record-high water levels (for example, 3.88 m and 4.69 m above the 280 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
Chart Datum at Quarry Bay and Tai Po Kau respectively), which are even higher than the records set by typhoon Hato (3.57 m and 4.09 m above the Chart Datum at Quarry Bay and Tai Po Kau respectively). Besides, during the passage of a typhoon, waves approaching shores may even overtop seawalls (in particular vertical seawalls). The wind speed of Mangkhut was higher than that of Hato,(1) intensifying the severity of overtopping waves. As a result, the number of areas affected by storm surges during the passage of Mangkhut is more than that of typhoon Hato. Locations where flooding reports were received during the passages of the aforementioned two typhoons are listed in Annex 1.
(2) DSD's list of flooding blackspots is maintained for monitoring locations vulnerable to flooding during heavy rainstorms. This list facilitates formulation of improvement measures and strengthening of routine inspections and maintenance of the drainage systems. Before the onset of rainy season, DSD will complete the clearance of drainage system at the locations concerned to ensure the drains be free from blockage. During heavy rainstorms, DSD will deploy contingency teams to carry out inspections of flooding blackspots and standby thereat to ensure swift clearance of any blockage, hence reducing flooding risk. After each rainstorm, DSD will ensure the proper functioning of drainage system at flooding blackspots to prepare for the next rainstorm. Regarding the areas that are prone to seawater influx, they are mostly low-lying coastal areas, where seawater infusion and inundation may occur when the sea level rises. In view of the difference in their causes of flooding, the location of storm surge spots at low-lying coastal areas should not be confused with that of flooding blackspots under heavy rainstorms.
As revealed from previous severe or super typhoons, the Government has identified some low-lying locations vulnerable to seawater inundation (including Luen On San Tsuen, Kar Wo Lei, Sham Tseng San Tsuen, Lei Yue Mun Praya Road, Nam Wai in Sai
(1) When the Hong Kong Observatory issued the No. 8 storm signal in the early morning of 16 September, the maximum sustained winds near the centre of Mangkhut was 195 kilometres per hour, higher than the same of 1962's Wanda, 1971's Rose and last year's Hato (which were all 185 km/hr). (Ref:
Kung, Tai O, and newly listed low-lying areas along the seaside of Deep Bay in western Yuen Long) and some locations prone to wave impacts (such as Heng Fa Chuen, South Horizons and Tseung Kwan O South). The Government is reviewing relevant data collected during the passage of Mangkhut, with a view to identifying further low-lying locations vulnerable to seawater inundation.
(3) Generally speaking, provisioning of flood walls and demountable flood barriers or installation of flap valves at the drainage outlet are able to prevent seawater from flowing into the low-lying coastal areas, and construction of such marine structures as breakwaters and dolosse can reduce the intensity of waves, thus lowering the risk of flooding. Apart from the above preventive and relief measures, the Government implements other non-structural measures, including establishment of flood alert system, formulation of emergency and evacuation plans, enhancement of publicity and public education to heighten public awareness of flood prevention and staying away from floods. Besides, the Government has set up storm-surge warning systems at various low-lying areas that are vulnerable to seawater inundation. Upon the issuance of warning on storm surge by the Hong Kong Observatory, DSD will, at the relevant locations, deploy pumping facilities, install water-stop boards, or provide sandbags for the residents' and shop operators' use, in order to minimize the flooding risk arising from storm surge.
CEDD will commission a consultancy study for a period of 18 to 24 months to conduct a comprehensive review of the low-lying coastal and windy locations, and to carry out relevant investigations on storm surge and wave, so as to assess the impacts of extreme weather. Based on the outcomes of the study, the Government will formulate appropriate protection measures, including options of improvement works and management measures, to strengthen the resilience to wave impacts at the coastal areas. The Government will carry out a multi-pronged assessment on the suggestions of flood prevention strategy to identify long term solutions to the flooding problem caused by huge waves.
282 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
Annex 1
Locations where flooding reports were received during the passages of Typhoons Hato and Mangkhut
Typhoon Locations of Flooding Report Hato Hong Kong Island and Islands Tai O, Heng Fa Chuen
Kowloon Lei Yue Mun Praya Road, Ma Pui Tsuen and Ma Wan Village in Lei Yue Mun
New Territories East Tseung Kwan O South Waterfront Promenade, Nam Wai in Sai Kung, riverside promenade of Shing Mun River (including cycle tracks and footpaths) and the connecting pedestrian subways, cycle tracks and connecting pedestrian subways along Lam Tsuen River and Tai Po River (town centre section)
New Territories West Kar Wo Lei in Tuen Mun, low-lying areas along the seaside of Deep Bay in western Yuen Long (Sha Kiu Tsuen, Lau Fau Shan, Heng Hau Tsuen, Sheung Pak Nai, Ha Pak Lai), Shan Pui Tsuen
Typhoon Locations of Flooding Report Mangkhut Hong Kong Island and Islands Tai O, Heng Fa Chuen, South Horizons, vicinity of Island Resort
Kowloon Lei Yue Mun Praya Road, Ma Pui Tsuen and Ma Wan Village in Lei Yue Mun
New Territories East Tseung Kwan O South (Waterfront Promenade, The Wings IIIB, Ocean Wings, Twin Peaks), Nam Wai in Sai Kung, riverside promenade of Shing Mun River (including cycle tracks and footpaths) and the connecting pedestrian subways, cycle tracks and connecting pedestrian subways along Lam Tsuen River and Tai Po River (town centre section), Tsang Tai Uk in Sha Tin, Sam Mun Tsai San Tsuen in Tai Po, San Tsuen in Sha Tau Kok
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 283
Typhoon Locations of Flooding Report New Territories West Kar Wo Lei in Tuen Mun, low-lying areas along the seaside of Deep Bay in western Yuen Long (Sha Kiu Tsuen, Lau Fau Shan, Heng Hau Tsuen, Sheung Pak Nai, Ha Pak Lai), Shan Pui Tsuen, Sham Tseng San Tsuen, Luen On San Tsuen in Tuen Mun
MR KWOK WAI-KEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, my grandfather is a Tai O resident. First of all, I wish to thank the Government for taking measures in Tai O and sending the Permanent Secretary and officials from various departments to discuss with me the impending study on Heng Fa Chuen last week.
I have this supplementary question. As we can all see, Heng Fa Chuen, South Horizons and Tseung Kwan O South which were subjected to the impact of the storm surge are mainly private housing estates. Actually, the Government can do very little on the shore. In this connection, may I ask the Secretary what efforts can be made by the Government and expedited at sea in order to help residents living at these locations with a view to protecting the lives and properties of the public?
SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I thank Mr KWOK for his supplementary question. This time around, I have raised one point in the main reply, which has been discussed in society for some time but not formally raised by the Government, namely the idea of "overtopping waves". It is because the flooding problems at these locations are not caused by a rise in the sea level where the seawater rises above the seawalls. Instead, overtopping waves, which overtop the seawalls, are blown by strong winds. Continuous seawater inundation plus the inadequate capacity of the existing drainage systems will cause serious flooding. Precisely because the waves are so powerful, there are various forms of damages, such as the smashing of paving tiles at various locations as Mr KWOK mentioned just now.
As I mentioned just now, CEDD would commission a consultancy study for a period of 18 to 24 months, therefore we will study matters in this area. Nevertheless, it is still too early at this stage to explain what specific measures can be taken, because such measures will depend on the outcome of the study. 284 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
However, assuming that such measures should be conducted beyond the perimeters of those housing estates, that is, works have to be conducted within the harbour area, and then I believe the Government will take care of them. It is because such problems cannot be resolved by the installation of near-shore rock-armoured bunds.
Furthermore, concerning locations away from the shore, the placement of some dolosse or similar items appropriately to dissipate the energy of waves crashing onto the shore may effectively address the problem. With regard to the several locations mentioned by Mr KWOK just now, they will be looked into thoroughly in the relevant study.
MRS REGINA IP (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I wish to point out that one location is omitted in the Locations of Flooding Report in Annex 1 of the Secretary's main reply under "Hong Kong Island and Islands", and it is Shek O, which also suffered from severe flooding. Villagers of Shek O said that it was just like a mini tsunami. All the shops in the village were flooded just like those shops in Heng Fa Chuen. The beach in Shek O also suffered serious damages.
Nevertheless, these are not the most important concerns. What I wish to ask the Secretary is that besides flooding problems, these typical low-lying locations face a bigger hazard, and that is, the hazard of sewage treatment works along the shoreline―there are such facilities in Stanley and Ap Lei Chau. All of these facilities are in close proximity to the coastal areas. Residents at these locations were concerned that in case these sewage treatment works were damaged by the typhoon just like other sewage treatment works and there were sewage leaks, then the leakage would causing a serious hygiene hazard to the seawater. May I ask whether the bureau in charge and the relevant works department have noticed the problem, and what remedial measures would be taken?
SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I thank Mrs Regina IP for raising the supplementary question. We have taken note of the problem. The policy concerning sewage treatment works does not fall under my purview, but as I also have some knowledge of that, therefore I can give a brief response.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 285
For example, after the Sai Kung Sewage Treatment Works had suffered a certain extent of damage, the Government exerted every effort at remedial measures. First, we discharged the sewage farther away from the coastal areas, so that the natural ocean current would dilute the sewage. In addition, the Government took other remedial measures immediately. If my memory has not failed me, with the help of CEDD, the primary reinforcement works were completed on 3 October. The Government hopes that the secondary sewage treatment capacity can be resumed by the end of this year.
With regard to other sewage treatment facilities, we will review their resilience in this aspect―that is, their resilience to extreme weather. We will carry out the tasks relentlessly and promptly. We will follow up if there is a need to carry out some other reinforcement works.
MR AU NOK-HIN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I believe residents living in South Horizons, Heng Fa Chuen, Island Resort or Shek O will welcome the move if the Government is really entrusting CEDD to conduct a study to examine if wave walls, breakwaters or dolosse should be deployed at various locations in Hong Kong. However, I note that the sea level rise during typhoon Mangkhut this time around had already met the new criteria for extreme sea level as published in CEDD's Port Works Design Manual ("the Manual"), which was updated this January. However, in the long run, climate change will only be more serious and extreme sea level rise will only be more frequent. I am concerned that the criteria are not up-to-date. Will the Bureau undertake to review that as soon as possible and update the relevant criteria of the Manual, so that the Government can follow a set of better criteria in the course of review and erecting additional installations?
SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I thank Mr AU Nok-hin for raising the supplementary question. Perhaps Mr AU Nok-hin is also aware of the fact that the enhancement measures were made early this year in accordance with the recommendations in the Fifth Assessment Report proposed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2013. Basically, we have adhered to those criteria. Nevertheless, as Mr AU Nok-hin said, these measures should be kept up to date. Let me cite an example. If Members care to take a look at the Manual, they will find that there is no detailed discussion on overtopping waves. In this connection, I believe that in view of 286 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 the significant damage caused by overtopping waves at certain locations―especially during the passage of Typhoon Mangkhut, the relevant department will definitely review the contents of the Manual, in particular parts concerning overtopping waves. In addition, we will also consider as a matter of course all the new data collected from the international community.
DR CHENG CHUNG-TAI (in Cantonese): Deputy President, just now the Secretary mentioned in his reply that the impending study would include the locations of flooding report this time around. Nonetheless, I wish to speak on the situation of New Territories West and the outlying islands where I visited several days after the passage of Typhoon Mangkhut. For example, as regards places such as Lamma Island's Sok Kwu Wan, Peng Chau and Mui Wo, the Development Bureau should consider one thing, and that is, the Government should consider strengthening the roles of the Islands District Office and District Officer (Islands) in coordinating efforts at these several locations? From our observation, these locations are very much scattered. Some residents even told us that no government officials had been there to deal with the problems in the week after the passage of the typhoon. As far as I know, outsourced workers at those locations had not received any instruction to deal with fallen trees or debris on those islands. As a result, villagers and village elders had to clean up the debris by themselves. However, trees fallen on distribution boxes may pose a safety hazard to residents. So I have this supplementary question. Will the Secretary take into account one direction, that is, besides the design of hardware, some appropriate complementary measures and studies should be devised? With regard to the management of the outlying islands, in particular in the course of natural disasters, which part of the Government will undertake central coordination of the work of various government departments?
SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): I thank Dr CHENG Chung-tai for relaying his on-site observations to us. Perhaps Members will wonder if the Government's emergency preparations and follow-up actions are good enough. In fact, the Secretary for Security, Mr John LEE, spearheads the coordination work of an inter-bureau and inter-departmental task force which follows up these matters. I will definitely convey Dr CHENG's views to the task force for appropriate follow-up.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 287
MR WILSON OR (in Cantonese): Deputy President, during the periods when Super Typhoon Mangkhut hit Hong Kong, I could actually see that the Government had executed the preventive measures properly. I feel deeply about the assistance colleagues of the Development Bureau rendered residents living in Lei Yue Mun. It was because Lei Yue Mun had been neglected in the past. The Government would only take remedial measures after the passage of typhoons. However, this time around, the bureau had made some preventive efforts for low-lying locations in Lei Yue Mun. I can truly feel that colleagues of the Development Bureau had made a great effort in taking the preventive measures. Nevertheless, I very much hope the Secretary will realize that the authorities should make long-term considerations, thinking up methods to ameliorate the flooding problem at these low-lying locations. It will be pointless to say anything if the Government fails to put forward any improvement proposal and deploy the necessary resources accordingly.
Nonetheless, I wish to ask the Secretary a second supplementary question …
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr OR, you can only ask one supplementary question.
MR WILSON OR (in Cantonese): Alright, Deputy President, the Secretary needs not reply to my first supplementary question. I wish to ask the Secretary another supplementary question. He can see the recovery work after the passage of typhoon Mangkhut and there are many fallen trees. I know that the Tree Management Office ("TMO") is under the Development Bureau, which is led by you. Will you take this opportunity to review the functions of TMO? Honestly, insofar as the present functions of TMO are concerned, they are quite unrelated and disparate, even though they may offer some guidance and advices to other departments from time to time. In this connection, should a comprehensive review of TMO's register and management of trees be conducted by the Secretary after the typhoon disaster this time around, so that the surviving trees can be placed under the management of a more dedicated government department?
288 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr OR, you have raised your supplementary question. Secretary for Development, please.
SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I thank Mr OR for raising the supplementary question. With regard to the clearing up of trees, perhaps Mr OR is familiar with the process. Actually, the Government has put in place a division of roles in this regard. TMO has a staff of 17 people only, therefore they are not responsible for the management of individual trees, because that is a task they cannot possibly achieve. With regard to the management of individual trees, the Government has made a very definitive division of roles, that is, it is carried out by the respective frontline department. Either the Highways Department or the Leisure and Cultural Services Department ("LCSD") will carry out the task. Very often, the clearing up of trees is carried out by the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department. We consider that the existing division of roles is logical, thus we should take that into account.
What else can TMO do? First, we may enhance certain guidelines. For that reason, I have mentioned earlier that we would issue a tree-planting guide by the end of this year. Upon its issuance, government departments or non-governmental organizations may be able to employ the appropriate plantation strategies according to the circumstances of the locations. Perhaps there were some unsatisfactory aspects in the past that the vegetation sites were over crowded―it was fine when the planting work started, but after 20 or 30 years when the trees had grown up, their roots might occupy a wider plot of land, therefore the location became unsuitable for the plants to grow in a healthy way. We hope that we can achieve the goal with the issuance of the tree-planting guide.
As to whether or not TMO can increase its manpower to conduct the auditing work, I believe that under the existing system and logic, individual departments should take charge of the actual management of trees. I have explained this earlier and I will not repeat it. Nevertheless, it is most logical to entrust the management work to the departments in charge of the facilities or sites. We will actively consider if we can assume a more important auditing role. Of course, we should secure the relevant resources within the Government if we are to take forward such a task.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 289
MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): Secretary, my concern is about the sewage discharged into the harbour by the Sai Kung Sewage Treatment Works after primary treatment, which is equivalent to the discharge of septic waste into other parts of the harbour direct. The Environmental Protection Department ("EPD") made the announcement on 20 September, but actually the media had made an enquiry about the Ap Lei Chau Preliminary Treatment Works on 18 September. At that time, no damage of facilities was mentioned in DSD's response to the media. May I ask if the delayed announcement of the damage report was due to the fact that information was withheld by DSD, or EPD was in the know but it conspired with DSD to cover up the truth and delayed the announcement of the damage incident? It was even more surprising that LCSD announced the closure of beaches on 19 September on the ground that the discharge of sewage might affect the safety of swimmers. Why did the three different government departments deal with the incident in such different ways?
SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): I thank Mr Gary FAN for the supplementary question. As to the details of the whole incident, I do not have the information on hand. However, I have communicated with the Director of Drainage Services on the situation of the Sai Kung Sewage Treatment Works. He told me that after the facilities were damaged, they had taken some time to enter the facilities and inspect the extent of damage. They also needed to assess the situation of the facilities, thus that might have affected the notification time. As far as the Government is concerned, we are of course working in an open and transparent manner. Upon learning about the situation, in particular when we learnt that the damage might affect the public, of course we hoped that we could deal with the problem immediately. As to the details of the incident, I hope Mr FAN will give me some time because the incident involves two Policy Bureaux. Other than the Development Bureau, EPD is also responsible for the treatment of sewage. Please give me some time and I will give you a full account of the details of the incident.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Gary FAN, which part of your supplementary question has not been answered?
MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): Inter-departmental meeting, when did the Secretary learn about the incident?
290 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Gary FAN, you cannot ask a new supplementary question. Secretary, do you have anything to add?
SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I have heard the second question asked by Mr FAN, and we will follow it up.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Fifth question.
Follow-up work after the onslaught of super typhoon Mangkhut
5. DR ELIZABETH QUAT (in Cantonese): Deputy President, last month, super typhoon Mangkhut caused serious damage to Hong Kong. However, the majority of members of the public had to go to work at a time when the storm had not completely subsided and the transport services had not resumed normal, resulting in chaos. Regarding the follow-up work after the onslaught of the typhoon, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) as some members of the public have relayed that the factors contributing to the damage of many vessels in Sai Kung during the onslaught of the typhoon include: insufficient berthing spaces at typhoon shelters, typhoon shelters being remotely located making vessel owners unwilling to berth their vessels there, inadequacies of the breakwaters and wind protection facilities, and the disorderly berthing of vessels, of the Government's measures to solve these problems;
(2) whether it will improve the resilience of the areas near Tseung Kwan O seafront against typhoons, such as by reinforcing the seawalls, constructing breakwaters, replacing the pavement slabs and seats of the waterfront promenade with more sturdy ones, and installing additional flood prevention facilities for the housing estates concerned; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and
(3) whether it will set up a mechanism whereby the Government may declare a certain period after a natural disaster to be "a period of special circumstances", within which the work arrangements for LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 291
employees should be in line with those during the time when the Tropical Cyclone Warning Signal No. 8 or above is in force; if so, of the details and timetable; if not, the reasons for that?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): Deputy President, Mangkhut was the most powerful super typhoon affecting Hong Kong over the past few decades. It reached a peak sustained wind speed of 250 km per hour. While Mangkhut hit Hong Kong, it brought severe storm surge to the territory, which led to inundation in low-lying areas and caused widespread damage to Hong Kong. Over 54 000 reports of fallen trees and 500 reports of broken windows were received by government departments. The recovery work of Mangkhut requires more time and resources than did previous typhoons, and needs prioritization.
In fact, every government department has been sparing no effort in the recovery work of Mangkhut. Given the unprecedented destruction and widespread damage, however, some recovery work is still ongoing and the relevant government departments will continue to follow up vigorously.
I have consulted the relevant bureaux and departments and my consolidated reply to the questions raised in Dr QUAT's question is as follows:
(1) As in mid October, the Marine Department ("MD") received altogether 220 reports of accidents in relation to Mangkhut in Sai Kung District, and handled 125 stranded, listed or capsized vessels. Over the past weekend, MD obtained consent from the shipyard owners to start clearing the sunken vessels off the shipyards in Pak Sha Wan. Should the owners of those sunken vessels agree to apply for parting with the ownership of the vessels, MD will arrange clearance of the wreckages as soon as possible.
As for constructing additional breakwaters and typhoon shelters to increase sheltered space, MD's observation is that only three among the 14 gazetted typhoon shelters, namely the Rambler Channel, To Kwa Wan and Tuen Mun Typhoon Shelters, reached a 100% occupancy rate during the passage of Super Typhoon Mangkhut. The remaining 11 typhoon shelters, including the Yim Tin Tsai Typhoon Shelter in Sai Kung, still had sheltered space available, 292 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
indicating that sufficient sheltered space can be found in Sai Kung District and within the waters of Hong Kong for local vessels to use during typhoon. Regarding the provision of more private mooring buoys, representatives of MD attended a Sai Kung District Council ("DC") meeting in March this year to brief the DC members on the proposal of designating a new private mooring area in Yim Tin Tsai and expanding the private mooring area in Tso Wo Hang. With the general support from the DC members, MD is now devising a detailed plan in consultation with the local stakeholders.
(2) Based on the experience gained from Mangkhut, the Government will examine the applicability of different flood prevention strategies, together with assessment of the practical effectiveness, technical feasibility, land constraints and cost-effectiveness, etc. of various measures.
In Tseung Kwan O Waterfront Park, strong wind and backflow of seawater caused serious damage to the facilities. The Leisure and Cultural Services Department, together with the Architectural Services Department and the Electrical and Mechanical Services Department, carried out on-site assessment and restoration, including connection to temporary power sources for night-time lighting and repaving part of the pedestrian ways. In order to complete the repairs concerned as soon as possible and make further arrangements for improvement works, the Leisure and Cultural Services Department will actively discuss with various government departments ways to improve the facilities in Tseung Kwan O Waterfront Park, including looking into a change in paving material and park benches, as well as exploring the feasibility of relocating power cubicles with the Architectural Services Department. Relevant departments are now reviewing the overall layouts of the Park to formulate improvement measures with a view to mitigating potential damage to the park facilities under typhoon in future. After the completion of the design plan, the departments will consult with the relevant stakeholders as soon as possible.
The Civil Engineering and Development Department will thoroughly examine the situation of coastal and low-lying areas or exposed places, and conduct studies on storm surge, and wind and wave to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 293
evaluate the effects of inclement weather on those locations arising from climatic changes. Based on the findings of the studies, it will formulate measures, including improvement works and management measures, to cope with and withstand such weather.
To alleviate the flooding problem in the housing estates along Tseung Kwan O seafront, the Drainage Services Department can render technical support in respect of the affected building facilities like car parks. For example, additional floodgates may be installed at the entrance to stop seawater from flooding into the building which may result in damage to the facilities, and special devices may be added to the drainage system and manhole covers.
(3) The Government attaches great importance to the safety of employees in the workplace, as well as on their journey to and from work, whether during the effective period or upon the cancellation of typhoon or rainstorm warnings. On the other hand, the Government also understands the importance of early resumption of social services and economic activities as soon as possible after typhoons or rainstorms. Taking into account the general interests of employers, employees and the community, the Labour Department has formulated the "Code of Practice in Times of Typhoons and Rainstorms" ("the Code") which provides advice and practical guidelines on work arrangements in times of typhoons and rainstorms; resumption of work arrangements after cancellation of typhoon and rainstorm warnings; as well as wage computations and leave arrangements. The Code also advises employers to take prime consideration of employees' safety in the workplace and during the journey to and from work. Employers are also advised to give due consideration to employees' practical difficulties and be flexible in handling their cases.
Given the diversity in nature and requirements of different jobs in various trades and industries, it is still necessary to maintain different degrees of operation under inclement weather conditions for some essential services, such as public transport, public utilities, medical services, homes for the elderly or persons with disabilities, hotels and security. Moreover, the circumstances of employees commuting from home to workplace in different districts are as 294 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
varied as the impact of inclement weather on public transport and road systems there. The preliminary view of the Labour and Welfare Bureau is that it is not practical to introduce a piece of legislation to govern the work arrangements of employees under specified circumstances, otherwise the operational needs of different industries and the community as a whole will be overlooked, and the flexibility in the work arrangements between the employers and employees will be affected.
The Security Bureau is coordinating a review of the emergency response and recovery in respect of handling super typhoons. We are also aware of the comments from different Members on post-typhoon work arrangements. We will take account of the Mangkhut experience and examine ways to enhance the plans and systems for response and recovery.
DR ELIZABETH QUAT (in Cantonese): Deputy President, first of all, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the disciplined services and their volunteer teams, as well as the Civil Aid Service, on behalf of the general public. We are grateful for the strenuous efforts they made in providing relief and rescue services during the typhoon, and clearing fallen trees.
Regarding the Secretary's main reply, especially part (1), I just consulted the Chairman and members of Sai Kung DC, and therefore, wish to make the following responses. Firstly, according to the Secretary's reply, there are sufficient typhoon shelters in Hong Kong. However, as I consulted the sector, there are over 10 000 yachts in Hong Kong whereas only 5 000-odd berthing spaces are available. So, how can that be described as sufficient? When there is no typhoon, it is still possible for the vessels to berth anywhere, but during typhoons, they simply can find nowhere to take refuge. What is more, some typhoon shelters are decrepit. The Yim Tin Tsai Typhoon Shelter, for example, has been providing berthing spaces for fishing vessels since the 1960s, but nowadays, it is just too small for yachts to berth, and the seabed there is also too hard for vessels to anchor. Another typhoon shelter, Hei Ling Chau, is just too remote, making it impossible for vessels in Sai Kung to sail all the way there when the sea is rough and amid typhoons.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 295
In the light of the circumstances, in March 2018, Sai Kung DC expressed support for MD's proposal to add private moorings in Yim Tin Tsai and to expand these mooring areas. However, it does not mean that Sai Kung DC and vessel owners in the district agree that Sai Kung requires no additional typhoon shelter. Instead, we actually request that a typhoon shelter be built in Sai Kung town as soon as possible and it is the responsibility of the Government to provide a sufficient number of safe berthing spaces for vessel owners in Hong Kong, so as to avoid loss of life and property.
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I wish to thank Dr QUAT. I am grateful that Dr QUAT just provided me with more information about the views of Sai Kung DC on MD's proposal to lay new private moorings and other relevant facilities in Yim Tin Tsai. I will pass the information to the Transport and Housing Bureau as it will look into the matter together with MD. As for the review which is currently ongoing, I will examine various departments' overall contingency or recovery plans with regard to typhoon situations.
The relevant request made by Dr QUAT just now will also be included in the said review for consideration, and meanwhile, as I mentioned just now, the information and opinion raised by her will instantly be passed to MD for consideration.
MR STEVEN HO (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I work on the sea. I know that apart from the Government's policies, we also need to make concerted efforts to prevent disasters. The efforts of one single man may not bring success, but the refusal to cooperate by one single person will result in a complete failure. This is what I have learnt from working on the sea.
Just now, Dr Elizabeth QUAT pointed out the problem of insufficient typhoon shelters to the Government. In part (1) of the main reply, the authorities, however, highlighted that only three typhoon shelters were fully occupied. I have long criticized the SAR Government for the way it assesses whether there are sufficient berthing spaces and typhoon shelters. Its conclusion that the spaces are sufficient is merely based on the average calculated by simple arithmetic, that is, dividing the total area of typhoon shelters in Hong Kong by the total number of vessels in Hong Kong.
296 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
The consultancy report released by the SAR Government the year before last states that there are sufficient berthing spaces at typhoon shelters. If simple arithmetic is all that is required to deal with the problem concerned, we simply do not need the Government to deal with it. I myself can manage. Any secondary school student can also manage. So, my request is that the SAR Government should make arrangements for providing appropriate and safe berthing spaces according to the specific needs in various districts. In this connection, may I ask the SAR Government whether it will change its existing logic in handling the relevant problem? Instead of using simple arithmetic, will the Government actually conduct local consultation in different districts to examine the needs of different classes of vessels in each district? Is it possible to arrange and designate different berthing spaces for different classes of vessels, so that they can berth in their relevant areas? When fishing vessels and yachts all berth in the same area, fishermen are usually the disadvantaged ones. If a yacht sustains scratches, its owner will issue a letter to the fisherman concerned through a lawyer. But will the fisherman go to court with the yacht owner? Surely not!
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HO, you have already asked your supplementary question.
MR STEVEN HO (in Cantonese): So, I hope the SAR Government can find out more about the situation. Does the Government have any idea about the special needs of the general public, the fishermen, and the yacht owners?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I wish to thank Mr HO. I will definitely pass the points he raised to MD and the Transport and Housing Bureau.
However, as far as I know and as noted from some information, when the Government considers whether to set up a typhoon shelter or any relevant facilities, it will take into account not only those factors mentioned just now, but also whether there are suitable locations, or the use of facilities, places or waters in the vicinity, and the impact on the environment. Anyway, the points just raised by the Honourable Member are all very important and I will pass them to MD and the Transport and Housing Bureau for consideration.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 297
Meanwhile, I wish to reiterate that the various points raised by Members will surely be considered in the inter-departmental review.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Steven HO, which part of your supplementary question has not been answered?
MR STEVEN HO (in Cantonese): The Secretary has not answered my supplementary question. The particular question I just put to the Secretary is whether the Government will designate different berthing areas for different classes of vessels in typhoon shelters, so as to minimize the chance of collision and litigation. The question is very clear.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HO, you have clearly pointed out the part to which you seek the Secretary's reply. Secretary, do you have anything to add?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): I thank Mr HO for this suggestion. We have already put this suggestion on record and will pass it to the relevant departments for consideration and analysis during the review.
MR HOLDEN CHOW (in Cantonese): Deputy President, it seems that the Secretary has failed to give a positive response to part (3) of Dr Elizabeth QUAT's main question, that is, the question about setting up a mechanism for declaring "a period of special circumstances after a natural disaster". Here, I just wish to say a few words. On this occasion, there was no mechanism for announcing a so-called "work suspension". Nor was there any mechanism for handling such situations. However, in the light of the experience gained on this occasion, will the authorities seriously consider putting in place a mechanism for arranging "a period of special circumstances after a natural disaster", so that we can actually follow such a mechanism in the future? I wonder if the Secretary can give a more positive response to this.
298 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the Bureau has replied to questions relevant to this matter before. Firstly, it is difficult for us to make a sweeping law to obviate the need for people to go to work. But the experience on this occasion shows us that a lot of people actually encountered great difficulties, or even faced a lot of dangers on their way to work due to traffic disruption. So, having learnt from this experience, we will look into what can be done better in the future regarding the relevant arrangements and guidelines and this will be one of the areas covered in this review.
MR HO KAI-MING (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the arrangements mentioned in part (3) of the Secretary's main reply are voluntary in nature and employers are just advised to give due consideration to the practical difficulties of their employees. As shown in the review conducted after the onslaught of Mangkhut, however, some employers adopted an indifferent attitude towards their employees. These employers questioned their employees about the reasons for their absence from work, asking them why they did not drive to work and could not negotiate the fallen trees. They simply passed the buck to their employees.
For this reason, the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions has drafted a bill on arrangements for work suspension during and after natural disasters, in the hope that employees will not have their pay or attendance bonus deducted when they miss work due to natural disasters. Mr LUK Chung-hung has already sent a letter to Secretary Dr LAW Chi-kwong to express his hope for a discussion on this bill, but has not received any reply from the Secretary yet.
Secretary, for this bill on arrangements for work suspension proposed by us, is the Government willing to learn about and accept it, so as to pre-empt the recurrence of similar situations in the future?
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Which Secretary will answer this supplementary question? Secretary for Labour and Welfare, please.
SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the said suggestion has not reached my desk yet. My colleagues are studying its contents and I will have a discussion with the Members concerned in due course.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 299
MR KWOK WAI-KEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, Dr QUAT's main question concerns typhoon shelters. I myself received the view of a marine worker from the typhoon shelter at Shum Wan. As stated, the outermost sea walls of the typhoon shelter were damaged by Hato and Mangkhut. Though repaired by the Civil Engineering and Development Department, the sea walls are not raised or reinforced. He worries that vessels berthing in the typhoon shelter may not be protected from storms if another severe typhoon hits the territory in the future, because even the large barge of Jumbo Floating Restaurant drifted during the typhoon. So, may I ask whether the authorities will consider raising and reinforcing the sea walls and include these as parts of the repair works?
SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I thank Mr KWOK for his observation. As I just pointed out in my reply to another oral question, in the coming 18 to 24 months, the authorities will study the various measures with regard to such circumstances as climate change, typhoons and strong surges. We are going to review different measures, including the one Mr KWOK mentioned just now, that is, whether the repair works of sea walls need to be strengthened and how that should be done.
MR AU NOK-HIN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, in the last paragraph of the Secretary for Security's main reply to the question about the impact of typhoon Mangkhut, he states that the Bureau will coordinate a review of the emergency response and recovery in respect of handling super typhoons. I think the relevant review has to cover a number of areas, which include the uneven distribution of community shelters, the overcrowding situation in emergency shelters, the busy emergency hotline, unclear allocation and arrangements of rescue work among disciplined services such as the Police Force and the Fire Services Department, and the need to examine the refuge facilities and wind-protection measures of buildings. Can the Government submit the review to the Legislative Council, for example, the Panel on Security, for discussion when it is completed?
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Which Secretary will answer this supplementary question? Secretary for Security, please.
300 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): Deputy President, we will put on record the series of questions raised just now and the comments received on various occasions in the Legislative Council or from different Members, for instance, the suggestions Members raised with me while I was taking questions from them in the last House Committee meeting. And all of these will be included in the review for consideration. As this review involves over 30 departments and bureaux, the various suggestions made by Members will all be included in the review for an overall examination. The review will cover contingency plans, that is, how to deal with problems that have to be instantly tackled upon the cancellation of typhoon warnings, as I have mentioned on various occasions―be it at press conferences, at the time when I answered press enquiries or at meetings in the Legislative Council.
Perhaps, let me talk about the three areas of work of the review committee again. First, we will conduct a comprehensive review covering the three stages of preparation, response and recovery. We will further strengthen the parts that we have done well; and we hope that we can do a better job in the parts that warrant improvement.
Second, we will specifically study some challenges we never experienced until the previous occasion. These challenges include the need for additional resources for handling requests, how to deal with problems concerning tools and manpower, and the little time we were allowed to carry out some recovery work before facing some new problems like resumption of work, and some new problems expected to affect members of the public quite significantly. We will explore different ways to handle them.
Third, we will strengthen information exchange and communications, both internally and externally. Internally, it concerns coordination among different departments and their needs for information, while externally, it is about enabling the public to better understand the development and impact of typhoons, and get the information they need to know for making choices. We will report to the Panel on Security after the review.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Last oral question.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 301
Selection of athletes representing Hong Kong to participate in international sports events
6. MR LAM CHEUK-TING (in Cantonese): Deputy President, it has been reported that the Sports Federation & Olympic Committee of Hong Kong, China ("SF&OC") earlier selected swimmers to represent Hong Kong to participate in the 18th Asian Games. Two swimmers nominated by the Hong Kong Amateur Swimming Association ("HKASA") to participate in three events were not selected and their appeals were also dismissed. On the contrary, three other swimmers with inferior results were selected to participate in the competitions, and it was reported that the father of one of the selected swimmers was a member of the Executive Committee of HKASA and a director of two big swimming clubs. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) if it knows, in respect of the swimmers selected to represent Hong Kong to participate in 50 m butterfly, 50 m backstroke and 100 m breaststroke events at the Asian Games, whether the best results they had obtained in the relevant events were better than those of the unsuccessful nominees; if their results were not better, why they were selected;
(2) whether it knows SF&OC's justifications for its dismissal of the aforesaid appeals and the details of the appeal system in question; and
(3) given that those swimming clubs which have trainees selected for international competitions will be accorded priority by HKASA in the allocation of swimming lanes at public swimming pools, and such clubs can therefore secure the more sought-after swimming lanes and time slots, thereby admitting more trainees and earning more income, whether the Government knows what measures SF&OC has adopted to prevent role conflicts and transfer of benefits in the selection of swimmers to participate in international competitions?
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the Sports Federation & Olympic Committee of Hong Kong, China ("SF&OC") is a member of the International Olympic Committee and the Olympic Council of 302 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
Asia. It is responsible for selecting the Hong Kong Delegation ("the Delegation") to compete in major international multisport events, including the 2018 Asian Games. For each of the 40 sports in the 2018 Asian Games, the related "national sports association" ("NSA") nominated athletes for inclusion in the Delegation based on its established nomination criteria. These nominations were then submitted to the Selection Committee of SF&OC for consideration with the established selection criteria. Based on the information provided by SF&OC, my reply to Mr LAM Cheuk-ting's question on the selection of swimmers is as follows:
(1) There were a total of 34 men's and women's individual swimming events and 7 relay swimming events at the 2018 Asian Games. All athletes who competed in these events were nominated by the Hong Kong Amateur Swimming Association ("HKASA"). In general, HKASA would nominate the two fastest swimming athletes based on their results in recent years for SF&OC's consideration.
The Selection Committee of SF&OC held its meeting on 24 April 2018 to consider HKASA's nominations of 37 swimming athletes based on SF&OC's established selection criteria. In the light of the gaps between local and international levels of performance in certain swimming events, SF&OC had to give consideration to the athletes' performances in major international competitions in addition to their rankings in Hong Kong. SF&OC had accordingly informed all NSAs, including HKASA, in March 2018 that the athletes' attainment of the specified levels of performance, that is top one-third ranking in related events, at the specified major international competitions,(1) such as the Olympic Games, Asian Games, World Championships and Asian Championships, would be a major factor for selection. In other words, a swimming athlete nominated by HKASA but without a top ranking result in major international competitions would not be selected as part of the
(1) The specified major international competitions in the selection criteria included the 2016 Olympic Games, the 2014 to 2018 World Championship recognized by the International Federation, the 2014 Asian Games, the 2014 to 2018 Asian Championship recognized by the Asian Federation, the 2017 National Games, the 2017 World Games, the 2017 Universidad, the 2017 Asian Indoor & Martial Arts Games and the 2016 Asian Beach Games. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 303
Delegation. Apart from the athletes' results in recent years, the Selection Committee would also take into account HKASA's preparation plan for the Asian Games, including the training and competitions of swimming athletes, in an overall assessment.
After detailed discussion, the Selection Committee accepted the nominations of 33 swimming athletes and selected them as part of the Delegation. The nominations of the remaining four swimming athletes were rejected because their best results could not meet the selection criteria of SF&OC. As a result, some events such as men's 50 m butterfly and men's 100 m breaststroke were left with no swimming athletes selected; while some other events such as men's 50 m backstroke were left with only one swimming athlete selected.
According to the rules promulgated for the 2018 Asian Games by the International Swimming Federation, Hong Kong was allowed to send a maximum of two athletes to compete in each individual swimming event. For swimming events with no or only one athlete selected, the Head Coach of the Hong Kong Swimming Representative Team would, subject to the competition schedule and the athletes' participation in relay events, assign athletes, who had been selected to be part of the Delegation on the basis of results attained in other swimming events, to compete in these swimming events. In such a scenario, the athlete assigned to compete in a swimming event might not have the fastest result among all swimming athletes, as some other athletes might have a faster result in the same swimming event but still failed to secure selection to be part of the Delegation because the result did not meet the selection criteria of SF&OC.
(2) In accordance with the selection mechanism of SF&OC, if an NSA is dissatisfied with the decisions of the Selection Committee, it may provide supplementary information and request a review by the Selection Committee. If an NSA is dissatisfied with the result of the review, it may again submit supplementary information and request a further review by the Selection Committee. There is no limit on the number of rounds of review requested. If the NSA is dissatisfied with the result of a review, it may also elect to file an appeal to the Appeal Panel of SF&OC.
304 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
According to the information provided by SF&OC, HKASA received the selection results of the Selection Committee on swimming athletes on 17 May 2018. HKASA provided supplementary information and requested a review by the Selection Committee on the nominations of three swimming athletes on 29 May. SF&OC informed HKASA on 19 June that the Selection Committee maintained its original decision. This was because the supplementary information provided could not meet the selection criteria. HKASA did not file an appeal on the results of the review.
(3) According to the information provided by HKASA, it adopts an annual accumulative scoring system to determine the priority to be given to its affiliated clubs when recommending them to apply to the Leisure and Cultural Services Department for use of swimming lanes in main pools and sessions allocated to it under the Central Lane Allocation Scheme ("the Scheme"). Under the scoring system, the score of each affiliated club depends on a number of factors, including the history of the club, number of registered members, number of members participated in competitions and their achievements, whether its members are selected as HKASA's training team members, whether its members are selected to join the Delegation, whether its members are record-breakers or record-holders, and its members' rankings in Open Water Swimming or other swimming competitions. In other words, whether club members are selected to be part of the Delegation is only one of the factors for earning points under the scoring system. Affiliated clubs which are recommended for taking up the swimming lanes allocated to HKASA under the Scheme must be non-profit-making in nature. All proceeds from the activities must be used for the purpose of the same activity. Any surplus generated from these activities can only be used by the affiliated club concerned for development of the sport. Income or surplus from these activities is not allowed to be directly or indirectly channelled to any member of the affiliated club concerned or any other organizations or persons.
A mechanism for preventing conflicts of interests is in place under the selection process of SF&OC. The relevant requirements to the members of the Selection Committee include declaration of interests LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 305
in writing prior to the selection, the need to withdraw from the selection or refrain from taking part in the discussion of the related events, and prohibition from voting. For example, if the Selection Committee is to discuss nominations by an NSA, of which the Selection Committee Chairman is a committee member, the Chairman is required to withdraw from that part of the meeting, and the Vice Chairman should be asked to chair the discussion and resolution of the selection; or if the Selection Committee is to discuss nominations by an NSA, of which a Selection Committee member is a committee member, the member concerned should only take part in the discussion in the capacity of a representative of the NSA and is not allowed to vote. According to the information provided by SF&OC, the Selection Committee followed the mechanism for preventing conflicts of interests at its discussion of nominations by HKASA.
MR LAM CHEUK-TING (in Cantonese): Deputy President, according to the Secretary's reply as quoted of SF&OC, one important factor for considering the selection or otherwise of athletes as Delegation members for participation in the Asian Games was whether athletes could attain the top one-third ranking among other contestants in the relevant events at the specified major international competitions (such as the Asian Games and the World Championship). As indicated by the Secretary, since the several athletes concerned were unable to attain the top one-third ranking, they were not selected as Delegation members.
Secretary, I have at hand some information on the 33 athletes who were selected as Delegation members. After reviewing their competition records, we have found that 6 of those 33 athletes were not contestants in the seven specified international competitions at all. How could they possibly attain the top one-third ranking if they were not contestants? Why were the six athletes concerned selected as Delegation members all the same? The case of an athlete surnamed NG is even more outrageous. Even though he failed to attain the top one-third ranking in some individual events, and his results were not as good as those who were not selected, he was nonetheless selected as a Delegation member. Has the Government ever verified the truthfulness and accuracy of SF&OC's explanation?
306 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the selection criteria laid down by SF&OC cover three aspects: First, whether the swimming athletes concerned have obtained any results in major international competitions; second, whether their results are among the top; and the overall plan and arrangements for them.
The dozens of swimming athletes mentioned by Mr LAM had indeed obtained certain results in various competitions before. And after reviewing some information, I have learnt that basically, they would be selected if they fulfilled the several criteria mentioned. Even if some of them failed to meet the criteria, the organization concerned would give holistic consideration to their circumstances. This did happen before, and this mechanism was likewise adopted in the selection this time around.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, which part of your supplementary question has not been answered?
MR LAM CHEUK-TING (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the Secretary has not answered my supplementary question. I asked whether he had verified the accuracy of the information furnished by SF&OC. But he said that there were other factors for consideration. Is it not true to say that this is "rule of man" rather than "rule of law", and they may move the goalposts at will?
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LAM, you have clearly pointed out the part on which you seek a clarification. Secretary, do you have anything to add?
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I have reviewed the relevant information, including the information on the swimming athlete surnamed NG as mentioned by Mr LAM Cheuk-ting.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 307
MR CHEUNG KWOK-KWAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, Hong Kong elite athletes undergo training virtually every day, including the first day of the Chinese Lunar New Year, hoping that they can participate in the Olympic Games and the Asian Games as Hong Kong representatives. Therefore, the fairness of the athlete selection process is very important; or else their hard work over all the years will be thwarted.
Just now, I listened attentively to the Secretary's explanation. I have read his reply on athlete selection in Hong Kong very carefully, especially the incident involving HKASA. I hope the Secretary can give a clearer explanation to Members on a point therein. Part (1) of his main reply says that the nominations of four athletes this time around were rejected in the end―as he is well aware―"because their best results could not meet the selection criteria of SF&OC". This means that they failed to meet the criteria. Even though those four athletes are the fastest swimmers in the relevant events in Hong Kong, they were not selected because they failed to meet the criteria.
However, I noted that the Secretary went on to say, "For swimming events with no or only one athlete selected, the Head Coach of the Hong Kong Swimming Representative Team would, subject to the competition schedule and the athletes' participation in relay events, assign athletes, who had been selected to be part of the Delegation on the basis of results attained in other swimming events, to compete in these swimming events." In other words, despite their fastest times in the respective 50-m swimming events, those four swimming athletes were not selected as they failed to meet the criteria. But there were unfilled quota places in other events. So, what would they do? The Head Coach might allow them to participate in other events for which they were able to meet the requirement.
The underlying logic is this. For example, there are four long jump athletes. While they are athletes who can jump the longest distance in Hong Kong, they are unable to meet the selection criteria for the Olympic Games. So, they are not selected even though they have the best results in Hong Kong. Nevertheless, the head coach may make arrangements for them to participate in other events with unfilled quota places. That is to say, the several long jump athletes will be allowed to participate …
308 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHEUNG, please come to your supplementary question direct.
MR CHEUNG KWOK-KWAN (in Cantonese): This is stated in the Secretary's main reply. At present, SF&OC under his charge will conduct selection. May I ask whether the Secretary thinks that the process involved is fair? Has the Secretary reviewed this process? If things go on this way, how many Hong Kong athletes who have put in efforts will be denied the eligibility to participate in competitions? I hope the Secretary can give me a reply.
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Deputy President, fair selection is very important in the entire mechanism, and we will keep a close watch on this matter. Just now, I already mentioned SF&OC's selection criteria, and I also wish to talk about the nomination criteria adopted by HKASA. They cover several aspects: competition results, the attainment or otherwise of the top two positions in ranking, and the team compositions for relay races and actual competitions, which is a very important point.
I have carefully and thoroughly examined the case mentioned by Mr CHEUNG. Suppose no athlete is selected for an event. For example, in the 50-m butterfly stroke event this time around, no athlete was selected, so it followed that no athlete would compete this event. But some athletes had been chosen for the relay race, and the relay race, which comprised four legs, definitely included a butterfly stroke event. In these circumstances, as some quota places remained unfilled, the Head Coach had full authority to choose an athlete in the relay race to fill a quota place and participate in the relevant event. This was how the situation arose. I have asked about the previous practices and learnt that the same practice was adopted. So, the criteria adopted over all these years have not changed.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, which part of your supplementary question has not been answered?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 309
MR CHEUNG KWOK-KWAN (in Cantonese): I did not ask whether the criteria had changed. Instead, I asked whether the Bureau would agree that the selection criteria currently adopted by the organization under its charge were unfair. I hope to hear the Secretary's reply.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHEUNG, you have clearly pointed out the part to which you seek the Secretary's reply. Secretary, do you have anything to add?
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Deputy President, Mr CHEUNG needs to understand that dozens of sports events are involved, and various NSAs adopt different criteria. It is not appropriate for the Government to interfere with SF&OC's selection process. This is a very important principle worldwide.
The Honourable Member asked whether the criteria adopted by individual NSAs were fair. This should be decided by the members and directors of the relevant NSA, and the Government should not determine what they should do as this is inappropriate. If we thoroughly examine the question of whether the selection process conducted by NSAs and SF&OC complied with the existing criteria, I will say it did. It may not be appropriate for the Government to instruct or teach them to make changes. And, there are different criteria for various sports events.
MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Cantonese): As mentioned in the Secretary's main reply, SF&OC has put in place an appeal mechanism. But on this matter, HKASA did not file an appeal against the review outcome. May I ask the Secretary whether he has conducted any review to see if the operation of SF&OC's long-standing appeal mechanism and the composition of its Appeal Panel are transparent, fair and effective? Besides, how many appeals were processed under the relevant procedures in the past five years? What are the appeal results?
310 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the appeal mechanism concerned is chaired by the President of SF&OC and composed of independent individuals. Regarding the Honourable Member's supplementary question on the number of complaints handled over all these years, I can give Mr LEUNG a reply in writing after the meeting. (Appendix I)
MR MA FUNG-KWOK (in Cantonese): Deputy President, speaking of the controversies this time around, especially those over the preparation and selection process as well as those arising from another round of media reports on the relevant incident after athletes' arrival at the Asian Games venue, while athletes were preparing for their competitions at full steam, the controversies stirred up by the relevant media reports at the critical moment had nonetheless caused immense frustration and stress to athletes who were preparing for their competitions. To my understanding, some problems did occur in the process, ones which turned out to have undermined the overall morale of the Delegation. We certainly did not want this to happen. And I also hoped that the media or the public could give full support to our athletes at that moment. All such instances were undesirable.
I have this question for the Secretary. In the face of this, and as the Government supports athletes' participation in competitions with public money, will it agree that there is room for enhancing the transparency of the selection mechanism, so as to better convince people that it fulfills the principle of fairness and impartiality and enable them to know more about the selection process, thereby allaying their concern?
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I already mentioned SF&OC's selection criteria and the nomination criteria adopted by various NSAs. All such information can be accessed on the Internet, and it can also be said that this is a very much fair and transparent practice. The Honourable Member asked whether it would be necessary for the two organizations to conduct a review after this incident. I will relay his view to them for consideration.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Oral questions end here.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 311
WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
Government's preparation, response and relief efforts for villages in respect of super typhoon Mangkhut
7. MR KENNETH LAU (in Chinese): President, quite a number of villagers have relayed to me that a number of villages were ravaged by super typhoon Mangkhut when it hit Hong Kong last month. For example, a number of houses in Kut O Village were devastated by strong winds or destroyed by fallen trees; a number of houses along the coasts of Tung Ping Chau and Sai Lau Kong were smashed to rubble; the nature trail and scenic spot of the white-flowered derris array at Lai Chi Wo were damaged; the water and electricity supply to Tap Mun was cut off for three days; quite a number of fishing boats sank or were destroyed; and large quantities of rubbish and other objects piled up in a number of villages. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it had, in advance, (i) assessed the damage that Mangkhut might cause to remote villages and (ii) formulated recovery plans; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
(2) of the respective numbers of villagers who (i) had been evacuated before Tropical Cyclone ("TC") Warning Signals of No. 8 or above in respect of Mangkhut were issued, and (ii) were provided emergency rescue during the time when such signals were in force, by the Government, with a tabular breakdown by village name;
(3) whether, after all the TC Warning Signals in respect of Mangkhut had been cancelled, it took the initiative to immediately contact the villagers of remote villages so as to get an understanding of how they had been affected by the typhoon and to render appropriate assistance; if so, set out in a table by village name the details of the assistance requested by the villagers and the assistance (including the dates) provided by the Government; if not, of the reasons for that;
(4) of the details of the interruptions of fresh water and electricity supply to villages caused by Mangkhut (set out in the table below);
312 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
No. of water tanks/water No. of days No. of days District in wagons/water vessels for which for which Village which the that provided fresh water electricity Name village is temporary water supply was supply was located supply, and total interrupted interrupted volume of water supplied
(5) as some remote villages are inaccessible by public transport, and the villagers there are mainly elderly persons who are unable to clear on their own the fallen trees and other objects in their villages after the onslaught of the typhoon, whether the Government has plans to take the initiative, in future after severe typhoons hitting Hong Kong, to organize volunteers and transport them to such villages for assisting the villagers in carrying out clearance work; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
(6) whether it knows the number of vessels damaged by Mangkhut; whether it will consider (i) constructing additional typhoon shelters, and (ii) enhancing the facilities of the existing typhoon shelters, so as to bolster their capability to withstand typhoons;
(7) as the houses of quite a number of villagers, together with the electrical appliances and furniture in such houses, as well as the fishing boats which were villagers' means of earning a living, were damaged during the onslaught of Mangkhut, whether the Government has provided emergency financial assistance to the villagers concerned; if so, of the details; and
(8) whether, with a view to bolstering villages' capability to withstand typhoons and facilitating recovery efforts in future, the Government will consider (i) reinforcing villagers' houses for free, (ii) helping villagers rebuild houses with better capability to withstand strong winds, (iii) constructing additional access roads to remote villages LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 313
and improving such villages' infrastructure facilities, (iv) constructing for villages in coastal and low-lying locations breakwaters or other facilities for countering storm surges, and (v) implementing other disaster mitigation measures?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Chinese): President, I have consulted the relevant bureaux and departments and my consolidated reply to Mr Kenneth LAU's question is as follows:
(1) In order to provide an effective and efficient response to tropical cyclones and other natural disasters, the Government maintains a Contingency Plan for Natural Disaster ("CPND") which sets out the Government's alert system and organizational framework for responding to such emergencies as well as the functions and responsibilities of each government department and organization. In addition to CPND, every relevant department has its own detailed operational plans/instructions guiding its decision making and operation.
Based on the assessment from the Hong Kong Observatory that Mangkhut would pose significant threats to the community, Security Bureau commenced coordination amongst departments when Mangkhut was still over 800 km away from Hong Kong and no Tropical Cyclone ("TC") Warning Signal was yet hoisted.
Two interdepartmental meetings chaired by the Secretary for Security were held on 12 and 14 September 2018 to review the preparedness of the government departments and agencies for Mangkhut. Representatives from over 30 bureaux/departments and public utilities attended. The meetings discussed issues on response plans, monitoring and coordination, preventive measures, information flow and early public warnings. The departments and agencies were urged to enhance the safety factor, prepare for the worst and be prepared to mobilize the maximum amount of resources for emergency response.
All relevant departments had taken prompt precautionary measures. For example, the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department ("FEHD") and Drainage Services Department ("DSD") mobilized 314 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
additional resources to step up cleansing services to check that roadside gullies, drains and channels are unobstructed and clear of debris, particularly at the flooding blackspots. DSD also implemented measures at the seven sites identified to be prone to serious inundation, including Luen On San Tsuen, Kar Wo Lei, Sham Tseng San Tsuen, Lei Yue Mun Praya Road, Sai Kung Nam Wai, Tai O and the coastal village areas at the northwest boundary of Yuen Long District. For examples, in Lei Yue Mun, demountable flood barriers had been installed at 14 designated locations to alleviate flooding before the predetermined alert sea level was reached. In Tai O, DSD commenced the installation of 350 m demountable flood barriers on the top of riverwall to raise the protection level to +3.8mPD at Wing On Street and south of Tai Ping Street for advance completion before the approach of Mangkhut.
Before the onset of the typhoon, District Offices reminded villagers of the matters that required attention and preventive measures through rural committees and village representatives. Villagers of remote areas (particularly the underprivileged groups such as the elderly) were advised to seek refuge in a safe place before Mangkhut hit Hong Kong. Apart from opening temporary shelters, District Offices, having regard to their district needs, also assisted those people in need (such as the elderly) to evacuate when the strong wind signal no. 3 was issued.
(2) When super typhoon Mangkhut hit Hong Kong, the Police and the Fire Services Department evacuated or rescued residents in the villages, which are set out in the following table:
Number of residents Location evacuated or rescued Pok Fu Lam Village, Hong Kong 3 Tsang Tai Uk Village, Sha Tin 103 Luen On San Tsuen, Castle Peak 3 Fu Yung Shan Tsuen, Kwong Pan Tin Tsuen, 46 Sham Tseng Village in Tsuen Wan So Kwun Wat Tsuen, Castle Peak 10 Lei Yue Mun 28 Tai O 129
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 315
(3) After the cancellation of all TC Warning Signals, the District Social Welfare Offices under the Social Welfare Department ("SWD") liaised with the District Offices to, as far as practicable, mobilize staff members and volunteers to visit and render appropriate assistance to remote and hard-hit villages. Details are as follows:
Assistance requested Details of assistance Village Name by villagers provided by the Government Kat O Resuming water and North District Office electricity supply as coordinated with the soon as possible; electricity providers and Water Supplies Department Clearing fallen trees; to repair damaged electricity and water supply systems Clearing debris and expeditiously. There was refuse caused by the no suspension of electricity typhoon. service as back up electricity system had been established in Kat O. Water Supplies Department provided temporary fresh water supply service when the water supply system was under repair. Electricity and water supply resumed normal on 20 September and 29 September respectively.
SWD and North District Office arranged volunteers to visit the victims in Kat O on 20 and 21 September, distributing aids (including dried ration and daily necessities, etc.) and helping victims to apply for emergency relief fund.
316 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
Assistance requested Details of assistance Village Name by villagers provided by the Government On 20, 21, 24, 28 September and 4 October, North District Office deployed workers from contractor to Kat O to clean up the fallen trees and debris in obstructed roads. FEHD employed additional contractors to clear the rubbish and debris in the island. Marine Department ("MD") redeployed their ships for North District Office on 28 September and 4 October, conveying waste electronic appliances from the island to the contractors of Environmental Protection Department for recycling. Civil Aid Service deployed manpower to Kat O for clearance works on 6, 7 and 14 October. Clearance works have been largely completed. Ap Chau, Sai Clearance of fallen After the cancellation of TC Lau Kong trees and removal of Warning Signals in respect and Lai Chi dangerous trees; of Mangkhut, the North Wo District Office took the Clearance of debris initiative to contact that blocked representatives of remote pedestrian ways; villages, to understand the post-disaster situation of Clearance of refuse in these villages and the needs the sea and the coast; of villagers on 17 September. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 317
Assistance requested Details of assistance Village Name by villagers provided by the Government Repair of roads, village roads and public facilities;
Resumption of water and electricity supply as soon as possible. Tap Mun and Resumption of water Tai Po District Office Tap Mun and electricity supply, contacted relevant Fishermen's and clearance of fallen departments and CLP to Village trees and refuse along follow up residents' the coastline. requests. Tai Po District Office visited Tap Mun on 19 September to enquire the needs of villagers and distribute application forms of General Chinese Charities Fund to the victims. Later on 23 September, Tai Po District Office and Heung Yee Kuk visited Tap Mun again, ordering contractors to assist the clearance of fallen trees, debris and repairing of damaged roads, etc.
Before the resumption of water supply on 23 September, Tai Po District Office had made six deliveries of distilled water (1 120 bottles with a capacity of 4.5 litres each) to residents for consumption.
318 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
Assistance requested Details of assistance Village Name by villagers provided by the Government Before the resumption of electricity supply on 21 September, Tai Po District Office had been maintaining close contact with CLP, requesting for the resumption of electricity supply and provide adequate temporary electricity generators for residents. Tung Ping Clearance of fallen Tai Po District Office Chau trees and reopening of contacted relevant roads. departments to follow up residents' requests. On 19 September, Tai Po District Office visited Tung Ping Chau on 19 September to enquire the needs of villagers and distribute application forms of General Chinese Charities Fund to the victims. Later on 23 September, Tai Po District Office and Heung Yee Kuk visited Tung Ping Chau again, ordering contractors to assist the clearance of fallen trees, debris and repairing of damaged roads, etc.
On 21 September, Tai Po District Office reopened two village roads from the Tung Ping Chau Pier to Sha Tau Village and Chau Tou LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 319
Assistance requested Details of assistance Village Name by villagers provided by the Government Village and delivered mineral water to residents for consumption. Maintenance works of the village roads concerned commenced on October. Sai Wan and Some pedestrian ways The issues of interrupted Tai Long were devastated. water and electricity supply Tsuen Water and electricity had been referred to CLP supplies in the village and the Water Supplies were cut off. Department for follow-up. The water and electricity Village lights supplies were gradually collapsed along the resumed on 19 September. access to Sai Wan. Sai Kung District Office, Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department ("AFCD"), Sai Kung District Community Centre and Sai Wan Tsuen representatives conducted on-site visit on 26 September and enquired on the needs of villagers. Sai Kung District Office commenced repair works of pedestrian roads in early October, scheduled to be completed in late October. Highways Department cleaned up the collapsed village lights in early October, pending further reconstruction after the completion of the above mentioned repair works.
320 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
Assistance requested Details of assistance Village Name by villagers provided by the Government Sai Kung District Office have been in communication with the village representatives of Tai Long Tsuen. Sai Kung District Office will commence the repairing works of pedestrian pavements in mid-December, scheduled to be completed in February 2019. Tung A, Pak Some pedestrian ways Sai Kung District Office A and Yim were damaged after have been in communication Tin Tsai the typhoon. with the village representatives of Tung A, Pak A and Yim Tin Tsai to enquire on the needs of villagers. Sai Kung District Office will commence the repairing works of pedestrian pavements in Yim Tin Tsai in mid-November, scheduled to be completed in late December. Repair works of pedestrian pavements in Tung A and Pak A will be started in mid-December, scheduled to be completed in late February 2019. Nam Wai Pedestrian ways and a Sai Kung District Office breakwater were referred the fallen trees near devastated by sea minibus and bus stops to the waves and sea water Transport Department upon flooded some houses. acknowledging the case Requests for repair from the village were made. representatives on 20 September. Transport LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 321
Assistance requested Details of assistance Village Name by villagers provided by the Government The Kowloon-bound Department arranged minibuses and buses clearance operations which did not stop at the was completed on minibus stops/bus 22 September, traffic stops off Nam Wai resumed normal since then. public toilet after the typhoon. Sai Kung District Office conducted several on-site A large amount of visits for road repair and refuse piled up at debris clearance. Repair refuse collection works on pedestrian points. Requests for pavement will be started in clearing were made. mid-November, scheduled to be completed in late December. Sai Kung District Office has contacted FEHD for enhancement in clearance of pavements and debris collection and clearance. The situation has improved since early October. Ma Nam Wat Metal frames and a Sai Kung District Office has large amount of refuse been in close contact with were found on the sea the village representatives to and the coast understand the needs of the respectively. villagers, and referred to MD Requests for clearance and FEHD for followed up were made. actions. MD will, in late October, arrange manpower Pedestrian ways along to clear the marine refuse. the coast and a FEHD had already removed breakwater were the accumulated rubbish damaged. Requests near the coast by phases, and for repair were made. will continue to arrange manpower to clean up the remaining large-sized debris.
322 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
Assistance requested Details of assistance Village Name by villagers provided by the Government Sai Kung District Office will commence the repair works on the damaged pedestrian ways in mid-December. It is expected to be completed in late February 2019. Tai O and Ma Houses were damaged Through coordination of Wan Chung by collapsed trees. SWD, two Village, Tung non-governmental Chung Clearance of fallen organizations ("NGOs") trees and debris. took the initiative to contact villagers of Tai O and Ma Assistance in removal Wan Chung Village in Tung of furniture and Chung after the typhoon, and electrical appliances. provided the following assistance: Replacement of electrical appliances - Arranging for the damaged in flood. residents in need to move to temporary Cleansing of houses. shelters;
- Arranging for volunteers to assist in clearing debris, removal of furniture and electrical appliances as well as cleansing houses; and
- Assisting residents to replace damaged electrical appliances by applying for charitable funding or donations. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 323
Assistance requested Details of assistance Village Name by villagers provided by the Government Tui Min Hoi Hit by floods and Social workers from SWD Chuen, Woo strong wind, some visited the affected families Mei Village, families suffered and assessed their situations. Po Lo Che damage to the interior Grants under charitable Tsuen and of their homes, funds were made in four Tseng Lan furniture and electrical cases for home repairs and Shue Village appliances. replacement of furniture and electrical appliances. Houses were seriously damaged and no SWD also made payment longer inhabitable. from charitable funds for those cases with badly Fallen trees blocked damaged homes to help access roads to homes them cover the urgent living or damaged houses. expenditure arising from temporary accommodation elsewhere. Meanwhile, SWD will keep in contact with the Lands Department ("LandsD") to follow up the long-term housing arrangement for cases of destroyed homes, and both departments will jointly follow up the grants under the Emergency Relief Fund ("ERF")/charitable funds, so as to help families whose houses were damaged repair the rooftops destroyed by strong wind, make good their homes and replace furniture.
With the assistance of social workers from SWD, some families were evacuated to stay in private residential 324 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
Assistance requested Details of assistance Village Name by villagers provided by the Government care homes for the elderly temporarily prior to the typhoon. Thereafter, through liaison by SWD, volunteers helped with speedy clearance of fallen trees, and the families concerned moved back to their homes. Besides, SWD coordinated with District Offices to make payment to them from charitable funds to cover the accommodation fee for their stay in such elderly homes. To Tau Wan Financial assistance Social workers from SWD Village and for repairing damaged and the Integrated Family Tsang Tai Uk homes or/and Service Centres operated by Village replacing damaged NGOs visited some affected electrical residents to understand their appliances/furniture. plights and help those in need apply for financial assistance under charitable funds for home repairs. Kat O, Tap Application for SWD proactively liaised Mun, Sai Lau emergency financial with the District Offices and Kong and assistance. NGOs to provide the Tung Ping following assistance to Chau Replacement of villagers in Kat O, Tap Mun, electrical appliances Sai Lau Kong and Tung Ping damaged in floods. Chau after the typhoon:
Removal of debris and - Distributing emergency clearance of supplies packs to the pedestrian ways after affected villagers; the disastrous typhoon. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 325
Assistance requested Details of assistance Village Name by villagers provided by the Government - Assisting the affected villagers to apply for emergency financial assistance for home repair or replacement of damaged furniture and electrical appliances, so as to help them rebuild their homes;
- Arranging for volunteers to help the affected villagers remove debris and clear the pedestrian ways; and
- Distributing rice cookers and fridges donated by institutions to some of the affected villagers. Mai Po, Shek Financial assistance After the typhoon, SWD Wu Wai, for replacing damaged proactively liaised with five Fung Kat electrical appliances village offices in Yuen Long Heung and and furniture. to understand the Ko Po Tsuen post-typhoon situation in various villages, and help residents in need replace damaged electrical appliances and furniture through application for grants under charitable funds or referral to NGOs.
326 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
(4) Interruptions of fresh water and electricity supply to villages caused by Mangkhut are tabulated as follows:
District where the Number of days affected by Village name village is located power interruption(1)(2)(3) Kai Kuk Shue Ha North District, NT 4 Lai Chi Wo North District, NT 4 Sam A Tsuen North District, NT 4 Kuk Po North District, NT 4 Fung Hang North District, NT 4 Kat O North District, NT 4 (Islands) Tap Mun and Tap Tai Po 4 Mun Fishermen's Village Chau Tau Yuen Long 3 Tung Shing Lei Yuen Long 3 Hadden Hill Yuen Long 3 Pak Sha Tsuen Yuen Long 3 Wong Nai Tun Yuen Long 3 Shek Tong Tsuen Yuen Long 3 Yeung Uk Tsuen Yuen Long 3 Tin Fu Tsai Tuen Mun 6 Tseng Tau Sai Kung 3 Village Lung Ha Wan Sai Kung 3 Wong Chuk Sai Kung 3 Yeung Ko Lau Wan Sai Kung 3 Mau Tso Ngam Kowloon Peak 3 Fu Yung Pit Kowloon Peak 3
Notes:
(1) CLP service teams commenced power supply restoration work for customers while Mangkhut gradually moved away from Hong Kong. Power supply was resumed for most affected customers within three days. However, for areas more severely damaged and with blocked roads, or remote areas where service teams and equipment could only be transported thereto by sea, as well as for those cases in which the customers' equipment was damaged, it took more time to restore their power supply.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 327
(2) As power can be supplied to the villages from multiple electricity supply sources, for some customers with access to alternate sources, power supply was restored in a time shorter than those tabulated above.
(3) The above date was manually compiled on the basis of the data of CLP's outage management system. Some customers might experience a longer power supply interruption due to network client problems.
District Number of Temporary water supply
in days for Total
which which volume Village pipes
the fresh of water name -
village water tanks supplied vessels wagons
is supply was stand (in Number of water Number of water Number of water located interrupted of public Number cu m) Scenic Cheung 1 0 0 0 1 5 Garden# Chau Tap Sai 6 0 0 1 0 About Mun*#, Kung 100 Ko Lau Wan*# and Sai Wan*# Kat O# North 6 9 0 1 0 About and Sai District 200 Lau Kong# Ap Chau# North 10 2 0 0 0 5 District Along Tsuen 3-4 14 1 0 0 20 Route Wan Twisk* (including Kwong Pan Tin Tsuen, Route Twisk Villa, Sun Hoi Tin Village, Chuen Lun, etc.) 328 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
District Number of Temporary water supply
in days for Total
which which volume Village pipes
the fresh of water name -
village water tanks supplied vessels wagons
is supply was stand (in Number of water Number of water Number of water located interrupted of public Number cu m) Sheung Yuen 3 6 1 0 0 155 Tsuen Long (part)* Ta Shek Yuen 4 1 0 0 0 48 Wu Long (part)* Ki Lun Yuen 3 2 0 0 0 13 Shan Long Village (part)* Wo Yuen 1 1 0 0 0 6 Shang Long Wai#
Notes:
* Water supply suspension caused by the suspension of electricity supply.
# Water pipes were damaged by fallen trees and strong waves, some of the damaged pipes are located in remote areas, longer time is needed to ascertain the location of the concerned pipes for repair works.
(5) When the typhoon was over, the Government mobilized considerable manpower to carry out clearance operations each day and invited a number of contractors to provide temporary manpower and equipment for speedy clearance of fallen trees and their removal from road surface so that road traffic could resume normal. Community organizations and volunteer groups from different districts helped clear debris and tree branches on roads and beaches. In the aftermath of the typhoon, the Civil Aid Service has been assisting other government departments in recovery and restoration work, including clearing obstruction caused by fallen trees. Such operations are still ongoing.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 329
Individual District Offices took consideration of the actual situation and needs, and collaborated with NGOs and district bodies to organize volunteers for assisting villagers with necessary clear-ups in remote villages.
(6) As on 14 October, MD received 555 reports of vessel accidents in relation to Mangkhut, and handled 125 stranded, listed and capsized vessels. MD conducts periodic assessment of the demand and supply of sheltered space in Hong Kong to ensure sufficient supply of sheltered space for local vessels. According to MD, there is adequate sheltered space in Hong Kong waters for local vessels to take refuge during typhoons or inclement weather to safeguard vessels and their crew members.
(7) The Government provides cash assistance programmes, including the General Chinese Charities Fund and special aid fund which make grants under the administration of the Home Affairs Department, to help people facing economic difficulties caused by Mangkhut. Under the existing mechanism, applications for cash assistance from both funds must be submitted to District Offices for approval by the respective District Officers.
ERF aims to provide prompt assistance for persons who are in need of urgent relief as a result of fire, flooding, tempest, landslide, typhoon or other natural disasters. Grants from ERF are intended for relief rather than compensation. According to the Emergency Relief Fund Ordinance (Cap. 1103), ERF is vested in the Director of Social Welfare Incorporated as Trustee. The responsibility for approving grants and making payments is vested in AFCD, MD, SWD and LandsD.
(8) In respect of construction of breakwaters or other facilities at villages in low-lying areas to counter storm surges, the Government will make assessment with regard to the situation of different villages and implement measures, taking into account their practical effectiveness, technical feasibility, site restrictions, and cost-effectiveness. For instance, in Tai O, the Civil Engineering and Development Department ("CEDD") completed a series of works to tackle tidal back flow during improvement works in Tai O 330 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
(Phase 1) in 2013, including the construction of a river wall about 220 m long, a floodwater pumping station, and a demountable flood barrier some 350 m in length, to reduce the impact of tidal back flow. To reinforce certain coastal areas in Tai O against wave impact, CEDD completed the restoration of the old pier at Shek Tsai Po near Tai O Heritage Hotel in Tai O. On the other hand, DSD is raising the flood discharge capacity of the Tai O Wing On Street Stormwater Pumping Station. The project is expected to be completed by 2019-2020.
Furthermore, CEDD will thoroughly examine the situation of coastal and low-lying areas or exposed places, and conduct studies on storm surge, and wind and wave to evaluate the effects of inclement weather on those locations arising from climatic changes. Based on the findings of studies, it will formulate measures, including improvement works and management measures, to cope with and withstand such weather.
The Home Affairs Department has always been undergoing projects within the scope of minor works for improving access to remote villages and rural infrastructure (such as installation of drainage facilities on both sides of village access roads). It will also carry out works for necessary follow-ups in the wake of typhoons.
The review of the mechanism of emergency response and recovery in respect of the super typhoon coordinated by Security Bureau has commenced. The Government will take into account the Mangkhut experience in conducting the review, including considering ways to bolster the capability of rural and low-lying areas to withstand and recover from typhoons.
Involvement of young people in the promotion of Hong Kong independence
8. MR TONY TSE (in Chinese): President, on the 24th of last month, the Secretary for Security issued an order under section 8(2) of the Societies Ordinance (Cap. 151) to prohibit, with immediate effect, the operation or continued operation of the Hong Kong National Party ("HKNP") on the grounds that HKNP's agenda included the establishment of an independent Hong Kong LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 331
Republic and the abolition of the Basic Law, which is in strict contravention of the Basic Law, and that HKNP had been taking concrete actions to realize its agenda since its establishment. It has been reported that HKNP's core members and supporters are mostly young people. Moreover, some secondary school and post-secondary students have set up organizations in support of Hong Kong independence and advocated Hong Kong independence by handing out flyers, putting up slogans and voicing out their advocacy during school activities and ceremonies. There are comments that youngsters are ignorant about the perils of Hong Kong independence as well as the unlawful and unconstitutional nature of the idea, which reflects the inadequacies of the efforts on national education as well as promotion of the Basic Law and the country's Constitution (particularly the dissemination of messages against Hong Kong independence and secession). In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it will (i) investigate which other organizations in Hong Kong advocate Hong Kong independence currently, and (ii) regulate such organizations in accordance with the law, including considering prohibiting their continued operation;
(2) of the estimated expenditure/actual expenditure on promoting the Constitution and the Basic Law in the current financial year and each of the past five financial years; the respective amounts allocated to secondary and primary schools; and
(3) whether the Government conducted any promotion and education activities in the past two years specifically for disseminating messages against Hong Kong independence and secession; if so, of the names and expenditure of the activities; if not, whether it will consider launching such activities?
SECRETARY FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AND MAINLAND AFFAIRS (in Chinese): President, after consulting the Security Bureau, the Education Bureau and the Home Affairs Bureau, our consolidated reply to Mr Tony TSE's question is as follows:
The Constitution of the People's Republic of China ("the Constitution") and the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People's Republic of China ("the Basic Law") form the constitutional basis of the Hong 332 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
Kong Special Administrative Region ("HKSAR"). The HKSAR Government has the responsibility to encourage the general public to have a comprehensive understanding of the Constitution and the Basic Law. The Preamble of the Basic Law states clearly that Hong Kong has been part of the territory of China since ancient times. Upholding national unity and territorial integrity, maintaining the prosperity and stability of Hong Kong, and taking account of its history and realities, the People's Republic of China ("PRC") has decided that upon China's resumption of the exercise of sovereignty over Hong Kong, a HKSAR will be established in accordance with the provisions of Article 31 of the Constitution.
Article 1 of the Basic Law clearly points out that HKSAR is an inalienable part of PRC. Article 12 of the Basic Law also clearly elucidates that HKSAR shall be a local administrative region of PRC, which shall enjoy a high degree of autonomy and come directly under the Central People's Government. Therefore, Hong Kong has always been an inalienable part of China.
In Hong Kong, every person or organization must abide by the laws of Hong Kong. If any act of an organization is regulated by the laws of Hong Kong, the relevant authorities will deal with it in accordance with the law based on the actual circumstances and evidence. According to section 8 of the Societies Ordinance, the Secretary for Security may prohibit the operation or continued operation of any society if it is necessary in the interests of national security or public safety, public order or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.
In respect of the promotion of the Constitution and the Basic Law, there are five working groups under the Basic Law Promotion Steering Committee ("BLPSC") led by the Chief Secretary for Administration, including the Working Group on Local Community; the Working Group on Teachers and Students; the Working Group on Civil Servants; the Working Group on Industrial, Commercial and Professional Sectors; and the Working Group on Community Outside Hong Kong. The Home Affairs Bureau, the Education Bureau, the Civil Service Bureau, the Trade and Industry Department and the Information Services Department provide secretariat support to the five working groups respectively and assist the working groups in planning and organizing activities to promote the Constitution and the Basic Law to the respective sectors.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 333
The Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau spent about $16 million in each of the four financial years from 2013-2014 to 2016-2017 for promoting the Constitution and the Basic Law. In 2017-2018, the relevant expenditure was $17 million. In 2018-2019, the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau has set aside about $17 million for organizing various activities to promote a more comprehensive and thorough public understanding of the Constitution and the Basic Law. We have placed equal emphasis on the concepts of "one country" and "two systems" in our Basic Law publicity and promotional activities, and has not specifically earmarked dedicated provision for disseminating messages against Hong Kong independence and secession.
For school education, the Education Bureau all along has been helping students to understand the Constitution and the Basic Law, the origin of the principle of "one country, two systems" and the relevance of the Basic Law to the daily lives of the people of Hong Kong through the curriculum and learning activities.
The Education Bureau continuously reviews and updates the relevant contents of various Key Learning Areas/subjects as well as organizes diversified activities to promote the Constitution and the Basic Law. In addition, the Education Bureau develops learning and teaching resources for schools' flexible use, strengthens the training of principals and teachers, and develops Basic Law online courses for self-learning, etc.
As the above work areas are the day-to-day curriculum development work of the Education Bureau, the staffing resources and the major part of the expenditure are subsumed under the recurrent expenditure of the Education Bureau. There is no separate breakdown of the expenditure for the promotion of the Basic Law in primary and secondary schools.
For young people, the Working Group on Local Community under the BLPSC works closely with the Home Affairs Bureau and the Committee on the Promotion of Civic Education ("CPCE") to promote the Constitution and the Basic Law at the community level. Activities with young people as target participants include Basic Law Quiz Competitions, Basic Law seminars, publications for young people, thematic exhibitions on and interactive games about the Basic Law in the Civic Education Resource Centre, etc.
334 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
In addition, the Home Affairs Bureau and CPCE grant sponsorship every year through the Community Participation Scheme and the Co-operation Scheme with District Councils to support civic education activities to be held in the community, including Constitution and Basic Law promotional activities targeting at young people.
The Government will continue to promote a more comprehensive and thorough public understanding of the Constitution and the Basic Law by organizing activities through various means.
Supporting the development of the innovation and technology industry
9. MR JIMMY NG (in Chinese): President, some members of the innovation and technology ("I&T") industry have relayed to me that although the Government has been actively promoting re-industrialization and I&T development in recent years, the collaborative measures in areas such as providing relevant talents and supporting the industry are inadequate. Apart from attracting overseas scientific research talents to work in Hong Kong, the Government also needs to actively nurture local scientific research talents, so as to support the long-term development of the I&T industry. At the same time, the Government should provide I&T start-ups with application scenarios, or even take the lead in giving priority to adopting the research and development ("R&D") results of local I&T enterprises, as "it sounds weird if our own Government does not support 'Made in Hong Kong' products". In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the number of scientific research talents engaged in the I&T industry in Hong Kong in each of the past three years, with a breakdown of the figures by overseas talents and local ones;
(2) of the number of occasions in which government departments procured, in each of the past three years, I&T products and services researched and developed locally, and the types of products and services involved (set out in a table);
(3) of the number of local I&T start-ups closed down in each of the past three years; given that some I&T start-ups have closed down due to the failure to identify application opportunities for their R&D LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 335
results, whether the Government made investments and provided manpower support in the past three years to improve the business environment of I&T start-ups; and
(4) whether the Government will enhance its policies on and procedure for procuring I&T products and services, and give priority to adopting the R&D results of local I&T enterprises; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
SECRETARY FOR INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY (in Chinese): President, having consulted relevant government bureaux and departments, our reply to the four parts of the question is as follows:
(1) According to the statistics by the Census and Statistics Department, the total number of personnel (in full-time equivalent) engaging in the innovation and technology ("I&T") industry in Hong Kong were 33 660, 35 070 and 35 820 in 2014, 2015 and 2016 respectively. However, the Census and Statistics Department does not keep information on whether the personnel were local or overseas personnel.
(2) According to the information provided by the Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau, the number of procurement cases concerning goods and services under tendering procedures by the Government in the past three years is as follows:
2015 2016 2017 Goods 248 242 198 Services 375 428 392
The Government does not keep statistics on the number of procurement cases of I&T goods and services researched and developed locally.
(3) The Government does not keep statistics on the number of I&T start-ups that have closed down. Nevertheless, the Government is committed to providing I&T start-ups with comprehensive support and opportunities for trying out its research and development 336 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
("R&D") outcomes. The Public Sector Trial Scheme under the Innovation and Technology Fund ("ITF") subsidizes R&D projects funded by ITF and incubates/graduate tenants of the Hong Kong Science and Technology Parks Corporation ("HKSTPC") and Cyberport (referred collectively as "eligible projects and enterprises" thereafter) for the production of prototypes or samples, as well as conducting trials in the public sector. As at end-August 2018, 185 projects have been supported with a funding amount of about $300 million involving 270 participating organizations.
As for manpower support, the Internship Programme under ITF subsidizes eligible projects and enterprises to hire local graduates as R&D interns, thereby nurturing more I&T talent. As at end-August 2018, the programme has subsidized over 3 500 interns with a funding amount of over $800 million. Furthermore, we rolled out the Postdoctoral Hub programme in August 2018 to provide funding support to eligible projects and enterprises to recruit postdoctoral talent for R&D work. As of mid-October 2018, the programme has supported over 160 postdoctoral talent with a funding amount of about $75 million.
Besides, HKSTPC's incubation programmes provide subsidized office space and shared facilities, financial aid package, technical and management assistance, marketing and development assistance, and access to angel investors and venture capitalists through investment matching events to start-ups in Hong Kong Science Park focusing on new technologies (such as electronics, material and precision engineering etc.), biotechnology, and web and smartphone-based technology. As at end-September 2018, 260 incubatees are participating in the incubation programmes, and more than 570 companies have graduated, of which more than 75% of them are still in business.
On the other hand, Cyberport has also launched an incubation programme to provide information and communication technology start-ups with financial, technical and business consultation support to help them turn creative ideas into concrete undertakings or products. In the past few years, Cyberport has been expanding its incubation programme. For instance, the annual quota has been LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 337 doubled from 50 to 100, new clusters such as financial technology and e-commerce have been formed and the financial subsidy has been increased from $330,000 to $500,000. As of end-September 2018, a total of 192 companies are participating in the incubation programme, and 314 companies have graduated, of which more than 80% are still in business.
To facilitate start-ups and incubation graduates in commercializing their R&D results and identifying opportunities for market adoption, HKSTPC, in collaboration with industry leaders, launched the Global Acceleration Academy in April 2017. HKSTPC will organize workshops for start-ups participating in the programme and, together with the industry leaders, offer advice to applicants for developing products that serve the needs of the industry under a specific theme. Their end-products will be showcased to potential business partners and investors. HKSTPC has hosted 11 cohorts on various themes such as digital health, logistics technology, artificial intelligence, smart mall, robotics, etc. supporting over 70 start-ups.
In respect of venture funding, the Government has launched the $2 billion Innovation and Technology Venture Fund to encourage venture capital ("VC") funds' investments in local I&T start-ups. The Government will co-invest with the six VC funds selected as Co-investment Partners in local I&T start-ups at an approximately 1:2 ratio. HKSTPC also launched the Corporate Venture Fund in 2015 to co-invest with angel investors or VC funds on a matching basis in tenants, current incubatees and graduated incubatees of the Hong Kong Science Park. The initial fund of $50 million allocated in 2015 has been entirely committed, attracting some $673 million from co-investors. Cyberport set up the $200 million Cyberport Macro Fund in 2016 to provide seed to Series A stage funding to Cyberport's start-ups. Five applications have been approved so far.
In addition, the Legislative Council Finance Committee approved in July 2018 the funding proposal of the Government to allocate $10 billion to HKSTPC and $300 million to Cyberport, part of which will be used for enhancing support for their tenants and incubatees. HKSTPC and Cyberport are drawing up relevant implementation details. Relevant initiatives will be launched shortly by phases.
338 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
(4) The Chief Executive announced in the 2018 Policy Address that the Government will introduce a pro-innovation government procurement policy in April next year. By raising the technical weighting in tender assessment, tenders with innovative suggestions will stand a better chance of winning the contracts. The Government will also enhance exchange with the industry and dissemination of procurement information to facilitate the participation of I&T start-ups and small and medium-sized enterprises ("SMEs") in government procurement. The Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau is working out the details to assist procuring departments in implementing the new procurement policy.
With the Government's new procurement policy, the Office of the Government Chief Information Officer ("OGCIO") will establish a Smart Government Innovation Lab in 2019 to strengthen coordination and promotion of procurement by government departments as well as the use of I&T products and solutions from local start-ups and SMEs. OGCIO will invite the local industry to submit information technology solutions and product suggestions for different public services, arrange trials and technology testing for appropriate proposals in collaboration with concerned departments, as well as provide technical, financial and venue support, thereby creating more business opportunities for local start-ups and SMEs.
Use of automated external defibrillators
10. PROF JOSEPH LEE (in Chinese): President, it has been learnt that when a person has become unconscious because he is suffering from a heart attack, his survival rate may significantly increase if people at the scene immediately perform cardiopulmonary resuscitation ("CPR") and first aid on him with the use of an automated external defibrillator ("AED"). It has been reported that in recent months, a member of the public had fallen unconscious in a public sports ground but the staff at the scene did not know how to use an AED to perform first aid on that person. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it knows the existing number of people in Hong Kong who have received the following two types of first aid training: CPR and use of AEDs;
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 339
(2) of the number and details of distribution of AEDs provided in public venues managed by the Government (broken down by District Council district); the number of times for which such AEDs were used, and the number of persons who suffered sudden heart attack at such venues but people at the scene did not perform first aid on them with the use of AEDs, in the past three years;
(3) as some members of the public are worried that improper use of AEDs may aggravate the conditions of the patients and, as a result, they have to bear legal liabilities, whether the authorities will make reference to the practices of overseas countries and enact a Good Samaritan law to exempt rescuers from legal liabilities that might be incurred in performing first aid, so as to encourage members of the public to perform timely first aid on those in need at the scene; and
(4) whether policies are currently in place to promote the wider use of AEDs, including training more members of the public to use the device, and encouraging more private organizations to provide AEDs at venues under their management?
SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Chinese): President, my reply to the various parts of the question raised by Prof Joseph LEE is as follows:
(1) Various organizations have been offering first aid courses to teach participants first aid knowledge. As far as government departments and public bodies are concerned, relevant first aid courses are organized by the Department of Health ("DH"), the Hospital Authority ("HA"), the Fire Services Department ("FSD") and the Auxiliary Medical Service ("AMS").
DH regularly organizes Basic Life Support Provider Courses covering cardiopulmonary resuscitation ("CPR") and the use of automatic external defibrillators ("AEDs") for its health care staff to enhance their knowledge of various first aid methods. From 2013 to 2017, DH organized a total of 369 such courses for its health care staff with 2 979 attendances.
The three training centres of HA which are accredited by the American Heart Association have been providing courses on basic life support and advanced cardiovascular life support. The courses, 340 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
which cover CPR and the use of AEDs, aim to enhance the knowledge of HA staff and the public in handling heart attack and the first aid for it. In 2017-2018, HA organized such courses for 10 595 staff, as well as 2 077 other non-HA health care personnel and members of the public.
Since 1999, FSD has trained over 32 000 people under its community CPR training courses. Starting from April 2017, FSD has also introduced the "Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation Training Programme in Campus" to secondary schools in Hong Kong, under which secondary school students and staff are taught about CPR and the importance of its early application, and are encouraged to resuscitate cardiac arrest patients during emergencies. To date, about 6 400 staff and students have participated in and received training under the Programme.
Besides, from June 2017, FSD has rolled out the "Community Awareness on Responding to Emergency" ("CARE") Programme, which is a simplified course that teaches the public general knowledge about CPR and AED. So far, about 2 100 people have participated in the Programme. FSD has launched in August 2017 the "Press to shock―Save a life" Public Access Defibrillation Course, which covers the application of CPR and AED in a comprehensive and detailed manner, and over 4 400 members of the public have completed the course.
Starting from January 2016, AMS has provided CPR and AED training to 8 600 of its members as well as members of the public. Besides, from 2017 to 2018, the Civil Aid Service has provided the aforementioned training to 437 of its members.
(2) The number of AEDs installed at public facilities/establishments as at September 2018 and their usage in the past three years are as follows:
Government Usage of AEDs Type of facility/ No. of department/ in the past three establishment AEDs organization years DH clinics and health about Relevant data centres 200 are unavailable. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 341
Government Usage of AEDs Type of facility/ No. of department/ in the past three establishment AEDs organization years HA hospitals and 73(1) Relevant data clinics in HA are unavailable. clusters general outpatient 62(1) clinics Home Affairs community 3 No requests Department halls/centres were made by the public for the use of AEDs. Hong Kong Police report rooms and 34 Relevant data Force Police Museum are unavailable. Leisure and Cultural sports centres, 488(1) AEDs were Services Department sports grounds, used for a total soccer pitches, of 101 times tennis courts, from 2015 to major parks, 2017. swimming pools, beaches, water Data are sports centres, unavailable camps, libraries, regarding the theatres, etc. number of persons who suffered sudden heart attack at such venues but people at the scene did not perform first aid on them with the use of AEDs. Mass Transit MTR stations 291 AEDs were Railway Corporation (including Light used for a total Rail stations) of 52 times from 2015 to September 2018.
342 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
Government Usage of AEDs Type of facility/ No. of department/ in the past three establishment AEDs organization years There were no incidents where persons suffered sudden heart attack at such venues but people at the scene did not perform first aid on them with the use of AEDs. Airport Authority Passenger 24 AEDs were Hong Kong Terminal Building used for a total of the Hong Kong of 11 times International from October Airport 2016 to September 2018.
There were no incidents where persons suffered sudden heart attack at the venue but people at the scene did not perform first aid on them with the use of AEDs.
Note:
(1) As at October 2018.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 343
(3) and (4)
There is currently no legislation in Hong Kong providing for the exemption of rescuers from legal liabilities that might be incurred in performing first aid. The issue of whether such legislation should be introduced requires thorough discussion among relevant Policy Bureaux, departments and stakeholders, taking into consideration various factors and requisite conditions, including the public awareness of heart attack and their knowledge of the first aid for it, as well as the level of first aid training of rescuers.
The Government has been carrying out through different channels public promotion on CPR and the use of AEDs, and providing training in this regard.
Since mid-2017, FSD has rolled out the CARE Programme and the "Press to shock―Save a life" Public Access Defibrillation Course, so as to teach the public knowledge about AED and the application techniques, in the hope that when a patient suffers from a cardiac arrest, members of the public can immediately resuscitate the patient and increase the patient's survival rate. Besides, FSD has established the Community Emergency Preparedness Division in October 2018 with a view to introducing new elements into public education on fire prevention and ambulance services, including strengthening the public's knowledge on CPR and the use of AED.
The Accident and Emergency Training Centre of HA will continue to provide various types of emergency medical training courses, including courses on CPR and the use of AEDs, for HA staff and members of the public.
The Government will continue to collaborate with other public and private organizations through various means for the publicity, promotion, education and training on first aid skills.
344 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
Switching off vehicle engines and not using mobile phones in petrol filling stations
11. MR FRANKIE YICK (in Chinese): President, some members of the public have pointed out that it is a rather common phenomenon that drivers, taking no heed of the appeal of the staff of petrol filling stations, (i) use mobile phones within the area of petrol filling stations and (ii) fail to switch off the engines of vehicles being refuelled. Since a trace amount of petrol vapour is released from petrol dispensers into the environment during vehicle refuelling, these members of the public are worried that these two acts may cause a fire or an explosion, thus endangering public safety. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the number of complaints received by the Government in the past three years about the aforesaid two acts, and the follow-up actions taken;
(2) whether it will step up publicity to appeal to drivers to avoid committing these two acts; and
(3) whether it will enact legislation to regulate these two acts; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Chinese): President, to ensure public safety, the Fire Services Department ("FSD") conducts fire safety risk assessments for petrol filling stations ("PFSs"). All explosion accidents, including those within PFSs, are caused by the ignition of a sufficient amount of inflammable vapour by sufficient amount of energy at the scene. In order to prevent such a situation from occurring, FSD puts in place relevant fire safety requirements when considering applications for the operation of PFSs, so as to ensure that there will be no leakage from the petrol filling system and prevent the accumulation of energy to a dangerous level within the areas of PFSs.
My response to the various parts of Mr Frankie YICK's question is as follows:
(1) According to records, in the past three years, FSD did not receive any complaints against the use of mobile phones within the areas of PFSs or drivers failing to switch off the engines of vehicles being refuelled.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 345
(2) and (3)
Currently, FSD regulates the fire safety of PFSs through the licensing regime under the Dangerous Goods Ordinance (Cap. 295). FSD conducts fire safety risk assessments for PFSs and puts in place relevant fire safety requirements, including putting up "Switch Off Engine" warning signs at conspicuous locations in PFSs and requiring the staff of PFSs to request drivers to switch off their vehicle engines before refuelling. In addition, FSD conducts surprise inspections. If managers of PFSs are found to be in breach of relevant fire safety requirements, FSD will consider prosecution. The maximum penalty upon conviction is a fine of $10,000 and imprisonment for one month. The relevant dangerous goods licences of the PFS concerned may also be revoked.
According to FSD's assessment, given that the maximum amount of energy generated by a mobile phone is far lower than the ignition threshold of petrol vapour, the fire risk is relatively low. Having said that, in view of the variety of mobile phones and the constant emergence of new models, for the sake of prevention, FSD proposes putting up notices at conspicuous locations in PFSs to urge members of the public to avoid using mobile phones within PFSs. FSD will continue to monitor closely studies on the safety of using mobile phones and conduct reviews where necessary.
FSD has been reminding the oil industry through regular meetings to comply with the fire safety requirements, including that managers of PFSs should make sure that drivers have switched off the engines of the vehicles before refuelling. Managers should also avoid letting members of the public use mobile phones within PFSs. Moreover, FSD conducts surprise inspections and distributes fire safety leaflets at PFSs to enhance the fire safety awareness of the industry. Contents of the leaflets include reminding managers that no parking is allowed within PFSs, that drivers must switch off the engines of vehicles being refuelled, and that no smoking is allowed within PFSs etc.
346 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
Issues relating to super typhoon Mangkhut
12. MR CHEUNG KWOK-KWAN (in Chinese): President, during its onslaught on Hong Kong last month, super typhoon Mangkhut caused extensive damage, which included damage to the structures on buildings' external walls, toppling of numerous trees, severe flooding in coastal areas and sports grounds sustaining serious damage. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) as the storm surges accompanying Mangkhut caused severe flooding and damage to a number of facilities in Heng Fa Chuen, whether the Government has studied measures for helping Heng Fa Chuen withstand storm surges accompanying super typhoons in future; if so, of the outcome of such studies; if not, whether it will conduct such studies immediately;
(2) as a huge amount of marine refuse (e.g. bits of foam plastics) was washed ashore by the storm surges accompanying Mangkhut, whether the Government knows the major sources of such refuse, and what measures it has put in place to reduce such kind of refuse at source;
(3) as the number of service orders for clearance of fallen trees received by some arboriculture companies after the typhoon had moved away from Hong Kong was five to 10 times more than usual but such companies did not have sufficient manpower to cope with the service demand, resulting in the handling of some cases, despite their urgent nature, having to be scheduled for next month, whether the Government has approached the arboriculture companies concerned to gain an understanding of the details of such cases; whether it has set a target completion date for the clearance work of fallen trees across the territory; of the government departments currently responsible for handling emergency clearance of fallen trees, and the proportion of outsourcing of such work by each of these departments;
(4) given that the Aberdeen Sports Ground was seriously damaged during the onslaught of super typhoon Hato in August last year, of the reasons why the relevant restoration works have not yet commenced so far, and when such works will commence and be LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 347
completed; the expected completion time for the restoration works for Siu Sai Wan Sports Ground which has been damaged by Mangkhut; and
(5) given that after the onslaught of typhoons, government departments often need to rent lorry-mounted cranes from private companies to remove tottering structures (e.g. signboards) high on external walls of buildings and broken branches of trees, whether the Government will purchase such type of vehicle so as to facilitate expeditious commencement of such clearance work after the onslaught of typhoons?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Chinese): President, government departments have been making all-out effort in the post-Mangkhut recovery work. As the damages caused by Mangkhut were extensive, some repair works are still ongoing. The relevant departments will continue to follow up the situation.
I have consulted the relevant bureaux and departments and consolidated reply to the questions raised by Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan is as follows:
(1) When the super typhoon Mangkhut battered Hong Kong, the storm surge and huge waves caused by the typhoon brought seawater into Heng Fa Chuen and led to flooding. Based on the experience of handling super typhoon Mangkhut, the Government will review the feasibility of various flood prevention strategies and make various assessments, including practical effectiveness, technical feasibility, land restrictions and cost-effectiveness.
In respect of the damages caused at Heng Fa Chuen, the Civil Engineering and Development Department, Leisure and Cultural Services Department and Architectural Services Department are examining the possibility of strengthening the wave prevention facilities in the playgrounds, for instance, to consider the installation of wave protection wall at the coastal planter areas of the playgrounds, with a view to enhancing the resistance to storm surge. With regard to the issue of flooding, the Civil Engineering and 348 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
Development Department and Drainage Services Department will provide technical engineering advice to the estate management company of Heng Fa Chuen.
Civil Engineering and Development Department will conduct a comprehensive review of the situation of coastal low-lying or unsheltered areas. Studies on typhoon related storm surge and waves will also be conducted to assess how the extreme weather caused by climate change will affect the concerned areas. Relevant response and resilience measures can be formulated in accordance with the result of the studies, including engineering improvement and management measures.
(2) The Government understands that foam boxes and components are widely used in the delivery of goods that require thermal insulation or shock resistance, for instance, most of the refrigerated food products (meats, vegetables, fruits and seafood), packaging of fragile goods (electrical appliances and electronic devices), one-off utensils (meal box) and fisheries related products etc. We cannot ascertain the source of foams found in Heng Fa Chuen. The strong destructive power of super typhoon Mangkhut might have brought foams from different sources. Possible sources of foam fragments include mari-culture rafts, fishponds and some fishing boats as they had suffered varied damages during the typhoon.
Seafood wholesaling uses foam boxes usually near the coastal areas. We have been in communication with the Fish Marketing Organization, which manages the wholesale fish markets, in order to manage the use of foam boxes. Foam boxes are generally recycled for carrying fish catches. The Fish Marketing Organization always reminds fishmongers and other fish market users to take appropriate measures, such as tying the foam boxes and placing them away from the shore, preventing the boxes from falling into the sea.
Various departments have implemented a wide array of measures under their purviews, including enforcement patrols and on-site monitoring, strengthening the clearance of marine refuse, promoting publicity and education activities, providing support measures and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 349
facilities to reduce waste from entering the marine environment. We will continue to communicate with the departments and strengthen the management on the use of foam.
(3) The damages of Mangkhut to Hong Kong were extensive and unprecedented, causing collapses of trees which led to road blockages. The Highways Department accorded high priority to the swift resumption of traffic, and has deployed a large number of manpower from their contractors, including workers and machinery operators, to handle the emergency recovery and repair works in the major thoroughfare, district streets, cycling tracks and roadside slopes. Of major importance was to clean up the collapsed trees and debris that blocked the road expeditiously, so as to restore normal traffic as soon as possible. As a result, all major thoroughfare and roads leading to/from bus depots were reopened on 18 September. The remaining roads blocked by fallen trees were also cleaned and re-opened on or before 22 September. The relevant clearance operations were carried out by workers employed by the contractors, but not workers employed directly by the Highways Department.
Besides, Leisure and Cultural Services Department, Food and Environmental Hygiene Department and Home Affairs Department have also enhanced their manning, deploying staff and contractors to clean up fallen trees under their purviews in full strength, with priority accorded to blocked carriageways, pedestrian pavements, and potentially dangerous trees to reduce public risks and inconvenience. The Government has also deployed workers to check the health of trees and arranged measures to alleviate risks, including tree supporting, pruning and cleaning. The clearance of fallen trees with lower risk and not affecting the public are in progress.
(4) Siu Sai Wan Sports Ground was battered by Typhoon Mangkhut. Major facilities inside the venue including the power supply installation, covers of the spectator stands, field tracks and grass pitches, etc were severely damaged. In view of public safety, the Sports Ground is now temporarily closed. Following deliberation 350 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
with the Architectural Services Department, the enhancement works for the covers of the spectator stands originally scheduled in the first quarter of 2019 will be conducted earlier, together with the reparation works of the grass pitches and enhancement works of the outer perimeter fencing for the purposes of mitigating the damages caused by flooding. The Sports Ground is expected to be re-opened in mid-2019.
Concerning the Aberdeen Sports Ground, some covers of its west spectator stand were destroyed after typhoon Hato in August 2017. With reinforcement by the works departments, the damaged stand was reopened in November 2017. However, the stand was damaged again by typhoon Mangkhut and emergency demolition was required. The demolition work has been completed. Pending inspection by works departments on affected running tracks, the sports ground is expected to be re-opened in November 2018. Works departments are following up the situation and arranging a new cover for the west spectator stand.
(5) The government fleet currently consists of crane lorries or grab lorries managed and used by various government departments. The Government Logistics Department also arranges service contracts for the hiring of grab lorries for the use by various departments. Departments can put up requests for the purchase of such vehicles or arrange vehicle hiring service on their own to meet their operational needs with reference to the experience drawn from super typhoon Mangkhut.
Take Buildings Department as an example. The contractors employed by the department, as enshrined in the contract, must be able to provide a certain number of crane lorries at any time for emergency works. Drawing reference from the experience in the handling of super typhoon Mangkhut, Buildings Department will request the contractors to provide more mobile crane machinery in future contracts, so as to enhance the emergency service efficiency.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 351
Vetting and approval of employment visa applications
13. MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Chinese): President, last month, the Government rejected an application for renewal of employment visa lodged by a foreign national, who was the Asia news editor of the United Kingdom-based Financial Times ("FT"). According to FT, this is the first occasion on which the Government rejected an employment visa application lodged by a foreign correspondent. The press, various trade associations and the international community were concerned about the incident, and requested an explanation from the Government about its decision. Regarding the vetting and approval of employment visa applications by the Immigration Department ("ImmD"), will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the policy and considerations adopted by ImmD for vetting and approval of employment visa applications;
(2) of the mechanism adopted by ImmD for the vetting and approval of employment visa applications and renewal applications lodged by foreign correspondents; apart from the considerations mentioned in (1), whether there are other considerations in the vetting and approval of such applications;
(3) of the respective numbers of employment visa applications and renewal applications (i) received and (ii) rejected by ImmD in each of the past five years and, among them, the respective numbers of applications which were lodged by foreign correspondents; and
(4) as both the Chief Executive and the Chief Secretary for Administration have indicated earlier that upon deciding to reject an employment visa application, ImmD will not disclose to any person (including the applicant) the reasons behind its decision, of the justifications for adopting such a practice; whether it has assessed if such a practice is in line with the legal principles concerning procedural justice under the common law and the laws of Hong Kong?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Chinese): President, the reply to the question is as follows:
352 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
(1) and (2)
Applicants who possess special skills, knowledge or experience of value to and not readily available in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("HKSAR") may apply to come to work in the HKSAR under the General Employment Policy ("GEP") (which is not applicable to Chinese residents of the Mainland of China) or the Admission Scheme for Mainland Talents and Professionals ("ASMTP") (which is applicable to Chinese residents of the Mainland of China). Both GEP and ASMTP are non-sector specific. An application may be favourably considered if:
(i) there is no security objection and no known record of serious crime in respect of the applicant;
(ii) the applicant has a good education background, normally a first degree in the relevant field, but in special circumstances, good technical qualifications, proven professional abilities and/or relevant experience and achievements supported by documentary evidence may also be accepted;
(iii) there is a genuine job vacancy;
(iv) the applicant has a confirmed offer of employment and is employed in a job relevant to his academic qualifications or work experience that cannot be readily taken up by the local work force; and
(v) the remuneration package including income, accommodation, medical and other fringe benefits is broadly commensurate with the prevailing market level for professionals in the HKSAR.
In processing each application, the Immigration Department ("ImmD") will examine whether the applicant meets the specific eligibility criteria under the relevant admission scheme and normal immigration requirements, and take into account the individual circumstances of each application, so as to ensure that only LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 353
applicants who meet the relevant immigration policies will be admitted into Hong Kong for employment. While ImmD endeavours to facilitate the entry of genuine visitors, at the same time ImmD has the responsibility to uphold effective immigration control so as to safeguard the public interest of Hong Kong.
(3) The numbers of applications for visa/entry permit and extension of stay received and rejected under GEP or ASMTP during the past five years are at Annex. ImmD does not maintain the breakdown statistics in respect of journalists.
(4) In processing each application, ImmD acts in accordance with the laws and policies, and decides whether to approve or refuse the application after careful consideration of individual circumstances of each case. According to its established practices, ImmD will normally not inform the applicant of the specific reason when rejecting an application. There is no requirement under the Immigration Ordinance or the common law for ImmD to provide the reason for rejecting an application to the applicant who is not granted permission to land in Hong Kong by ImmD.
Annex
Numbers of applications for visa/entry permit and extension of stay received and rejected under GEP or ASMTP
2018 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 (January to September) Immigration
Scheme/Policy of refusals refusals refusals refusals refusals refusals Number of of Number of Number of Number of Number Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Number applications applications applications applications applications applications
GEP 65 374 2 123 67 556 2 096 69 210 1 017 65 269 1 315 64 456 1 123 51 326 665 ASMTP 16 962 1 231 17 796 832 18 530 711 18 899 471 19 080 373 16 194 182
354 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
Implementation of the Producer Responsibility Scheme on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment
14. MR CHAN HAK-KAN (in Chinese): President, the Producer Responsibility Scheme on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment ("the Scheme") has been in operation since 1 August this year. Under the Scheme, sellers are required to provide free removal service when they sell a new item of regulated electrical equipment (i.e. air-conditioners, refrigerators, washing machines, televisions, computers, printers, scanners and monitors) to members of the public. However, quite a number of members of the public have relayed to me that the recycling service operator commissioned by the Government to collect waste electrical equipment ("the operator") has failed to meet its performance pledge of collecting such equipment door-to-door within three working days upon receipt of a service request from sellers, with the waiting time even exceeding 10 days in some cases. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) whether it knows the number of vehicles and manpower under the operator for providing the recycling service;
(2) whether it knows the average number of items of waste electrical equipment collected daily by the operator since the implementation of the Scheme;
(3) of the number of licence applications for regulated e-waste disposal (including storage, treatment, reprocessing or recycling of e-waste) received, approved and rejected by the Government so far; if it has rejected some applications, of the reasons for that;
(4) of the respective numbers of complaints against the operator and sellers received by the Government since the implementation of the Scheme, and the number of complaints about the disposal of waste electrical equipment on the street;
(5) as it has been reported that since the operator's plant for storing waste electrical equipment is full, the operator has been provided a land on loan by the Government for temporary storage of waste electrical equipment, of the relevant details; whether the operator has breached the contractual requirements by failing to dispose of waste electrical equipment properly;
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 355
(6) given that the operator has failed to meet its performance pledge, whether the Government will consider reviewing the current mode of commissioning an operator and switching to commissioning multiple recyclers and granting subsidies to them according to the quantity of waste electrical equipment they have collected; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and
(7) given that the operator turns waste electrical and electronic equipment into materials of value (such as plastics and metals) through processes such as detoxification, dismantling and recycling, of the outlets for such materials and the receiver of the income so generated (if any)?
SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Chinese): President, the Producer Responsibility Scheme on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment ("WEEE"), or in short WPRS, came into effect on 1 August 2018. It covers air-conditioners, refrigerators, washing machines, televisions, computers, printers, scanners and monitors (collectively referred to as regulated electrical equipment, or REE). The WPRS marks another important milestone in Hong Kong's waste reduction and recycling efforts, as WEEE generated locally that would have been otherwise exported for disposal or sent to the landfills are now collected and recycled properly into resources.
Currently, an REE seller is required by law to arrange for its customer a statutory free removal service to collect a used equipment of the same class abandoned by the customer. Upon purchase of the REE item, the customer is entitled to ask the seller to arrange for delivery of the new item and removal of the used item on the same day at no extra charge. REE sellers may provide the statutory free removal service on their own or through other collectors. If a seller opts for the service provided by the operator of the Government's WEEE Treatment and Recycling Facility ("WEEE‧PARK"), i.e. ALBA-IWS, the operator will, after receipt of a service request from the seller, collect the waste equipment three working days from the date of sales as requested by the customer. For instance, if a customer purchases a new item on Monday, the seller may arrange for delivery of the new item and the operator's removal of the used item on the same day on Thursday.
356 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
Since its initial operation in October 2017 and up to the end of September 2018, WEEE‧PARK has processed over 6 900 tonnes of WEEE in total, well exceeding the target amount for its first year of operation. The figure reflects that the scheme has initially achieved its objective.
My responses to the various parts of the question raised by Mr CHAN Hak-kan are as follows:
(1) and (2)
The total number of staff currently employed by ALBA-IWS is around 190. Using the combination of its own fleet, outsourced vehicles and in collaboration with relevant industry stakeholders, the operator's logistics team deploys resources flexibly to meet the demand for collection services. Since the implementation of WPRS, ALBA-IWS handles around 900 collection orders on average on each working day.
(3) As at 21 October 2018, the Environmental Protection Department ("EPD") has issued a total of five waste disposal licences for e-waste ("e-WDLs"), with another 12 applications being processed. There were another 6 applications deemed invalid or withdrawn by the applicants because of non-conforming land uses or the operations concerned being within the scope of exemption under the legislation.
(4) From the implementation of WPRS on 1 August up to 21 October this year, EPD has received a total of 57 complaints, of which 33 involved REE sellers, 19 were on the operator's services and five of general nature. The Food and Environmental Hygiene Department ("FEHD") does not keep separate statistics on complaints about the disposal of WEEE on streets. However, according to FEHD, their frontline staff did not observe any major change in the number of waste REE found at refuse collection points before and after the implementation of WPRS.
(5) WEEE‧PARK is a government facility and its operator provides collection and treatment services under WPRS. As the service demand at the initial implementation stage of WPRS exceeded the projected demand, as a short term measure, EPD has made available LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 357
some vacated places in the Kowloon Bay Waste Recycling Centre, which has ceased operation and is to be demolished, for the temporary storage of WEEE collected from the public to be transferred to WEEE‧PARK for treatment. There was no breach of the contractual requirement on the part of the operator in relation to this short term measure.
(6) Following adjustments made after the initial period, the scheme has been operating smoothly in general. The operator has been able to collect the waste equipment from customers three working days after receipt of the service requests. Only in certain special circumstances (less than 0.1% of the cases), the operator might take longer time to arrange for the collection, for instance, from more remote locations in the outlying islands due to the need to accommodate the conveyor schedule. In terms of treatment performance, as mentioned above the actual quantity processed by the operator up to the end of September has exceeded its target quantity for its first year of operation. There is no question of the operator being unable to meet the contractual requirements.
The design capacity of WEEE‧PARK is about 30 000 tonnes per year, which is roughly half of the amount of waste REE generated in Hong Kong every year. There is room for existing and potential recyclers to participate in the market for treating waste REE. If necessary, WEEE‧PARK may increase its capacity by arranging an additional shift in the operation of the facility to cope with the demand. As mentioned above, up to 21 October this year, EPD has issued a total of five e-WDLs, with another 12 applications being processed. We encourage licensed recyclers to take part in the recycling and treatment of waste REE. We will also continue to keep abreast of the market development to ensure that the overall handling capacity locally is adequate to underpin the implementation of WPRS.
(7) Under the contract, the Government will determine and pay the operator the operation fee calculated based on the actual weight of WEEE collected and treated. The operator will properly separate and remove small amount of harmful substances such as heavy metal (e.g. mercury, lead) and greenhouse gases from WEEE by using 358 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
advanced technologies and equipment. Other parts of WEEE will be dismantled and shredded, followed by safe sorting and screening procedures to turn them into sorted plastic and metal materials of high quality for reuse in other industrial productions. The remaining small amount of waste that cannot be recycled or reused will be sent to the landfills or other EPD recognized treatment facilities for proper handling. Any income or expenditure arising from the disposal of such recyclables and waste is borne by the operator in full.
Promoting the wider use of electric vehicles
15. MS TANYA CHAN (in Chinese): President, on 28 February this year, the Government introduced a "One-for-One Replacement" Scheme ("Replacement Scheme") under which a vehicle owner who scraps his old private car ("PC") and buy a new electric PC ("e-PC") may enjoy a higher first registration tax concession. The application criteria include: (a) that the old PC having been first registered for six years or more ("the vehicle age requirement") and (b) that the applicant having been the registered owner of that vehicle for three years or more without interruption ("the ownership period requirement"), etc. Some environmentalists have criticized that the above criteria are stringent, which, coupled with the grossly inadequacy in public charging facilities for electric vehicles ("EVs"), has impeded the popularization of EVs in Hong Kong. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of (i) the end-of-month number of registered PCs, and (ii) the number of newly registered e-PCs, in each month from March to September this year;
(2) of the respective (i) monthly and (ii) up-to-date numbers of applications for tax concession received and approved by the authorities since the launch of the Replacement Scheme;
(3) of the respective numbers of registered PCs, as at 31 March this year, which (i) satisfied the two aforesaid application criteria, and (ii) met the vehicle age requirement and were owned by the existing owners for one year or more; the relevant projected numbers for the coming three years;
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 359
(4) whether the authorities will lower the ownership period requirement to one year so as to expand the scope of the Replacement Scheme; if so, when this will be implemented; if not, of the reasons for that;
(5) how the authorities publicize the Replacement Scheme and the amount of public expenditure incurred to date;
(6) whether it knows the total numbers of (i) standard, (ii) medium and (iii) quick public EV chargers as at 1 October this year throughout the territory, with a breakdown by District Council district;
(7) whether it has studied the appropriate ratio of the number of EVs to that of public chargers; if so, of the study outcome; if not, whether it will expeditiously commence such a study; and
(8) whether it will regularly publish reports on the work of the "Steering Committee on the Promotion of Electric Vehicles" to enable members of the public to monitor the Committee's work and the effectiveness thereof; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that, and the measures the authorities will take to enhance the transparency of the operation of the Committee?
SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Chinese): President, commercial vehicles ("CVs") account for 95% of the vehicular emissions of respirable suspended particulates and nitrogen oxides, both of which are major air pollutants. CVs have thus been a major target of the Government's measures to improve roadside air quality. As electric vehicles ("EVs") have no tailpipe emissions, replacing conventional vehicles, especially CVs, with EVs can help improve roadside air quality.
The Government has all along been committed to promoting the use of electric CVs ("e-CVs"). Measures taken include waiving the first registration tax ("FRT") of e-CVs in full since 1994; putting in place since March 2011 a $300 million Pilot Green Transport Fund to support the transport sector to try out green innovative transport technologies (including e-CVs); and subsidizing franchised bus companies to test out electric buses.
360 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
As for electric private cars ("e-PCs"), the Government's standing policy is to encourage the public to use public transport as far as possible. For members of the public who need to acquire private cars ("PCs"), we provide them with appropriate financial incentives such as tax concession and lower annual vehicle licence fee to encourage them to choose e-PCs.
When drawing up FRT concessions for e-PCs, the Government considered that while FRT would continue to be a means of controlling the overall growth of PCs to avoid causing traffic congestion and aggravating roadside air pollution, FRT concessions could be offered to aptly encourage vehicle buyers to go for EVs when purchasing PCs. Taking due account of these two factors, the technological development and market situation of EVs, as well as road traffic conditions and views of stakeholders, we decided to continue with FRT concessions of up to $97,500 for e-PCs from 28 February 2018 to 31 March 2021. For the same period, a new "One-for-One Replacement" Scheme ("Replacement Scheme") has also been introduced to allow eligible existing vehicle owners who buy a new e-PC and scrap their own eligible old PC to enjoy a higher FRT concession of up to $250,000.
My responses to the various parts of the question raised by Ms Tanya CHAN are as follows:
(1) The end-of-month number of registered PCs and the number of newly registered e-PCs in each month from March to September this year are listed at Annex 1.
(2) The monthly and up-to-date numbers of applications received and approved since the launch of the Replacement Scheme are set out at Annex 2.
(3) Based on the records of registered vehicles as at 31 March 2018 kept by the Transport Department ("TD"), the respective numbers of registered PCs that satisfied the criteria of "having been first registered for six years or more" and "its owner having own the PC for three years or more without interruption", and that satisfied the criteria of "having been first registered for six years or more" and "its owner having owned the PC for one year or more without interruption", as well as the relevant projected numbers for the coming three years are tabulated at Annex 3.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 361
(4) As mentioned above, on the premises of not increasing the total number of PCs, the Government has introduced the Replacement Scheme to provide existing PC owners with incentive to choose EVs when they need to replace their old PCs. To be eligible for the Scheme, a vehicle owner must be the registered owner of an old PC for three years or more without interruption. While this requirement serves to encourage registered PC owners to opt for EVs when replacing their old PCs, it also prevents people from gathering a large number of old PCs from overseas or second-hand markets to participate in the Scheme for profit making. As illustrated in Annex 3, by the time the Replacement Scheme ends on 31 March 2021, the total number of PCs meeting the two criteria of "having been first registered for six years or more" and "its owner having owned the PC for three years or more without interruption" will be around 470 000, i.e. about three-fourth of the total number of PCs. At this stage, the Government has no plan to revise the application criteria for the Replacement Scheme.
(5) On promoting the use of EVs and the arrangements for making applications under the Replacement Scheme, details are available at the websites of the Environmental Protection Department ("EPD") and TD for PC owners who are interested. When hosting or attending seminars on promoting the use of EVs, EPD would publicize the Government's policy on promotion of EVs, including the Replacement Scheme. TD also assists EPD in processing applications under the Scheme, with publicity posters on the Scheme not only displayed in all TD Licensing Offices but also distributed to the registered distributors concerned for reference purposes. Both EPD and TD take up the related work with their existing resources.
(6) Based on the latest statistics, figures on public EV chargers (provided for public use in both government and non-government car parks) as at the end of September 2018 in each of the 18 districts across the territory are set out at Annex 4.
(7) Regarding the charging arrangements for e-PCs, it has always been the Government's policy direction that e-PC owners shall perform daily charging of their e-PCs by using charging facilities at their 362 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
home, workplaces or other suitable places (including charging facilities provided by e-PC suppliers). Public charging facilities in Hong Kong are supplementary in nature, set up for EVs to top up their batteries at times of occasional needs. They do not serve as daily charging facilities or their alternatives. Potential buyers of e-PCs shall fully consider the daily charging arrangements required and shall not rely on public charging facilities for daily charging of their e-PCs.
The demand for public charging facilities hinges on a number of factors such as the technological development and market situation of e-PCs and charging facilities. It may not be necessary to set a ratio between the number of public charging facilities and that of e-PCs. The report published by the International Council on Clean Transportation in October 2017 also pointed out that there were no universal benchmark for the ratio of the number of EVs to that of public chargers, as the ratio may vary from several times to 25 times in different places. Such figures only serve to reflect the distribution of EVs chargers under different actual circumstances in different places.
In the light of the rapid changes in the usage of EVs, the Government is reviewing various policies and measures on promoting the use of EVs. Our efforts include exploring ways to encourage installation of charging facilities to tie in with the usage of EVs.
(8) The Steering Committee on the Promotion of Electric Vehicles ("the Committee") discusses and advises the Government on strategies and initiatives in promoting the use of EVs. The Committee's meetings are conducted confidentially to encourage frank and open discussion. The Government will consider various factors including the Committee's advice in decision-making and implementation. We have no plan at this stage to disclose the discussion of the Committee.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 363
Annex 1
The end-of-month number of registered PCs and the number of newly registered e-PCs in each month From March to September 2018
(i) The end-of-month number of (ii) The number of newly Year 2018 registered PCs registered e-PCs in each month March 604 732 20 April 606 150 37 May 607 948 18 June 609 405 42 July 610 600 22 August 612 167 45 September 613 065 73 Total - 257
Annex 2
Application number of the "One-for-One Replacement" Scheme From March to September 2018
Number of Number of Year 2018 "One-for-One Replacement" "One-for-One Replacement" scheme applications received scheme applications approved March 11 11 April 28 27 May 13 14 June 28 24 July 12 13 August 41 33 September 44 47 Total 177* 169*
Note:
* Two applications were rejected as application requirements were not fulfilled; Six applications are currently under approval.
364 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
Annex 3
Numbers and Estimated Numbers of Registered PCs that Satisfied Specific Criteria As at 31 March 2018
Having been first registered for six years or more Its owner having owned Its owner having owned
the PC for three years or the PC for one year or more without interruption more without interruption Number of PCs as at 186 498 270 769 31 March 2018 Estimated number of PCs 255 614 382 576 as at 31 March 2019 Estimated number of PCs 345 526 427 066 as at 31 March 2020 Estimated number of PCs 474 077 474 077 as at 31 March 2021
Note:
The above estimation is made assuming that there will be no change in the number of registered PCs (as at 31 March 2018) in the future three years.
Annex 4
Figures of Public EV Chargers (Provided for public use in both government and non-government car parks)
As at the end of September 2018
Number of Chargers District Standard Medium Quick Subtotal Central & Western 62 110 33 205 Eastern 28 63 48 139 Southern 4 11 24 39 Wan Chai 67 115 26 208 Kowloon City 64 1 19 84 Kwun Tong 214 41 41 296 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 365
Number of Chargers District Standard Medium Quick Subtotal Sham Shui Po 15 42 37 94 Wong Tai Sin 24 46 13 83 Yau Tsim Mong 101 42 50 193 Kwai Tsing 25 9 33 67 Tsuen Wan 17 46 9 72 Sai Kung 24 28 21 73 North 24 25 8 57 Tai Po 28 3 10 41 Sha Tin 77 44 50 171 Yuen Long 46 33 18 97 Tuen Mun 10 10 21 41 Islands 14 21 29 64 Total 844 690 490 2 024
Nurturing and import of information technology talents
16. MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Chinese): President, regarding the nurturing and import of information technology ("IT") talents, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the respective numbers of funding applications under (i) the Postdoctoral Hub Programme and (ii) the Reindustrialisation and Technology Training Programme, which are implemented under the Technology Talent Scheme, received and approved by the authorities since the Scheme was launched in August this year;
(2) of the number of companies involved in the approved applications under the Postdoctoral Hub Programme, and among such companies, the respective numbers of those which are (i) organizations funded by the Innovation and Technology Fund ("ITF"), and (ii) incubatees and innovation and technology tenants of the Hong Kong Science and Technology Parks Corporation/Hong Kong Cyberport Management Company Limited ("incubatees and IT tenants");
366 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
(3) of the types of courses and technology involved in the approved applications under the Reindustrialisation and Technology Training Programme, as well as the total amount of grants approved;
(4) of the respective numbers of applications for importing talents under the Technology Talent Admission Scheme ("TechTAS") received and approved by the authorities since TechTAS was launched in May this year; the utilization of quotas by organizations which have been granted quotas (including the number of quotas granted and the number of non-local talents employed); a breakdown of the number of such non-local talents by their nationalities, the regions in which the institutions awarding the relevant degrees to them were located, the number of years for which they have worked in the relevant technology areas, and their average monthly salaries upon arrival in Hong Kong; the number of companies whose applications were approved, and among them, the respective numbers of those which are (i) ITF-funded organizations, and (ii) incubatees and IT tenants; a breakdown of the number of such companies by business type (i.e. biotechnology, artificial intelligence, cyber security, robotics, data analytics, financial technologies and material science) and by the quota granted (i.e. 1 to 5, 6 to 10, 11 to 20, 21 to 50 and more than 50 persons);
(5) given that the 11 professions covered by the first Talent List promulgated by the authorities in August this year include (i) experienced data scientists and experienced cyber security specialists and (ii) innovation and technology experts, and that under the General Points Test of the Quality Migrant Admission Scheme, bonus marks will be given to applicants who meet the specifications of the respective professions under the Talent List, of the respective up-to-date numbers of persons who have been assessed as meeting the specifications of the two professions;
(6) of the channels through which the various aforesaid subsidy, training and talents admission schemes are publicized and promoted by the authorities, as well as the relevant details;
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 367
(7) regarding the talents in specific IT areas who are in short supply in Hong Kong, whether the authorities will draw reference from the practices of governments of overseas countries, such as the implementation of a Capability Transfer Programme by the Singapore Government, and employ foreign specialists to transfer professional knowledge and technical skills to local staff; and
(8) whether the authorities will discuss with universities and relevant organizations with a view to organizing more IT courses which are recognized by the Qualifications Framework, providing tuition fee subsidies and internship opportunities for students, as well as offering continuing education scholarships and professional certifications for graduates?
SECRETARY FOR INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY (in Chinese): President, the required information is as follows:
(1) As of 15 October 2018, the Postdoctoral Hub Programme has received 189 applications, of which 165 applications have been approved and the remaining ones are being processed. The Reindustrialisation and Technology Training Programme ("RTTP") has received 43 training grant applications, of which 34 have been approved, involving 62 trainees. The remaining applications are being processed.
(2) As of 15 October 2018, the applications approved under the Postdoctoral Hub programme involve 14 organizations (including two private companies) with R&D projects funded by ITF and 18 incubatees/innovation and technology ("I&T") tenants of the Hong Kong Science and Technology Parks Corporation ("HKSTPC") and Cyberport.
(3) As of 15 October 2018, RTTP has approved 34 training grant applications, which involve 11 registered public courses and different technology areas such as Industry 4.0 related technologies, information technology ("IT"), textile and clothing, biomedical and health care, automobile technology and environmental technology. The total funding amounts to some $0.68 million.
368 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
(4) Under the Innovation and Technology Commission ("ITC")'s TechTAS, the technology companies/institutes applying for quotas to admit overseas and Mainland technology talent to undertake R&D work in Hong Kong must be tenants or incubatees of HKSTPC or Cyberport. In addition, they must be engaged in the seven specified technology areas (i.e. biotechnology, artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, robotics, data analytics, financial technologies or material science).
Since its launch on 25 June till 15 October 2018, TechTAS has received 156 quota applications. ITC has approved a total of 139 quotas for 19 technology companies/institutes. Their business areas and number of quotas being awarded are listed below:
Number of Quotas allotted 0-5 6-10 11-20 21-50 Above 50 Business Area Biotechnology 1 1 0 0 0 Artificial Intelligence 5 0 2 1 0 Cybersecurity 3 0 2 0 0 Robotics 1 0 1 0 0 Data Analytics 6 0 2 0 0 Financial Technologies 5 1 1 1 0 Material Science 2 1 0 0 0
Note:
Figures may not add up to the total number of technology companies/institutes with quotas allotted, since each technology company/institute may engage in more than one business areas.
We do not keep information on whether the companies/institutes allotted with quota(s) have received funding from ITF.
Many technology companies/institutes allotted with quota(s) have made use of the quotas for application to the Immigration Department ("ImmD") for employment visa/entry permit for their non-local technology talent. As of 15 October 2018, ImmD has approved 12 applications. Based on the information provided by ImmD, details of the non-local persons approved for entry under TechTAS by regions, locations of degree-awarding institution (for their highest qualification) and monthly remuneration are listed below:
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 369
Number of non-local persons Region approved for entry under TechTAS Mainland China 7 Asia 4 Australia 1
Location of the Number of non-local persons Degree-Awarding Institution approved for entry under (for the highest qualification) TechTAS Mainland China 6 Asia 3 Australia 2 Europe 1
Number of non-local persons Monthly Remuneration (HK$) approved for entry under TechTAS $20,000-39,999 3 $40,000-79,999 6 $80,000 or above 3
ImmD does not keep information on the number of years of work experience of the concerned non-local persons in relevant technology areas.
(5) To complement the Talent List of Hong Kong promulgated by the Labour and Welfare Bureau, ImmD's Quality Migrant Admission Scheme ("QMAS") has since 28 August 2018 provided immigration facilitation to eligible applicants. Applicants who meet the specifications of the respective professions under the Talent List , will be awarded 30 bonus points under the General Points Test of QMAS, subject to documentary proof. As of 30 September 2018, ImmD has received 7 applications that claimed to meet the requirements for Data Scientists and Cyber Security Specialists, and 18 applications that claimed to meet the requirements for Innovation & Technology Experts under the Talent List. The applications are being processed.
370 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
(6) The Government is committed to promoting QMAS and other talent admission schemes. The Government launched a new Announcement in the Public Interest ("API") for QMAS in 20 December 2017, which is broadcast in major television stations, major control points and offices of the HKSAR Government outside Hong Kong. The relevant API has also been uploaded to the Youtube Channel and Facebook of ImmD and Information Services Department to strengthen the publicity.
In addition, the Government attaches great importance to overseas publicity, including commissioning overseas publicity visits and strengthening the promotion through the economic and trade offices outside Hong Kong, Invest Hong Kong, the Trade Development Council and relevant organizations with a view to attracting talent to come to Hong Kong for development. After launching TechTAS, we have promoted and introduced details of the scheme through different channels such as press releases, websites and online social media. We have also issued emails or letters to eligible organizations inviting them to participate in the scheme. Furthermore, we have been organizing and participating in briefing sessions to introduce details of the scheme to industrial and trade organizations, universities, training bodies and incubatees/I&T tenants of HKSTPC and Cyberport.
To promote TechTAS, ITC, HKSTPC and Cyberport have disseminated relevant information via their respective websites. In addition, ITC and ImmD have held several briefing sessions at the Science Park and Cyberport, attracting over 300 participants. HKSTPC has, through its one-stop business support centre "TecONE", provided consultancy services relating to TechTAS for technology companies/institutes. Cyberport has publicized TechTAS via its e-newsletter, in addition to offering advisory services and briefings on the scheme to individual interested companies/organizations.
(7) Having regard to the latest development of the IT sector, we have included experienced Data Scientists and Cyber Security Specialists in the Talent List of Hong Kong promulgated recently to attract more international technology talents to come to Hong Kong. To address LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 371
the practical business needs of the industry, the Talent List will be updated from time to time to ensure that the relevant measures match the industry's demand for IT talents.
(8) Over the years, the Government has been encouraging the universities and other local course providers to apply for and organize IT programmes recognized under the Qualifications Framework having regard to the latest market situation and demand. For example, the Vocational Training Council launched the Higher Diploma in Data Science and Analytics in 2017 and the Higher Diploma in Financial Technology in 2018. The relevant programmes are listed on the Qualifications Register ("QR").
In addition, a series of enhancement measures for the Continuing Education Fund ("CEF") will be implemented with effect from 1 April 2019. These include doubling the subsidy ceiling to $20,000 per applicant and expanding the scope of CEF courses to all eligible courses registered on QR. QR now covers 14 areas of study and training including "Computer Science and Information Technology".
Public works projects on public hospitals
17. DR KWOK KA-KI (in Chinese): President, regarding public works projects for the construction, expansion and redevelopment of public hospitals, will the Government inform this Council of:
(1) the following information on each of the projects completed in the past five years (set out in a table according to the date on which funding approval was granted by the Finance Committee ("FC") of this Council):
(i) the name of the project,
(ii) the date on which funding approval was granted,
(iii) the amount of approved funding for the advance works,
372 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
(iv) the consultancy fees for conducting advance works study,
(v) the name(s) of the consultant(s) responsible for carrying out the advance works study,
(vi) the commencement date of the works,
(vii) the completion date of the works,
(viii) the name(s) of the works consultant(s),
(ix) the name(s) of the works contractor(s),
(x) the initial cost estimate, and
(xi) the actual cost;
(2) the following information on each of the projects intended to be submitted to FC in the coming year (set out in a table according to the date on which funding application is intended to be submitted):
(i) the name of the project,
(ii) the date on which funding application is intended to be submitted,
(iii) the amount of funding to be sought for the advance works,
(iv) the name(s) of the consultant(s) responsible for carrying out the advance works study,
(v) the anticipated commencement date of the works,
(vi) the anticipated completion date of the works, and
(vii) the cost estimate; and
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 373
(3) the tendering procedures for such type of works projects; the specific criteria adopted for selecting consultants and contractors, and whether such criteria include the past performance of the relevant companies (e.g. whether the projects in which they participated experienced cost overruns or delay); whether it will consider drawing up a blacklist of consultants and contractors or setting up a demerit point system in this respect; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Chinese): President, my reply to the various parts of the question raised by Dr KWOK Ka-ki is as follows:
(1) Projects with construction works completed from the financial years of 2013-2014 to 2017-2018 are listed in the Annex.
(2) The hospital works projects, which are anticipated to be submitted to the Finance Committee ("FC") of Legislative Council for approval in the 2018-2019 Legislative Council session include the redevelopment of Kwai Chung Hospital (phases 2 and 3), the preparatory works for the expansion of Lai King Building in Princess Margaret Hospital, the preparatory works for the expansion of North District Hospital and the demolition and foundation works for the redevelopment of Prince of Wales Hospital, phase 2 (stage 1). These projects are still under planning. Upon completion of the planning work, we will submit the funding applications for the works projects to the Panel on Health Services, Public Works Subcommittee and the FC of Legislative Council and provide the anticipated commencement and completion dates, as well as the cost estimates of the works projects to the Legislative Council Members.
(3) The Hospital Authority ("HA") and Architectural Services Department ("ArchSD") select consultants and contractors for their works projects based on the Government's procurement mechanism for public works projects and in accordance with the principles of openness, fairness and impartiality, conforming to the Agreement on Government Procurement of the World Trade Organization and the procurement regulations promulgated by the Government.
For consultancy agreements, HA and ArchSD publish tender notices on their websites and invite relevant consultants in the market to make expression of interest submissions. After a shortlisting 374 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
process, suitable consultants will be invited to submit detailed proposals to bid for consultancy agreements. In the process of assessment, HA and ArchSD will consider their technical approach, expertise, manpower input, past performance and bid prices for the contracts to ensure that the most cost-effective tender is selected.
For works contracts, HA and ArchSD normally only invite contractors who are on the List of Approved Contractors for Public Works or the List of Approved Suppliers of Materials and Specialist Contractors for Public Works to submit tenders, and publish tender notices on their websites.
To select the best value-for-money tender, HA and ArchSD adopt the Development Bureau's "Formula Approach" or "Marking Scheme" in tender evaluation. The tender evaluation takes into account the tender prices, returned tender proposals and the past performance of the tenderers in the works contracts to calculate an overall score for each tender according to the established criteria.
Normally, the tender with the highest overall score will be recommended for acceptance. However, the tenderer is subject to financial checking to ensure that the tenderer is financially capable of fulfilling the contract requirements. Besides, tenders with unreasonably low prices will not be recommended.
After tender evaluation, HA and ArchSD will submit a tender report to the relevant tender board for consideration of acceptance of tenders.
For details of the procedures for tender invitation and evaluation for works contracts and consultancy agreements, please refer to the following documents which have been uploaded to the websites of the Development Bureau and the relevant government departments:
(1) The Development Bureau Technical Circular (Works) No. 4/2014 and 4/2014A "Tender Evaluation Methods for Works Contracts"
(2) Engineering and Associated Consultants Selection Board Handbook
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 375
(3) Architectural and Associated Consultants Selection Board Handbook
HA and ArchSD will monitor and evaluate the contractors' performance throughout the construction period. The performance reports cover various aspects, including works progress and whether there are works delays or claims from the contractors. Should the contractor perform unsatisfactorily, regulating actions (such as mandatory suspension from tendering, downgrading or even removal of the contractor from the relevant Approved Lists) may be considered. In addition, the ratings given to a contractor in his performance report will affect his performance rating, and directly affect his chance of securing tenders in future.
As for consultancy agreements, HA will evaluate the performance of consultants at quarterly intervals, having regard to considerations including whether the agreements concerned have involved additional expenditures and whether the consultants have failed to meet target completion dates. Under the current system, a consultant's past performance is also a selection criteria.
Annex
Projects with Construction Works Completed from Financial Years 2013-2014 to 2017-2018
Approved Consultants' Finance Estimate Name of Approved Fee for Works Works Final Committee for Consultants Name of Name of Project Project Title Advance Start Completion Outturn Approval Advance for Advance Consultant Contractor Estimate Works Date Date ($ million) Date Works Works ($ million) ($ million) ($million) Expansion of 8/7/2008 Not Not Not February November CS Toh & Hip 1,944.9 1,527.3* Tseung Kwan Applicable Applicable Applicable 2009 2013 Sons & Hing―Chun O Hospital Associates Wo Joint (8003MR) Ltd. Venture Redevelopment 13/5/2011 20.7 17.5 Llewelyn- June April Llewelyn- China Road 590.5 573.1* of Yan Chai Davies 2011 2016 Davies and Bridge Hospital Hong Kong Hong Kong Corporation (8005MF) Ltd. Ltd. Wanson Widnell Ltd. Currie & Construction Brown Company (China) Ltd Ltd. (formerly Widnell Ltd.) 376 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
Approved Consultants' Finance Estimate Name of Approved Fee for Works Works Final Committee for Consultants Name of Name of Project Project Title Advance Start Completion Outturn Approval Advance for Advance Consultant Contractor Estimate Works Date Date ($ million) Date Works Works ($ million) ($ million) ($million) Redevelopment 24/6/2011 57.4 55.6 Wong & June October Wong & Vibro HK 1,719.6 1,598.7* of Caritas Ouyang 2009 2015 Ouyang Ltd. Medical (HK) Ltd. (HK) Ltd. Centre, phase 2 Able (8008MA) Parsons Parsons Engineering Brinckerhoff Brinckerhoff Co. Ltd. (Asia) Ltd. (Asia) Ltd. UniStress Meinhardt Meinhardt Building (C&S) Ltd. (C&S) Ltd. Construction Ltd. Davis Davis Langdon & Langdon & Seah HK Seah HK Ltd. Ltd. Tin Shui Wai 8/2/2013 Not Not Not February July CS Toh & Leighton― 3,910.9 -# Hospital Applicable Applicable Applicable 2013 2016 Sons & Able Joint (8073MM) Associates Venture Ltd.
Mott MacDonald Hong Kong Ltd. Reprovisioning 21/6/2013 Not Not Not July August Currie & Yau Lee 1,891.6 1,506.9* of Yaumatei Applicable Applicable Applicable 2013 2016 Brown Cosntruction Specialist (China) Ltd. Company Clinic at Queen Ltd. Elizabeth Hospital (8071MM) Establishment 21/6/2013 Not Not Not August September Rider Levett China 12,985.5 -# of the Centre of Applicable Applicable Applicable 2013 2017 Bucknall State―Shui Excellence in Ltd. On Joint Paediatrics Venture (Hong Kong Children's Hospital) (8076MM) Ward 5/7/2013 Not Not Not July December LC China Road 45.1 40.0 Renovation in Applicable Applicable Applicable 2013 2014 Surveyors and Bridge Kwai Chung Ltd. Corporation Hospital (8078MM) Redevelopment 12/7/2014 Not Not Not July March Aedas Ltd Penta-Ocean 1,592.8 1,487.9* of Queen Mary Applicable Applicable Applicable 2014 2017 Construction Hospital, Rider Levett Company phase 1― Bucknall Ltd. preparatory Ltd. works (8084MM) LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 377
Approved Consultants' Finance Estimate Name of Approved Fee for Works Works Final Committee for Consultants Name of Name of Project Project Title Advance Start Completion Outturn Approval Advance for Advance Consultant Contractor Estimate Works Date Date ($ million) Date Works Works ($ million) ($ million) ($million) Extension of 22/4/2016 Not Not Not May March Architecture Paul Y. 167.2 118.7* Operating Applicable Applicable Applicable 2016 2018 Design and Construction Theatre Block Research & for Tuen Mun Group Ltd. Engineering Hospital― Company substructure Rider Levett Ltd. and utilities Bucknall diversion Ltd. works (3090MM) Redevelopment 29/4/2016 Not Not Not May July For For 750.8 700.8* of Kwai Chung Applicable Applicable Applicable 2016 2018 Decantation Decantation Hospital, Building: Building: phase 1 Arcadis HK Chun Wo (3089MM) Ltd. Construction & For Engineering Renovation Company Works: Ltd. Leigh & Orange Ltd. For Renovation WT Works: New Partnership City (HK) Ltd. Construction Company Ltd.
Notes:
* Estimated final account value, with the actual outturn subject to finalization of final account.
# Final account has not yet been settled pending contractor's agreement.
Regulation of lion, dragon and unicorn dances
18. MS ALICE MAK (in Chinese): President, under section 4C of the Summary Offences Ordinance (Cap. 228), any person who organizes or participates in a lion dance, dragon dance or unicorn dance, or any attendant martial arts display ("dragon and lion dance sports") in a public place is guilty of an offence, unless the person has been issued with a permit by the Commissioner of Police. Some members of the public have relayed to me that the application procedure for the permit is very cumbersome (e.g. applications must be accompanied by a photocopy of the Hong Kong Identity Card ("HKIC") of the organizer as well as each participant and other relevant documents, and applications have to be made at least 14 days prior to the date of the event), which causes inconvenience to the applicants and creates a negative labelling 378 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 effect that dragon and lion dance sports are undesirable activities, thereby obstructing the popularization and development of such sports. Regarding the regulation of the dragon and lion dance sports, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the number of applications for permits received and approved by the Police in the past three years, and the average processing time for each approved application;
(2) whether it will consider setting up a counter dedicated for permit application in each divisional police station;
(3) whether it will relax the requirement that applications must be accompanied by a photocopy of HKIC of each participant;
(4) whether it will consider streamlining the application procedure for permits, accepting applications through electronic means and completing the vetting and approval of the applications within one day after receipt; and
(5) whether it will relax the regulation of dragon and lion dance sports, with a view to eliminating the negative labelling effect created on the sports; if so, of the details and the timetable; if not, the reasons for that?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Chinese): President, section 4C of the Summary Offences Ordinance (Cap. 228) stipulates that any person who organizes or participates in a lion dance, dragon dance, unicorn dance (hereinafter referred to as "lion dance"), or any attendant martial arts display in a public place, save for persons exempted by the Commissioner of Police ("CP"), shall be subject to the conditions of the permit issued by CP. The purpose of such a policy is to prevent the involvement of lawbreakers in these activities and to ensure that such activities will not cause public disorder, including traffic congestion, noise nuisance or other inconvenience to the public, or affect public safety. For scrutiny of the applications, the Police require all applicants and participants of such activities to authorize the Police to check their criminal conviction records.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 379
The Police give thorough considerations to each and every application. The Police may grant exemption for appropriate activities having regard to the participants and arrangement of each activity. In case the applicant or participants of an activity are found to have criminal conviction records, the Police shall, taking into account the nature and gravity of their convictions, consider whether the purpose of such activity is to be used to undertake illegal activities. Persons with criminal conviction records are not automatically banned from taking part in these activities. Upon scrutiny, the Police shall reject applications which are considered to be adversely affecting public order or public safety, or suspected to be related to illegal activities.
My reply to Ms Alice MAK's question is as follows:
(1) As at August 2018, the figures on the applications for lion dance permit received by the Police are as follows:
Number of Number of Number of Year applications exemptions permits issued for permits granted 2015 2 473 2 461 12 2016(1) 2 340 2 332 7 2017(2) 2 355 2 349 5 2018 2 124 2 119 5 (January to August)
Notes:
(1) One application was rejected since the location of the activity and the arrangement of the performance would affect traffic safety.
(2) The applicant of one application withdrew his application afterwards.
At present, the Police's Performance Pledge sets out that the processing time for lion dance permit applications is 14 days. In case an application is submitted less than 14 days before the activities with reasonable grounds, the Police will also process the application as far as practicable to facilitate the applicant in organizing the activity. The Police do not maintain information on the processing time for permit applications.
380 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
(2) to (5)
Currently, lion dance permit applications are mainly processed by dedicated Licensing Office Sub-Units or Miscellaneous Enquiries Sub-Units of various police districts, depending on the venue of the activity. Applications involving more than one police district or region will be processed by regional formations or the Police Licensing Office respectively.
Unless applications for permits are exempted by the Police, applicants of lion dance permits and participants of such activities must submit information on the activities to the Police and authorize the Police to check their criminal conviction records, so that the Police may assess whether the activities involve lawbreakers and whether they would affect public order or public safety.
The Police regularly review the existing mechanism and continue to maintain close liaison with the sector to refine the application procedures for lion dance permits. To expedite the procedures for approving applications for exemption, since September this year, the Police have extended the power to approve exemptions from the Police Licensing Office to regional and district commanders, and advised the frontline districts and regions to consider approving exemptions for appropriate activities to simplify the application procedures. In addition, the Police are proactively examining the feasibility of allowing submission of lion dance permit applications and uploading of the necessary documents through electronic means, so as to save the time needed for applicants to submit applications in person at police stations. Depending on the progress of system development, the online application system is expected to commence operation in 2020.
It is necessary for the Police to ensure that public order is not disturbed and that public safety is not affected when lion dance activities are conducted in public places. The scrutiny of the information on the activities and participants will help ensure that the relevant activities will not be used by lawbreakers for illegal purposes. There is no intention on the part of the Government to impede the proper development of lion dance activities. Organizers of such activities are required to submit applications to the Police LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 381
only when their performances are to be held in public places. The Police will consider granting exemptions to facilitate the applicants if they are satisfied that the lion dance activities do not involve any lawbreakers and will not jeopardize public order and public safety.
Assisting owners' organizations in inviting tenders for consultancy, cleaning and security services
19. MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Chinese): President, in May 2016, the Urban Renewal Authority launched the "Smart Tender" Building Rehabilitation Facilitating Services to strengthen the technical assistance and professional advice provided to property owners in respect of carrying out building repair and maintenance works. Smart Tender provides owners' organizations with a DIY tool-kit with guidance on arranging building rehabilitation, arranges independent professionals to provide technical advice and a market estimate on the cost of works, and has put in place an electronic tendering platform to engage contractors, so that owners may make appropriate decisions in arranging building rehabilitation works. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) as the Secretary for Development indicated in October last year that the authorities would consider expanding the functions of the Smart Tender electronic tendering platform so that owners' organizations might engage consultants through the platform, of the progress of such work; and
(2) as the media have uncovered in recent years that bid-rigging was suspected to have been involved in the tender exercises for cleaning services of certain housing estates, whether the authorities will consider providing owners' organizations with services similar to those of Smart Tender in respect of cleaning and security services; if so, of the details (including the government department/public organization responsible and the implementation timetable); if not, the reasons for that?
SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Chinese): President, in consultation with the Urban Renewal Authority ("URA") and the Home Affairs Bureau which is responsible for building management policy, the Development Bureau provides a consolidated reply as follows:
382 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
(1) To assist owners to engage consultants for their building repair and maintenance works through the electronic tendering ("e-tendering") platform under "Smart Tender", URA is arranging interested and qualified consultancy firms to register under the e-tendering platform and plans to implement the initiative from early 2019 onwards.
(2) Bid-rigging involves complicated issues. Currently, various government departments and organizations have been adopting a multi-pronged approach to provide support to owners, with a view to preventing and combating the problem of bid-rigging.
Separately, the Government has been providing a legal framework through the Building Management Ordinance (Cap. 344) ("BMO") to assist owners in discharging their responsibilities on building management effectively. To ensure that BMO keeps pace with societal changes, the Home Affairs Department ("HAD") under the Home Affairs Bureau has reviewed BMO and will introduce amendments on various aspects, including procurement of large-scale maintenance projects. Although the proposed amendments to BMO cannot solve the problem of bid-rigging and the associated crimes at source, the relevant amendments seek to enhance owners' participation and transparency and accountability in building management, with a view to raising owners' awareness and better protecting their interests.
Meanwhile, HAD has also enhanced support to owners' corporations and owners in discharging their responsibilities on building management. For example, HAD has launched the Central Platform on Building Management in September 2018, under which one-stop briefings on building management and maintenance are organized regularly. At each briefing, representatives from relevant government departments and organizations will provide information and introduce their services and schemes on building management and maintenance. The Government has been providing assistance through various means to owners in properly managing their buildings. The Government will keep under review the existing services for building owners and introduce new support services as appropriate.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 383
Handling of sexual harassment cases in schools
20. MRS REGINA IP (in Chinese): President, in January 2009, the Education Bureau ("EDB") issued a circular to schools on the amendments to the Sex Discrimination Ordinance (Cap. 480), urging schools to adopt reasonably practicable measures, including developing a school policy (in written form) to eliminate sexual harassment as well as setting up a mechanism for handling sexual harassment complaints, and encouraging schools to make reference to the Framework for Sexual Harassment Policies in Schools prepared by the Equal Opportunities Commission. Moreover, EDB has issued and updates from time to time the circulars to schools on the handling and prevention by schools of cases of students being sexually abused. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) given that the current guidelines issued by EDB on handling and preventing sexual harassment in schools does not cover the handling of complaints about staff members being sexually harassed, whether EDB will consider reviewing and updating the relevant guidelines to ensure that all individuals in schools (including all students and staff members) are able to study or work in a safe environment which is free from sexual harassment; if EDB will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
(2) given that EDB leaves it for the schools to develop their own mechanism for handling sexual harassment complaints, of the measures put in place by EDB to ensure that schools investigate and handle sexual harassment complaints in a fair manner in accordance with their school-based policy on preventing sexual harassment; and
(3) of the number of reports received by EDB in the past five years on mishandling by schools or school sponsoring bodies of sexual harassment complaints in schools; the procedure adopted by EDB for dealing with such cases, as well as the relevant investigation outcome and follow-up actions?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION (in Chinese): President, the Education Bureau has all along been committed to assisting schools in creating a safe and sexual-harassment-free environment for staff members to work and students to study. My reply to the various parts of the question raised by Mrs Regina IP about sexual harassment in schools is as follows:
384 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
(1) The Education Bureau has been adopting various measures, by means of circulars, training courses for principals and briefing sessions for staff members, etc., to request schools to establish a sexually hostile-free environment in schools. The Education Bureau has pointed out clearly in the relevant circular that schools have the responsibility to ensure that all individuals, including students and staff members, are able to study or work in a safe and sexually hostile-free environment. Schools should also take reasonably practicable measures, including developing a school policy (in written form) to eliminate sexual harassment, raising the understanding and awareness of both staff and students about sexual harassment and setting up a relevant mechanism to handle sexual harassment complaints, including complaints about staff members being sexually harassed. Besides, in collaboration with the Equal Opportunities Commission ("EOC"), the Education Bureau has also provided schools with clear guidelines on the handling of sexual harassment complaints, which are updated in a timely manner as and when necessary. Drawn up by EOC in 2009, the Framework for Sexual Harassment Policies in Schools ("the Framework"), which was updated and uploaded onto the Education Bureau web page on Prevention of Sexual Harassment in Schools in July and November 2013, sets out clearly the principles, mechanism and time frame, etc., for handling sexual harassment complaints in schools. The Education Bureau has also made available on the web page clear guidelines about the procedures and points to note for handling such complaints by schools. These guidelines have all along been applicable to handling complaints about staff members being sexually harassed. The Education Bureau will maintain communication with EOC, review the guidelines in the Framework when necessary and provide assistance to schools as needed.
(2) Under the spirit of school-based management, the Education Ordinance has entrusted the School Management Committees/Incorporated Management Committees with the power and responsibility to manage schools. Therefore, schools should collaborate with their school sponsoring bodies ("SSBs") to formulate school-based mechanisms and procedures for handling LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 385
school affairs, including the handling of school-related complaints. If a complainant considers his/her sexual harassment case is not properly handled by the school or SSB concerned, he/she may lodge a complaint with or seek advice from EOC directly, or seek assistance from the respective District School Development Section of the Education Bureau. After receiving the complaint, the Education Bureau will, based on the established mechanism and taking into account factors such as the subject of the complaint and the conflict of interest/roles, etc., decide the appropriate follow-up procedures. If the case can be handled by staff of a higher rank in school or designated staff of SSB/task force, the Education Bureau will refer the case to the school or SSB concerned for further action according to its school-based mechanism. Under special circumstances, for example, a complaint of a serious nature or involving serious mismanagement by the school, the Education Bureau will intervene and conduct investigation on whether the school's Prevention of Sexual Harassment Policy is in order and whether the school has properly handled the suspected sexual harassment case.
(3) Upon receipt of reports on suspected improper handling of sexual harassment complaints by schools, the Education Bureau will follow them up according to the established mechanism as set out in part (2) above. Regarding substantiated cases, depending on the actual circumstances and the severity of individual cases, the Education Bureau will provide appropriate advice or issue warning letters to the school management, demanding the schools concerned to revisit their complaint handling processes and procedures to ensure that the complaints could be handled in a fair and just manner. In the past five years from 2013 to 2017, the Education Bureau received a total of 12 such reports, of which 8 were found not substantiated, 1 substantiated and 1 partially substantiated after investigation, while 2 are still under investigation. The two schools involved in the substantiated cases have revisited their handling processes and procedures in handling complaints relating to sexual harassment in schools according to the advice of the Education Bureau.
386 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
Real estate investments under the Long-term Growth Portfolio of the Exchange Fund
21. MR AU NOK-HIN (in Chinese): President, since 2009, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority has drawn on some of the Exchange Fund's assets to make investments under the Long-term Growth Portfolio ("LTGP"). In this connection, will the Government inform this Council of the current (i) total number of units and (ii) total market value of the buildings involved in the assets under LTGP that fall within the asset class of "real estate", with a breakdown by the location and type of real estates (set out in the table below):
Type of real estates Residential Office/ Industrial Location of Total unit/service commercial building/ Hotel Shop Others real estates apartment building industrial land (i) (ii) (i) (ii) (i) (ii) (i) (ii) (i) (ii) (i) (ii) (i) (ii) Hong Kong Mainland China Other regions in Asia Europe Americas Africa
FINANCIAL SECRETARY (in Chinese): President, to better manage risks and enhance returns in the medium and long term, the Hong Kong Monetary Authority ("HKMA") has been diversifying part of the investment of the Exchange Fund ("EF"), in a prudent and incremental manner, into a greater variety of asset classes, including real estate. As of end December 2017, the market value of real estate investment in the Long-term Growth Portfolio ("LTGP") amounted to HK$78.4 billion, covering various regions and sectors.
According to HKMA, given EF's statutory purposes are to maintain the stability and integrity of the monetary and financial systems of Hong Kong, its investment mainly focuses on overseas financial and real assets. Apart from addressing emergency and strategic needs (e.g. the acquisition of Hong Kong LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 387 equities in the Hong Kong stock market in 1998 in response to the Asian financial crisis, and the purchase of HKMA's office premises), EF has no investment in Hong Kong real estate and stock market.
On overseas real estate, LTGP predominantly invests in traditional and mature markets, including North America and Western Europe, and has started diversifying into Asian markets in recent years. Investment channels include direct acquisition of prime properties in major overseas cities and investment in real estate funds. Assets cover office, retail and logistics sectors.
Noting the potential market sensitivities pertaining to the investment of EF, it would be inappropriate for HKMA to disclose specific details thereof.
Primary One places
22. MR IP KIN-YUEN (in Chinese): President, regarding the impacts of the decline in the population of school-aged Primary One ("P1") students as well as the supply of and demand for P1 places on schools, will the Government inform this Council:
(1) of the annual numbers of students applying for P1 discretionary places in the last, current and next school years, and the percentages of such numbers in the populations of school-aged P1 students in the territory, with a tabulated breakdown by school district and school net;
(2) of the respective annual actual/provisional numbers of P1 places and classes provided/to be provided by (i) government, (ii) aided, (iii) Direct Subsidy Scheme and (iv) private schools in the last, current, and next school years, with a tabulated breakdown by school district and school net; the criteria adopted by the Education Bureau ("EDB") for determining the provisional number of P1 classes in the next school year;
(3) as the population of school-aged P1 students will decline continuously from the next school year onwards, of the impacts of such a situation on schools in the next school year as projected by 388 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
EDB, including the respective numbers of (i) classes and (ii) teaching posts which need to be cut; the measures to be taken by EDB to alleviate such impacts, and whether such measures will include lowering the threshold for operating P1 classes and comprehensively implementing small class teaching; and
(4) given that quite a number of schools operated additional primary classes (i.e. the so-called "partly-enlarged class structure") over the past few years in response to the shortage of primary places at various grades, and as the students of such classes will graduate from the next school year onwards, these schools will have a decline in the total number of classes and thus surplus teachers, of (i) the number of schools which will cut their number of classes, (ii) the total number of classes to be cut, and (iii) the total number of teaching posts which need to be cut, in each of the next five years as projected by EDB (with a tabulated breakdown by school district and school net)?
SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION (in Chinese): President, the Primary One Admission ("POA") System, which is school net-based, is divided into two stages: Discretionary Places ("DP") and Central Allocation ("CA"). During the DP stage, parents may apply to any public sector primary schools without restriction on districts. Children who cannot secure a discretionary school place may participate in CA which also comprises two parts, namely unrestricted school choices and restricted school choices. For applicant children residing in Hong Kong, their school nets are determined by their residential address. Certain school nets may cover different districts.
My reply to the question raised by Mr IP Kin-yuen is as follows:
(1) The respective numbers of children who applied for a public sector Primary One ("P1") place at the DP stage of POA 2017 and 2018 (i.e. for admission to P1 in 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 school years respectively) are 57 823 and 58 965, both of which were around 90% of the P1 school-age population (i.e. aged six population who are residing in Hong Kong). A total of 55 880 and 56 648 children participated in and were allocated P1 places in POA 2017 and 2018 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 389
respectively. A breakdown of successful applicant children by school net and allocation stage (i.e. DP and CA stages) is tabulated at Annex 1.
The relevant figures for POA 2019 are not available as information on the applicant children at the DP stage is still being collated.
(2) According to the annual Student Enrolment Survey, the number of operating P1 classes and places by district and school type for the 2017-2018 school year is tabulated at Annex 2. Information collected from the Student Enrolment Survey of the 2018-2019 school year is being collated. The number of approved P1 classes of public sector primary schools by district for the 2018-2019 school year is set out at Annex 3 and the provisional number of P1 classes of public sector primary schools for the 2019-2020 school year will not be available until March 2019.
To optimize the use of public resources, the Education Bureau has established the criteria for operation of classes since the implementation of the POA System. In accordance with the principle of fairness, the criteria are applicable to all schools participating in the system. The Education Bureau has, where circumstances permit, implemented small class teaching in public sector primary schools by phases starting from P1 since the 2009-2010 school year. Since P1 places of small class teaching schools are planned on the basis of 25 students per class under POA, the threshold for operation of a P1 class has been lowered to 16 students. The number of P1 classes to be operated by public sector schools in a given school net in each school year is determined by factors such as the projected demand for P1 places, the number of classrooms available, the class structure and parental choices, etc. Upon completion of registration of successful DP applicant children in early December every year, the Education Bureau works out the "provisional number of places for CA" for each school based on the number of remaining applicant children anticipated to participate in CA and the situation of individual schools (such as availability of classrooms) to prepare for CA. Under the existing mechanism, a school going to have an intake of less than 16 students may not be 390 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
allowed to operate a P1 class if there are still unfilled P1 places in other schools of the same school net. In such circumstances, the Education Bureau will take into account special factors, such as whether the school is located in a remote area where there is no appropriate alternative school, to determine whether there is a need to operate a P1 class in that school. In addition, the Education Bureau confirms the number of approved classes of each aided school by verifying their actual student enrolment every September.
(3) and (4)
According to the current projections of P1 school-age population, the overall demand for P1 places is expected to reach the peak in the 2018-2019 school year, and drop significantly in the 2019-2020 school year and then progress to a stable level. Since the P1 enrolment has been increasing in the past few years, it is expected that the overall number of primary students, operating classes and teaching posts on establishment of public sector primary schools will remain generally stable in the next few years. The projected primary school-age population for the 2018-2019 to 2023-2024 school years (i.e. aged 6 to 11 population who are residing in Hong Kong) is tabulated at Annex 4.
Over the past years, the Education Bureau has implemented flexible measures based on the consensus reached with the school sector to increase the provision of P1 places, which include borrowing school places from neighbouring school nets, using vacant classrooms to operate additional classes, operating time-limited schools in vacant school premises and temporarily allocating more students per P1 class, to meet the transient increase in demand and to mitigate the impact on schools when such demand subsides. With the drop of P1 school-age population, these flexible measures will be adjusted or withdrawn in light of the demand as planned. We believe that this will effectively alleviate the impact arising from the decrease in student population. It is noteworthy that the demand for school places in individual districts/school nets may be different from the overall situation. Based on current projections, it is expected that some districts/school nets may still have to continue with the flexible LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 391 measures mentioned above in the 2019-2020 school year to meet the transient demand. The Education Bureau will keep in view the situation of different districts and liaise closely with the schools concerned to ensure the provision of sufficient school places for all eligible applicant children under POA.
Following the decrease in P1 school-age population starting from the 2019-2020 school year, individual schools may be affected by the diminishing demand for school places in their respective districts and parental choices. Regarding the decrease in P1 school-age population, we have earlier had meetings with representatives of the Subsidised Primary Schools Council and the Hong Kong Aided Primary School Heads Association, and have reached consensus on the related follow-up actions and measures to address the concerns. Among them, the schools concerned can apply for retaining up to a maximum of three years redundant teachers arising from class reduction due to the decreasing P1 population who fail to secure a teaching post or be absorbed under the prevailing mechanism for handling redundant teachers. The Education Bureau will keep in view the matter and review timely. Besides, starting from P1 in the 2019-2020 school year, the threshold for approving classes will be reduced from 25 to 23 students per class if the number of classes in a school has to be reduced in light of the enrolment in the student headcount in mid-September, so as to enhance the stability of the number of approved classes and hence the regular teaching posts in schools.
In tandem, small class teaching has been implemented in public sector primary schools by phases where circumstances permit starting from P1 since the 2009-2010 school year (i.e. schools are allocated 25 students per class under the POA System for planning of school places). As at the 2018-2019 school year, almost 80% of public sector primary schools have already implemented small class teaching. With the decrease in overall projected demand for P1 places from the 2019-2020 school year, both the school sector and the Education Bureau consider that this will provide conditions for more schools to implement small class teaching. As such, the Education Bureau has issued letters to invite all schools which have 392 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
not yet implemented small class teaching to plan and make early preparation so that they can implement small class teaching as soon as practicable where the supply and demand of school places allow.
We will continue to maintain communication with the school sector and strive to provide a stable learning and teaching environment for schools.
Annex 1
Results of POA 2017
Number of students Number of students School Number of students allocated a P1 place allocated a P1 place net allocated a P1 place at DP stage at CA stage 11 502 872 1 374 12 332 988 1 320 14 580 811 1 391 16 856 855 1 711 18 631 561 1 192 31 421 665 1 086 32 401 646 1 047 34 719 1 113 1 832 35 381 632 1 013 40 1 070 1 684 2 754 41 181 796 977 43 587 401 988 45 703 765 1 468 46 491 561 1 052 48 1 444 1 934 3 378 62 1 075 1 352 2 427 64 449 463 912 65 684 713 1 397 66 578 619 1 197 70 964 1 120 2 084 71 702 911 1 613 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 393
Number of students Number of students School Number of students allocated a P1 place allocated a P1 place net allocated a P1 place at DP stage at CA stage 72 1 307 1 114 2 421 73 399 613 1 012 74 650 848 1 498 80 554 773 1 327 81 557 723 1 280 83 31 25 56 84 860 1 235 2 095 88 549 742 1 291 89 635 898 1 533 91 910 1 741 2 651 95 1 396 1 519 2 915 96 18 24 42 97 93 26 119 98 403 195 598 99 43 46 89 Total 22 156 28 984 51 140
Note:
Figures are calculated based on the school net of applicant children and not inclusive of the 4 740 cross-boundary students allocated a P1 place.
Results of POA 2018
Number of students Number of students School Number of students allocated a P1 place allocated a P1 place net allocated a P1 place at DP stage at CA stage 11 563 858 1 421 12 373 888 1 261 14 632 947 1 579 16 859 931 1 790 18 626 548 1 174 31 441 674 1 115 32 439 727 1 166 394 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
Number of students Number of students School Number of students allocated a P1 place allocated a P1 place net allocated a P1 place at DP stage at CA stage 34 770 1 235 2 005 35 398 612 1 010 40 1 116 1 666 2 782 41 205 773 978 43 548 440 988 45 733 762 1 495 46 580 667 1 247 48 1 534 1 839 3 373 62 1 095 1 368 2 463 64 464 491 955 65 707 796 1 503 66 616 670 1 286 70 1 009 1 190 2 199 71 722 876 1 598 72 1 395 1 222 2 617 73 452 601 1 053 74 690 865 1 555 80 542 706 1 248 81 576 706 1 282 83 39 32 71 84 939 1 346 2 285 88 610 802 1 412 89 693 952 1 645 91 1 011 1 703 2 714 95 1 421 1 616 3 037 96 18 23 41 97 88 44 132 98 423 320 743 99 36 62 98 Total 23 363 29 958 53 321
Note:
Figures are based on the school net of applicant children and not inclusive of the 3 327 cross-boundary students allocated a P1 place.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 395
Annex 2
Number of operating P1 classes and places by district and school type for the 2017-2018 school year
Direct Subsidy Government Aided Private International All Types Scheme District Operating Operating Operating Operating Operating Operating Places Places Places Places Places Places classes classes classes classes classes classes Central 4 110 49 1 325 0 0 16 599 11 211 80 2 245 and Western Wan 18 450 38 1 035 0 0 22 906 13 340 91 2 731 Chai Eastern 14 375 92 2 495 7 227 6 237 30 772 149 4 106 Southern 5 125 32 845 9 252 22 571 54 1 179 122 2 972 Yau 10 250 71 1 950 9 269 5 160 0 0 95 2 629 Tsim Mong Sham 13 429 72 2 343 10 292 28 1 032 14 308 137 4 404 Shui Po Kowloon 18 485 103 2 934 9 282 50 2 062 34 886 214 6 649 City Wong 4 100 103 2 620 0 0 14 493 0 0 121 3 213 Tai Sin Kwun 9 225 150 3 945 5 132 3 135 7 166 174 4 603 Tong Sai Kung 5 125 93 2 325 15 478 4 70 6 164 123 3 162 Sha Tin 5 125 172 4 968 10 325 12 298 5 150 204 5 866 Tai Po 4 132 74 2 442 0 0 4 128 14 387 96 3 089 North 7 196 109 3 255 0 0 0 0 0 0 116 3 451 Yuen 16 483 183 5 035 9 259 6 236 1 25 215 6 038 Long Tuen 4 100 150 4 015 4 132 1 45 4 88 163 4 380 Mun Tsuen 10 300 72 2 085 0 0 1 30 0 0 83 2 415 Wan Kwai 0 0 128 3 380 3 99 0 0 0 0 131 3 479 Tsing Islands 0 0 47 1 130 0 0 10 242 7 165 64 1 537 All 146 4 010 1 738 48 127 90 2 747 204 7 244 200 4 841 2 378 66 969 Districts
Notes:
(1) Figures do not include special schools. International schools include the English Schools Foundation schools.
(2) Figures refer to the position as at September 2017.
(3) Figures on places refer to the number of students that can be accommodated in operating classes (excluding vacant classrooms) in accordance with the planned class sizes as adopted by the schools concerned.
396 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
Annex 3
Number of approved P1 classes and places of public sector primary schools by district and school type for the 2018-2019 school year
All Public Sector Government Aided Schools District Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved Approved classes places classes places classes places Central and 4 120 47 1 410 51 1 530 Western Wan Chai 18 450 38 1 035 56 1 485 Eastern 14 390 93 2 754 107 3 144 Southern 6 150 32 845 38 995 Yau Tsim Mong 10 312 70 2 173 80 2 485 Sham Shui Po 13 416 73 2 336 86 2 752 Kowloon City 18 530 103 3 094 121 3 624 Wong Tai Sin 4 100 97 2 470 101 2 570 Kwun Tong 9 270 147 4 205 156 4 475 Sai Kung 5 125 95 2 375 100 2 500 Sha Tin 5 155 166 5 239 171 5 394 Tai Po 5 150 84 2 520 89 2 670 North 8 224 112 3 212 120 3 436 Yuen Long 16 476 182 5 042 198 5 518 Tuen Mun 4 112 143 4 042 147 4 154 Tsuen Wan 10 300 71 2 090 81 2 390 Kwai Tsing 0 0 126 3 380 126 3 380 Islands 0 0 48 1 225 48 1 225 All Districts 149 4 280 1 727 49 447 1 876 53 727
Notes:
(1) Since information on the number of operating classes is still being collected, figures in the above table only show the number of approved classes.
(2) Figures do not include special schools.
(3) Figures refer to the position as at September 2018.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 397
Annex 4
Projections of School-age Population Aged 6 to 11 Residing in Hong Kong for the 2018-2019 to 2023-2024 School Years
2018-2019 2019-2020 2020-2021 2021-2022 2022-2023 2023-2024 364 800 375 300 376 700 379 100 377 100 368 000
Notes:
(1) Figures in the above table are compiled with reference to the 2016-based Population Projections released by the Census and Statistics Department ("C&SD") in September 2017.
(2) School-age population aged 6 to 11 is considered appropriate for primary education (i.e. P1 to P6).
(3) Figures refer to the projected number of local children (i.e. Hong Kong usual residents) aged 6 to 11 residing in Hong Kong. The projected figures should not be taken as the projected number of students attending schools in Hong Kong. The latter would be affected by the prevailing distribution of school places, demand for school places and parental choices. Students under the age of 6 or over the age of 11 may also receive primary education. The above figures do not include cross-boundary students.
(4) The projections of school-age population residing in Hong Kong are compiled based on the 2016-based Population Projections released by C&SD in September 2017. The projections have taken into account a number of factors and assumptions. Any deviations in the assumptions from the eventual situation may render the projected figures different from the actual turnout figures.
(5) Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred.
GOVERNMENT BILLS
Second Reading of Government Bills
Resumption of Second Reading Debate on Government Bill
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Government Bills. This Council resumes the Second Reading debate on the Inland Revenue (Amendment) (No. 3) Bill 2018 ("the Bill").
398 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
INLAND REVENUE (AMENDMENT) (NO. 3) BILL 2018
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 2 May 2018
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Chairman of the Bills Committee on the Bill, will first address the Council on the Report of the Bills Committee on Inland Revenue (Amendment) (No. 3) Bill 2018.
MR KENNETH LEUNG: Deputy President, in my capacity as Chairman of the Bills Committee on Inland Revenue (Amendment) (No. 3) Bill 2018 ("the Bills Committee"), I wish to make a report on the work of the Bills Committee. I will focus on the major issues considered by the Bills Committee.
The main objective of the Inland Revenue (Amendment) (No. 3) Bill 2018 ("the Bill") is to implement an enhanced tax deduction regime for qualifying research and development ("R&D") activities. At present, section 16B of the Inland Revenue Ordinance ("IRO") allows 100% deduction for expenditures on outsourced R&D and in-house R&D activities. Under the proposed regime, R&D expenditures eligible for deduction under the new section 16B in the Bill are classified into either "Type A expenditures" which qualify for 100% deduction or "Type B expenditures" which qualify for enhanced tax deduction, that is 300% for the first $2 million of the total amount of expenditures and 200% of the remaining amount.
Members of the Bills Committee generally support the Bill. The Bills Committee has examined, among other issues, the various conditions and situations under which expenditures on R&D activities are eligible for the enhanced tax deduction.
Under the proposed regime, a qualifying R&D activity related to a trade, profession or business would qualify for the enhanced tax deduction. Under section 5 of the new Schedule 45, the meaning of "qualifying R&D activity related to a trade, profession or business" includes a qualifying R&D activity that may lead to or facilitate an extension, or an improvement in the technical efficiency, of the trade, profession or business; and a qualifying R&D activity of a medical nature that is of particular relevance to the welfare of employees LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 399 employed in the trade, profession or business. The Bills Committee has examined which types of R&D projects would fall within such definition and thus would qualify for the enhanced deduction.
The Administration has advised that in determining whether an R&D project is a "qualifying R&D activity", it is necessary to consider all the relevant facts, including the state of knowledge and technology at the commencement of the project, the scientific or technological uncertainties involved. As a general rule, if an R&D project seeks to directly contribute to achieving an advance in science or technology by resolving scientific or technological uncertainty, it would be regarded as a qualifying R&D activity. To enable the Inland Revenue Department to process taxpayers' claims efficiently, taxpayers should provide full and accurate information in their tax returns and sufficient supporting documents upon request. If necessary, the Commissioner of Inland Revenue may consult the Commissioner for Innovation and Technology on any technical issues involved. If an enterprise wishes to know whether its planned R&D project meets the requirements of qualifying R&D activity and/or the expenditures to be incurred are eligible for enhanced tax deduction, it could submit an advance ruling application to the Inland Revenue Department.
Deputy President, as part of the proposed regime, expenditures on qualifying R&D activities related to a trade, profession or business include a payment to a designated local research institution, and a local institution may apply for such designation. The Bills Committee notes that in processing an application for designation as a designated local research institution, the Innovation and Technology Commission will examine the documentary evidence provided by the applicant and seek clarifications with the applicant in order to verify the institution's compliance with the designation criteria. In general, the Commission would require six weeks to complete the assessment after it has received all the required information and clarifications from an applicant.
Given the lead time required for an institution to become a designated local research institution, some members have expressed concerns that a taxpayer might decline to enter into formal agreement with or defer payments to a local research institution until its designation, thereby adversely affecting its cash flow.
Having regard to members' views, the Administration initially proposed to widen the scope of the meaning of "R&D expenditure" to include payments made 400 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 to a local institution within three months before its designation. Some members however pointed out that given the anticipated large number of applications by research institutions for designation, a three-month eligibility period might not be sufficient. After further discussion, the Administration has agreed to extend the eligibility period to six months and propose amendments to allow a taxpayer to claim 100% tax deduction or enhanced tax deduction for a payment made to a local institution if the institution is designated as a designated local research institution within six months after the date of payment. The Bills Committee agrees to the proposed amendments.
In the course of deliberation, some Bills Committee members consider that enhanced tax deduction should also be provided to R&D activities carried out outside Hong Kong, for example, in the Greater Bay Area.
The Administration has advised that granting enhanced deduction to R&D activities outside Hong Kong would run contrary to the policy objective of encouraging more local R&D activities. Operationally, it is infeasible for the Inland Revenue Department or the Innovation and Technology Commission to ascertain the qualifications of overseas R&D institutions or the eligibility of tax deduction claims for R&D expenditures incurred overseas. Since Hong Kong does not accept, as a general rule, other jurisdictions' requests for conducting on-site tax examinations, it is impossible for the said authorities to perform on-site tax audits for R&D activities conducted overseas on the basis of reciprocity.
The Bills Committee has also sought clarification on whether payments made for R&D activities outsourced to other entities, including a private company within a business group under a cost-sharing arrangement, will be deductible if the private company is not a designated local research institution.
The Administration has advised that if the claimant has undertaken part or all of the underlying R&D activities under a cost-sharing arrangement, the share of R&D expenditure borne by the claimant under the arrangement may be treated as its in-house R&D expenditure and qualify for 100% deduction or the enhanced deduction. The Inland Revenue Department is preparing guidelines which would elaborate the department's interpretation and practices regarding the deduction claims under the new section 16B.
Deputy President, the Bill proposes to amend section 15 of IRO to deem royalties from licensing intellectual property or know-how generated from an LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 401
R&D activity to be trading receipts chargeable to tax. The proposed section 15(8) sets out various categories of intellectual properties. The Bills Committee has sought the Administration's elaboration on the eligibility of expenditures on R&D activities relating to art performances, including fees paid to performers, for enhanced tax deduction claims.
The Administration has advised that for R&D activities which aim at enhancing art or sports performances, a new or substantially improved algorithm developed through resolution of scientific or technological uncertainties is considered to be an intellectual property as defined under the proposed section 15(8) and the expenditures incurred might be eligible for enhanced tax deduction. In the circumstances, the intellectual property refers to the algorithm, not the art or sports performance concerned. The fee paid to a performer might be eligible for enhanced tax deduction if the performer is a contract employee who is engaged directly and actively in the qualifying R&D activity.
Deputy President, the Bills Committee supports the amendments proposed by the Administration and will not move any amendment to the Bill.
MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the following are some of my views on the Bill.
Of course, the Bill seeks to attract R&D institutions to set up business in Hong Kong. The Bill appears to be a rather simple one and it provides that tax deduction will be granted to all R&D expenditures that meet the required conditions. Basically, they are required to meet certain conditions. What are these conditions then? Well, of course, the conduct of some eligible R&D activities (that is, qualifying activities) for which the expenditures involved in such activities must be payments made to the so-called "recognized" R&D institutions. Most importantly, these are local R&D institutions. Some members of the Bills Committee had raised the question of why the institutions be local ones? Actually, from a technical point of view, it is simply impossible for the Inland Revenue Department to go to other places to study all the activities conducted by their respective R&D institutions. The ultimate goal of the Bill is to encourage local R&D activities with a view to attracting R&D talents to establish themselves in Hong Kong.
It seems that the aim or the clauses of the Bill are pretty simple, but in my opinion, they are quite complicated. As the Chairman of the Bills Committee, I have read out the Bills Committee's report in English just now in the hope that 402 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 international R&D institutions will actively consider relocating their R&D facilities or business to Hong Kong upon learning such new initiative. As a matter of fact, all scientific research expenses are tax-deductible under the existing IRO. For example, if I spend $1,000 on scientific research, such a sum is tax-deductible provided that it is spent in relation to R&D business. Moreover, the Bill provides an additional incentive in that the amount allowed to be deducted for the first $2 million spent on R&D is 300% of the total amount of the expenditures if the required condition is met (i.e. the amount deductible for the R&D expenditure of $1,000 will be $3,000). When the required condition is met but the total amount of the expenditures exceeds $2 million, a tax deduction of 200% will still be granted to the part of the expenditures that exceeds $2 million (i.e. the amount deductible for the expenditure of $1,000 will be $2,000). These is no cap on the amount of such deduction.
In addition to qualifying R&D expenditures, one of the most important conditions set out in the Bill is that the R&D expenditures are used for making payments to qualifying R&D institutions. Assuming that I own a company, what can I, as a Hong Kong taxpayer, do to make my company's R&D expenditures eligible for tax deduction? Well, Deputy President, as I have pointed out earlier, the 100% tax deduction is already available at present (i.e. before the Bill was drawn up). Moreover, the 200% and 300% tax deduction formulas will apply to all R&D expenditures if the relevant expenses are used for making payments to a designated qualifying R&D institution commissioned to carry out R&D.
If the taxpayer itself is already a designated qualifying R&D institution, it will certainly be granted tax deductions of 200% and 300% in respect of its own R&D expenditures. Of course, if a qualifying R&D institution is part of the taxpayer's group, then payments made among the institutions within the same group can also enjoy such "mega" tax concessions under the new legislation, provided that other conditions (including profit shifting) set out in the IRO are met, and that the R&D expenditures concerned are not incurred in conducting transactions under abnormal circumstances.
The main purpose of the Bill is to create a favourable environment for the development of and investment in Hong Kong's innovation and technology. Although the Bill may be passed soon, the question is that after the passage of the Bill, will foreign investors be aware that Hong Kong is set to offer such a favourable condition to facilitate investment in local R&D business?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 403
I and several colleagues of this Council visited the United Kingdom and Scotland during the summer holidays. I told people there something about the Bill and the environment for R&D investment in Hong Kong. However, Deputy President, I and most of the colleagues had the same impression that people from the United Kingdom's R&D sector, political parties and government knew little about Hong Kong's current environment for R&D investment, and they were also not aware of any new initiatives and incentive policies in this regard in Hong Kong. Thus, I hope the Government, including the various Hong Kong Economic and Trade Offices or other relevant government organizations, will vigorously promote such an attractive Bill to encourage foreign investors to invest in Hong Kong and set up new R&D bases here.
After all, the Bill itself or the offer of tax concession are, in my opinion, nothing more than an initiative to promote the development of start-ups and innovative technologies, the formulation of policies on innovation and technology ("I&T") development will be in vain in the absence of other relevant complementary policies (for example, if we cannot attract overseas R&D talents to establish themselves in Hong Kong) To attract foreign I&T talents to choose Hong Kong as a long-term development base, we must become a livable and friendly city. Apart from streamlining the procedures for issuing work visas, Hong Kong must also make improvements in areas like environment and housing supply. Attracting foreign R&D talents to Hong Kong is certainly one of the ways to serve our purpose, grooming local R&D talents is of the utmost importance. We have talked about this issue in various Panels and Committees as well as from other perspectives. Let us revert to tax measures. The "mega" tax deduction introduced by the Bill is among the most effective tax measures, but I will propose some tax measures from two aspects to officials of the Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau for the purpose of increasing local R&D activities.
First of all, as an investor, what kind of tax concessions can I enjoy if I invest in an R&D project for I&T in Hong Kong? Well, not many in fact. For example, will the Government provide any tax incentive for investors who, even in anticipation of a complete loss of the investment, will invest $5 million or $10 million in an innovative R&D project through private equity funds, venture capital or "Angel Funds" in order that some daring and far-sighted investors will be willing to take part in such a highly risky investment activity?
404 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
Another point also concerns the environment for I&T investment, namely the local patent registration system and the taxation system applicable to royalties generated from patents. Are these systems transparent, fair and easy to administer? In fact, I have heard people from the sectors concerned and I&T field talk about the taxation system applicable to royalties generated from patents on many different occasions. The system in Hong Kong does not seem to be very transparent. Meanwhile, the IRO is rather complicated. Can the relevant procedures be simplified so that more patented technologies can be registered here in Hong Kong, thereby making the city a leading patent registration centre in addition to an I&T centre?
With these remarks, Deputy President, I support the Second Reading of the Bill.
Thank you.
MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the gross expenditure on research and development ("GERD") in Hong Kong has been accounting for less than 1% of its Gross Domestic Product ("GDP"), which has long been subject to criticism. The percentage has gone up from 0.43% in 1998 to the current 0.73%, representing an increase of 0.3 percentage point. Our GERD last year was in the range of $18 billion to $19 billion. In terms of percentage of GERD in GDP, we are lower by several times than Singapore (2.1%), South Korea (4.2%), China (2.1%), not to mention our neighbour Shenzhen (4%). According to the World Competitiveness Report 2018 published by the World Economic Forum earlier, Hong Kong ranks 26th in innovation capability, faring badly in comparison with other places. The Secretary for Innovation and Technology, Mr Nicholas YANG, also admitted that investment in research and development ("R&D") has been our weak point this is why the Government, as we can all see, has allocated a lot of financial resources for R&D over the past two years. The Chief Executive has also pledged in the policy address last year that she would increase the percentage of GERD to GDP from approximately 0.75% to 1.5% by the end of her five-year term of office.
We suggested to the Government many years ago the introduction of enhanced tax deduction measures to encourage private enterprises to increase their investments on R&D. Hence, I agree with the Government's proposals under the Inland Revenue (Amendment) (No. 3) Bill 2018 ("the Bill"), which LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 405 provides that Type B expenditures incurred by eligible enterprises will qualify for enhanced tax deduction. The deduction will be 300% for the first $2 million of the aggregate amount of expenditures and payments made to designated local research institutions for qualifying R&D activities (that is, out-sourced qualifying R&D), and 200% for the remaining amount. In addition, there is no cap on the amount of enhanced tax deduction.
Past records indicate that about 200 tax deduction claims were made every year under section 16B of the Inland Revenue Ordinance (Cap. 112), and the amount of R&D expenditures involved was about $1 billion per year. I support the introduction of extra tax deduction, which is commonly known as "super tax deduction", under the Bill to encourage private enterprises to carry out more R&D activities, thereby promoting the development of scientific research and enhancing Hong Kong's attractiveness and competitiveness. It is also hoped that this will invigorate future scientific research in Hong Kong, give impetus to the development of innovation and technology industries, and foster economic diversification.
Government resources have long been accounting for a large proportion of R&D expenditures in Hong Kong while private investment in this respect plays a minor role. This is also the major contributing factor to the low percentage of our GERD to GDP. I hope the introduction of enhanced tax deduction this time will create an atmosphere of for local enterprises to make R&D investments, foreign enterprises carrying out R&D activities in Hong Kong are of course included, and together with other government policies such as the Postdoctoral Hub Programme or Technology Talent Admission Scheme, more overseas talents in scientific research will be attracted to Hong Kong. Moreover, although our discussions today do not center on what I am going to raise, I wish to point out that what is more important is for us to nurture more local talents in scientific research, and provide them with development opportunities.
Nevertheless, it is worth noting that the introduction of enhanced tax deduction for scientific research will be of limited help to local small and medium enterprises, well-established medium or large enterprises may find it more helpful. Moreover, the provision of enhanced tax deduction is just a single initiative, which, I am afraid, will not be adequate to encourage large enterprises to invest more in scientific research. We have seen more efforts by the Government in the past two years to increase public funding for scientific research and encourage private investment in R&D. However, how can the 406 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 technologies developed from R&D be effectively put into application in the market? In this connection, I hope various government departments and public institutions will make extra efforts in this respect and be more willing to try out and procure local R&D products and services, so as to build an ecosystem conducive to innovative technology industry.
With regard to the definition of "qualifying R&D activity", I have expressed my concerns at meetings of the Bills Committee and enquired whether R&D activities in software engineering fell within the scope of the definition. For example, does the Inland Revenue Department ("IRD") have adequate technical expertise to assess expenditures on software or programmes development and determine if they can be regarded as Type B expenditures? According to the Government's reply, a "qualifying R&D activity" is defined as an activity undertaken to facilitate an extension in technical efficiency, as well as gain new scientific or technical knowledge. During the process, scientific or technological uncertainty will often arise from turning something that has already been established as scientifically feasible into a cost-effective, reliable and reproducible material, device, product, process, system or service. With such an explanation, I wonder whether people of the sectors concerned will be able to distinguish if they are eligible for tax deduction or not. Although the Government has advised that enterprises could submit an advance ruling application to IRD, many members of the sectors concerned have relayed to me that the information on the hiring of independent contractors or consultants, the arrangements on cost-sharing or how to become a designated local research institution ("DLRI") was still inadequate.
Therefore, it is hoped that when the Departmental Interpretation and Practice Note is issued later for the enhanced tax deduction regime for R&D expenditures, the Government will provide more concrete examples to address issues of grave concern among the innovation, technology and information technology sectors, including those relating to such areas as software development and information technology. Meanwhile, I consider it necessary to organize more briefing sessions for members of the sectors concerned as soon as possible, so as to facilitate a better understanding of how they can actually enjoy enhanced tax deduction under the regime introduced by the Bill.
As for outsourcing R&D activities to DLRIs, I hope the Government will put in place fairer, more open and transparent criteria and mechanism for the application requirements, procedures, assessment criteria, appeal mechanism, etc. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 407 for such institutions, and conduct extensive consultation with relevant sectors and industries, including members of the innovation and technology, information technology sectors. The Government should also allow online and electronic submission of applications for enhanced tax deduction for R&D expenditures, so that applicants will be given deduction on a more timely manner and be able to enjoy more efficient and convenient services. Otherwise, what worries me is that members of the sectors concerned will not hastily decide to go ahead with a huge investment simply for enjoying tax deduction. In the process of making such a decision, they will be looking forward to a timely and efficient response from the Government, as well as a ruling from IRD as early as possible, and these will have a significant impact on their intention to apply for tax deduction. Moreover, I also hope that after the introduction of super tax deduction measures for R&D activities, the Innovation and Technology Bureau and IRD will regularly provide the Legislative Council with the latest figures in this respect, so that both members of the public and Members of this Council would be able to assess the effectiveness of such measures and the need for making further enhancements in a more effective manner.
Deputy President, I would also like to take this opportunity to inform the Secretary and the officers in IRD of my recent observations. We did see a lot of new resources allocated by the Government in recent years for fostering innovation and technology development, and new policies have also been introduced in this respect. However, what makes us nervous is the news we hear every day that Singapore is introducing new concession policies in this regard. I saw the news last night that Dyson Limited, a world-renowned manufacturer of electric appliances, had revealed its plan to set up production lines for electric vehicles in Singapore in direct competition with Tesla, while we all know that Tesla is planning to establish its plants in Shanghai. The Government has advocated re-industrialization for Hong Kong, but when compared with other places, we are always one step behind. With regard to R&D in recent years, especially in information technology, many leading global enterprises (such as Microsoft Corporation, the Hewlett-Packard Company, Google Incorporation, Facebook Incorporation, Amazon.com Incorporation and even Apple Incorporation) have chosen either Singapore or Taiwan to set up their R&D centres, regional headquarters and recruit a large number of R&D talents. We have lagged behind and must catch up right now. However, policies alone are not enough.
408 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
Mr Kenneth LEUNG has just now pointed out that during our duty visit to the United Kingdom, we have learnt from our meetings with its government officials, parliamentarians or even government officials responsible for the formulation of economic and trade policies that they knew very little about the policies implemented in Hong Kong in recent years to promote innovation and technology development. I have also made a visit to the Silicon Valley with Mr Alvin YEUNG during the summer recess, and met with many people from companies of different scales, start-up companies and different venture funds. Whenever we talked about the policies implemented by the Hong Kong Government to support innovation and technology development, most of them told us that they had never heard about them before. However, according to them, officials from Singapore, other Asian countries and even Mainland China often went there to market, introduce or promote their places. It can thus be seen that what we are boasting about is unknown to the outside world.
Hence, although the introduction of the super tax deduction measure can bring many benefits and some policies implemented by the Government, including the Postdoctoral Hub Programme, are very useful, they will be rendered useless if our target customers know nothing about them. Even if the Government is willing to inject tens of billions of dollars each year for this purpose, it will be fruitless if our target customers (that is, companies which we wish to attract to Hong Kong) have never heard about our policies and tax deduction measures. We would of course very much wish to encourage local companies to undertake R&D projects, but I do hope to attract more companies which are sought after all over the world to come to carry out R&D activities in Hong Kong. Therefore, good policies must be accompanied by extensive publicity, which should be implemented with the concerted efforts of the entire Government and all other departments concerned, not just the Innovation and Technology Bureau. In this connection, the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau as mentioned by Mr LEUNG just now, Invest Hong Kong, Hong Kong Economic and Trade Offices, etc. should all work together, and sometimes concerted efforts from certain bureaux or departments responsible for specific policy areas are also required. For example, cooperation from the Environment Bureau or a certain bureau may also be required as they are responsible for matters concerning power supply. As a matter of fact, these policies should be implemented by the Government as a whole. The last thing we want to see is that the policies formulated in Hong Kong over the past few years are not complemented by promotion and publicity efforts. We hope that the policies will be implemented by the Government in a coordinated manner. It LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 409 will be wrong for the Government to think that after the passage of the Bill, what it needs to do is to wait and reap the rewards, because what turns out will be a completely different story. The Government will hear views from all sectors in the future, I hope it will make extra implementation efforts.
With these remarks, Deputy President, I support the proposed amendments.
MR WONG TING-KWONG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the following are the views and stance I wish to put forth on behalf of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong ("DAB") on the Inland Revenue (Amendment) (No. 3) Bill 2018 ("the Bill").
Fostering local scientific research development is of utmost importance to the future economic development of Hong Kong. While the SAR Government has already increased its funding injection for universities and research institutions through various channels, the lack of scientific research investment from the private sector and private enterprises will make it utterly impossible to attain the goal of increasing the proportion of local scientific research expenditure to 1.5% of Hong Kong's Gross Domestic Product by 2022 as proposed by Chief Executive Carrie LAM in her Policy Address of last year. Therefore, increasing the incentives for scientific research investment from the private sector and private enterprises is an important part of the promotion of the development of scientific research in Hong Kong.
The Bill proposes to raise the tax deduction for enterprises' expenditures on qualifying research and development ("R&D") activities from the current 100% of the relevant expenditures under the existing Inland Revenue Ordinance to 300% for the first $2 million of such expenditures and 200% for the remaining amount. There is no cap on the amount of tax deduction in this respect.
Through the introduction of significant tax concessions for scientific research investment from private enterprises and funds, the Bill offers a strong incentive to promote private capital investment in scientific research and gives a fresh impetus to local scientific research development. DAB and I strongly support and approve of this initiative.
The Bill's policy objective of encouraging private enterprises and funds to increase their scientific research investment commands the support of all members of the Bills Committee. But in the course of scrutiny, members put 410 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 forth various views on the implementation details of the Bill. A few of such members and I requested the authorities to explain whether a private enterprise or fund which commissioned a local research institution to conduct a scientific research project would be entitled to the concessionary tax deduction under the Bill for the expenses on commissioning the research institution.
The authorities advised that if an enterprise or fund paid and commissioned a designated local research institution ("DLRI") to conduct a qualifying R&D project, the payments to it would be entitled to the concessionary tax deduction.
As for the definition of "DLRI", the authorities advised that irrespective of its scale, any institution or corporation which satisfied the specified requirements, such as having expertise in providing R&D services in one or more fields of science or technology with sufficient qualified and experienced R&D talents, equipment and facilities for the provision of R&D services in the specified fields, might apply to become DLRI. The Administration would draw up an implementation framework that suit the reality of Hong Kong and set up an expert panel comprising members from relevant industries and the academia to advise on the assessment process.
The authorities added that the Innovation and Technology Commission ("ITC") would be tasked to assess the designation or otherwise of institutions as DLRIs, saying that it would take around six weeks to process an application which merely involved a relatively simple technological discipline or domain without any need for on-site assessment.
Since it takes time―six weeks―for ITC to assess an application for designation as DLRI, I am concerned that some taxpayers may decline to enter into formal agreement with, or defer payments to, a research institution until it has obtained the designation as DLRI, and this may put the research institution under financial pressure. Therefore, some members and I expressed the hope during the scrutiny process that the authorities could allow taxpayers to apply for the concessionary tax deduction for their R&D payments to a research institution within a reasonable time frame during assessment before its designation as a DLRI.
Initially, the Administration had reservations about the relevant view and was concerned that the authorities would not be able to verify whether the research institution was competent as a DLRI in the eligibility period before LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 411 designation. But after strenuous lobbying efforts by several members, the authorities have agreed to introduce a grace period of three months and allow taxpayers to receive tax deduction for their R&D payments to research institutions before their designation as DLRIs. Subsequently, the authorities even agreed to extend the grace period from three months to six months, and they would propose an amendment to formally introduce a grace period regime.
The authorities' willingness to accede to our reasonable request and introduce a grace period of six months as a means to avoid any possible financial difficulties on the part of those research institutions which have yet to complete the application procedure for designation as DLRIs definitely deserves our recognition and support.
Finally, I wish to say that fostering local scientific research development is an important task in Hong Kong's future economic development. Apart from encouraging private funds to increase their scientific research investment through tax initiatives, the authorities should also improve the local environment for innovation and technology in various respects, such as the nurturing of local innovation and technology talents to support the development of business start-ups in Hong Kong, and the provision of more software and hardware facilities to support innovation and technology development. Only with such initiatives can Hong Kong make great strides in innovation and technology development.
With these remarks, I, together with DAB, support the Bill and the Government's amendment.
MR CHAN CHUN-YING (in Cantonese): Deputy President, just now a few Members mentioned that the Chief Executive has set a goal to double the local gross expenditure on research and development ("R&D") as a percentage of the Gross Domestic Product to 1.5%, equivalent to about HK$45 billion, by 2022. But as a matter of fact, this percentage is just closely behind those of other advanced countries and regions and we have no idea as to whether their respective percentages will double from 1.5% in a few years.
(THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair)
412 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
The Special Administrative Region Government is now prepared to inject a large amount of resources and to amend legislation with a view to attracting more R&D expenditures from private enterprises, so as to create an ambience for R&D development in Hong Kong. Regrettably, Hong Kong's current pace of development still trails behind those of other rivals. The World Economic Forum released last week the Global Competitiveness Report 2018, in which Hong Kong was given a failure rating in R&D expenditure, with a score of only 25.4 out of 100. This fully illustrates the fact that targets must be complemented with proactive implementation, otherwise, our gap with the rivals will continue to grow. I hope that the Inland Revenue (Amendment) (No. 3) Bill 2018 ("the Bill") will be passed expeditiously today to attract more R&D investments from private enterprises, breaking the current dominance of public expenditures.
The purpose of this legislative amendment is to implement the legal framework for enhanced tax deduction with regard to qualifying R&D activities. As Mr Charles Peter MOK said just now, before the legislative amendment, only 200 cases of tax deduction claims were made in Hong Kong in a year, involving only about $1 billion of R&D expenditures, a rather small amount. What is required should be 10 or 20 times more. As a member of the Bills Committee, I understand it is not an easy task to meet the target of encouraging private enterprises to substantially increase their R&D expenditures within five years. But I do not think this is a mission impossible. To this end, the Government should first actively draw reference from Singapore in terms of its attitude and experience in handling tax concession measures. It should also adopt a more lenient approach in various policies when dealing with enterprises which intend to make R&D investments. After the policies have been put in place for a period of time, the Government can observe market development before making further adjustments to the policies.
Just like what was mentioned by Mr WONG Ting-kwong a moment ago, during the scrutiny of the Bill, in addition to traditional research institutions such as universities, a large number of other research institutions will apply to become "designated local research institutions" under the legislation. As members of the Bills Committee were worried that manpower constraints and efficiency in processing applications on the part of the relevant government department might result in its failure to handle a large number of applications in a timely manner, some applicants might not be able to enjoy the super tax deduction in the tax year they submit their applications. These members suggested at the meetings of the Bills Committee that a retrospective period for the tax deduction be introduced. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 413
With the support of the great majority of members, the Government adopted the suggestion quickly and added a six-month retrospective period in the amendment presented today. I think this attitude is laudable.
Having said that, members of the Bills Committee mentioned other practical situations which deserved the super tax deduction. These include apportionment of R&D expenditures among a Hong Kong subsidiary, local and overseas companies of the same group, R&D expenses in addition to direct costs, such as fees for professional testing and certification services for relevant R&D products, as well as a reasonable extension of the definition of R&D activities. I suggest that the Administration should conduct a preliminary review of the efficacy of the legislation expeditiously after it comes into effect. For example, a review can be carried out to assess if the progress in R&D activities has been accelerated after one year. If the progress has fallen short of expectations, the next stage of legislative amendment should commence expeditiously with a view to widening the scope of the tax deduction further. Otherwise, it will be difficult to achieve the aforementioned 2022 target.
Meanwhile, in the World Economic Forum report mentioned above, I am particularly concerned about "Quality of research institutions". While Hong Kong was ranked a 25th rank in "Scientific publications" among 140 places, a laudable position, to my dismay, in "Quality of research institutions", our score was only 10.4 out of 100.
In fact, in retrospect, the Global Competitiveness Report aims at helping all of us know itself and the outside world better in the run-up to the Fourth Industrial Revolution, identify one's weaknesses, thereby assisting policy makers in formulating measures in accordance with economic development strategies and enhance competitiveness. The findings of this World Economic Forum report have warned us of the need to cultivate an atmosphere for scientific research and innovation in Hong Kong in the future. Apart from the availability of funds for R&D expenditures, it is also very important to groom, import and retain scientific research talent. In this regard, I note that Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Chairman of the Bills Committee, expressed similar views just now, as we believe that this is the key to improving the quality of scientific research institutions in Hong Kong. Only by concerted efforts of those from the Government, private enterprises, the scientific research sector and even the education sector, can we usher in a new era. I hope the Secretary will give more thoughts in this respect.
414 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
With these brief remarks, President, I support the Bill and the amendments. Thank you, President.
MR CHUNG KWOK-PAN (in Cantonese): President, I support the Inland Revenue (Amendment) (No. 3) Bill 2018 ("the Bill") and that is the super tax deduction.
Some colleagues have mentioned just now contents of the tax deduction proposal, and especially the 300% tax deduction for the first $2 million expenditure, equivalent to a deduction of nearly $6 million; and subsequently a 200% deduction for the next $1 million investment, that is a $2 million deduction, with no cap on the amount of enhanced tax deduction. The biggest incentive must be that there will be no cap on the deduction. In other words, a $4 million investment will result in a $10 million tax deduction. I believe that such tax incentives for scientific research investment are unheard of in any other parts of the world. This is why I believe that we will be able to attract scientific research investments from many overseas enterprises or even those Hong Kong companies which have never thought of investing in this area.
Of course, some colleagues have pointed out that only the first $2 million investment will be eligible for a 300% tax deduction, while many other expenditures, such as those marketing, management study or market research, do not qualify for the deduction. But if we take a closer look, a firm gets a $10 million deduction for a mere $4 million investment. Where can this $6 million tax deduction be used? It can be used to cover general expenditures. Hence, in a way, tax deduction is indirectly available for expenditures on marketing or market research that we mentioned a moment ago. Therefore, I believe that the attractiveness of the proposal, while very few people notice it, will prove a huge incentive.
A courageous and innovative tax concession such as this one will not be effective without the support of other policies. Tax deduction alone cannot draw investments from overseas or Hong Kong enterprises. Talents are of vital importance. To draw talents to us, what the Government should do in terms of policy is to shorten the vetting procedure as far as possible, say, to complete the procedure within a couple of weeks to a month for vetting applications by scientific research talents to come to work in Hong Kong. In last year's budget speech, the Financial Secretary announced a $50 billion investment earmarked for LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 415 scientific research. The policy, coupled with the availability of funds, talents and tax concession, will be more comprehensive and attractive. Doctoral graduates in Hong Kong used to face a narrow career path. But the Government has set up a Postdoctoral Hub Programme which provides an allowance of more than $30,000 serving as an assurance to many doctoral graduates during their search for jobs in Hong Kong while the territory will no longer have to worry about a drain of locally groomed talents to the companies in Shenzhen which offer attractive pay. On the whole, this is a very good tax concession policy.
Some Members of the Legislative Council paid a visit to the United Kingdom last September. During the visit, we went to their parliament to meet with members of the Economic Affairs Committee as well as the Science and Technology Committee. We talked about such tax concession in Hong Kong, which they had not heard of before and were very surprised at hearing it. One of the Members of Parliament, who worked in the biotechnology sector, expressed an interest to immediately visit Hong Kong to learn more about the details of this tax concession policy. This Member of Parliament went as far as to consider making investment and setting up a company in Hong Kong immediately. In fact, the appeal of this tax concession would have been great if not for inadequate publicity and promotion. We later met with the responsible officers of InvestHK in London and asked them, in their promotion to the business sector and the parliament in the United Kingdom, to make more efforts to highlight Hong Kong's excellent policies concerning scientific research, talents, investments and tax concession. We should promote these policies, not just to the United Kingdom, but around the world. By so doing, I believe that we will see huge growth in scientific research investments from both overseas and local enterprises.
But of course, as pointed out by some colleagues a moment ago, only a few tertiary education institutions and scientific research institutions in Hong Kong are qualified for the concession for the time being while overseas organizations are excluded. But if the technologies of local scientific research institutions or universities fail to reach the required levels, we have no alternative but to collaborate with overseas scientific research institutions. Therefore, I hope that in the review which will be conducted after some time, we will explore if certain world-class scientific research institutions in other parts of the world have the expertise. If they have, we can invite them to participate and join hands with Hong Kong companies and tax deduction should be available for the scientific research expenses thus incurred by then.
416 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
Lastly, just now some colleagues talked about the ranking of Hong Kong by the World Economic Forum. Hong Kong was given a failure rating in scientific research with a relatively low score. I believe that in a year or two after the implementation of this tax concession initiative, more investments will be attracted from various overseas organizations or local companies, which will then improve our ratings. Therefore, I definitely support this Bill.
Thank you, President. I so submit.
DR ELIZABETH QUAT (in Cantonese): President, I speak in support of the Inland Revenue (Amendment) (No. 3) Bill 2018 ("the Bill"). A popular saying in recent years is that technologies create the future. We all know that scientific research plays an important role in technological development. The expenditure on scientific research in Hong Kong has all along represented a small percentage of our Gross Domestic Product ("GDP"). To date, it only accounts for about 0.73% of the GDP and lags far behind our country (2%) and our neighbouring places such as Korea (4.2%), Shenzhen (4%) and Singapore (2.1%). Every time we ask the Government about this, it always answers that to expand the share, we should not rely on the Government alone and the business sector also needs to invest in scientific research. We of course agree with the Government on this point, but we also hope that the Government can invest more in scientific research.
The Bill being considered today is in fact something that the science and technology sector has requested and pressed for over the years. The Government has repeatedly said in the past that we cannot touch the taxation system. Whenever we come to discuss a proposal that may affect the taxation system, the Government would say no. The current-term Government, however, is willing to be innovative and make breakthroughs. This Bill today seeks to support the development of research and development ("R&D") by means of tax deductions. The proposal has my overwhelming support and is well received by members of the sector.
The Government is quite generous this time by proposing that the first $2 million of investment expenditure on qualifying R&D activities and designated research institutions is qualified for 300% tax deduction, and 200% for the remaining investment expenditure. In other words, an investment of $2 million is eligible for a tax deduction of $6 million, and an investment of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 417
$4 million for a tax deduction of $10 million. This is rather attractive to the business sector, and the point is whether overseas R&D institutions are aware of such a good scheme to be launched in Hong Kong.
When I discussed this proposed initiative with members of the business sector, many found it attractive and considered that it was worthwhile to start a study on its details. In the recent days, I followed up with some interested enterprises on their progress in this regard, and asked them whether they would start investing in R&D activities. Some of them responded positively that they had engaged a team of accountants to look into the proposed scheme, as all along they had already made measurable investment in scientific research. One of these enterprises even told me that they already invested at least 10% of its revenue in R&D each year before the announcement of the proposed initiative, and it would invest more in R&D if the tax deduction scheme was put into effect. But then they also told me that after studying the proposed tax deduction, their taxation team found that some of the items might be infeasible. For instance, they are not sure what designated R&D institutions and qualifying R&D activities are; and whether application requires completing many forms. Moreover, while not being listed companies, these private enterprises are required to disclose all their accounts to the Government, which may involve many complicated procedures. If the process incurs excess difficulties, they may consider opting out.
Their feedbacks worry me. The Government should expeditiously consult the industry and propose in clearer terms a scheme with specific definitions on designated R&D institution and qualifying R&D activities. For instance, how to calculate the tax deduction for R&D activities undertaken by an enterprise itself and those undertaken jointly with others? How will the tax deduction be calculated for their investment in universities? Will the investment in a new technology company be eligible for tax deduction? I think the Government still has many questions to answer and it needs to provide the details of the whole scheme. Moreover, after the details of the scheme are announced, the Government has to do a lot of work in publicity and promotion and designate a special team to provide the necessary assistance to those joining the scheme. Otherwise, small projects like the Technology Voucher Programme ("TVP") can create many problems, and the Secretary will then be very angry. The TVP application form is relatively simple, but many people still find it difficult to understand. If the application procedure for the tax deduction scheme is too complicated, there may be another round of problems for us to deal with.
418 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
Moreover, we hope that when the scheme is launched, it will attract more overseas enterprises, whether they are investors or innovation and technology companies, to develop their business in Hong Kong. Are we sufficiently prepared for their coming? Will the Trade Development Council or Economic and Trade Offices of the SAR Government overseas play a more important role in marketing, or promotion and publicity, so as to tell people that Hong Kong has many favourable advantages?
I visited Israel recently. Israel is renowned for its scientific research and many investors are willing to invest in Israel. Israel certainly has many outstanding and remarkable projects that are worth investment, but it may not be better than Hong Kong in terms of applied research. Honestly, they are more proactive in promotion and publicity, and outperforms Hong Kong in this respect. I thus think that the Government should play a bigger, more important and active role in promoting the scientific research undertaken in Hong Kong and, under its coordination, various government departments should work in synergy.
Besides, as much as the business sector wants to invest in scientific research, they want us to understand that they also need to consider the return for every dollar they invest. In other words, scientific research needs to have deliverables, which in turn are transformed into marketable products or services for reaping profits. Only when they can calculate the return of any scientific research will they be willing to invest in such projects.
The business sector also express concern over the availability of sufficient talents, although they understand that the Government wants them to invest in scientific research. Take AI (Artificial Intelligence) as an example. Everyone talks about the need to use AI, and the Government should actively promote the development of AI. But do we have sufficient manpower to do this? I spoke at a forum yesterday. I asked a university representative about this issue, and a university professor told me that there would be a gap in the supply of AI talents soon because many of them had been headhunted by private enterprises with handsome pay. This talent gap will soon emerge when universities are short of professors to teach postgraduates. Then, how can we attract more students to study PhD programmes? The admission quotas for PhD programmes are tight. There is a limit on the number of local and overseas students to be admitted. The Government says that it will step up its efforts to promote scientific research, but it has never given due consideration to the education policy. If the Government intends to promote AI in Hong Kong, should it consider relaxing the university admission quotas for both local and overseas postgraduates on AI research? Otherwise, it will be impossible for the Government to train more LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 419 postgraduates for this profession. Moreover, some school teachers have also told me that the Government should not look for talents at universities only; it should start nurturing talents at their younger age. Many school principals and teachers have told me, and I have also proposed the same in the Legislative Council over the years, that many countries include coding and AI as core subjects in primary and secondary curricula. I will not say that they must be included as a core subject, or Mr IP Kin-yuen will "kill" me. For instance, in the United Kingdom, their primary schools are recently required to include in their curriculum a certain number of school hours on coding or AI. I think this is important, but I am afraid this is yet to be implemented in Hong Kong.
Moreover, we need the concerted efforts of many institutions to develop scientific research in Hong Kong. In fact, the Science Park, Cyberport, or even many R&D centres should act as intermediaries to facilitate the integration of science and technology institutions, academic institutions and companies. But now, the Government, industry, universities and R&D centres … Talking about integration of the business sector, universities and R&D centres, greater effort is still needed from the business sector, and it seems that there is a fragmentation of efforts among various sides. Some universities have reflected to me that they are not very willing to cooperate with R&D centres because when they have disclosed their draft designs to R&D centres, they will often be "stolen" by the latter for seeking government funding. They find it rather unfair because it is difficult for them to find commercial sponsorship and the Government is their largest source of funding; and R&D centres have full-time staff to write proposals and they are familiar with the procedure for applying government funding. This gives R&D centres an advantage over universities in seeking funding, and their relationship is competitive, rather than cooperative. As for commercial enterprises, they have also an interest in applying for funding, but similarly they are unfamiliar with the procedure or proposal writing. They thus cannot compete with other applicants. No matter how hard they try to write or refine the proposal, their proposed projects are not selected for funding.
So, if we truly want to encourage cooperation between the industry, universities and R&D centres, we should encourage the business sector to invest more in R&D. I think that R&D centres, as well as ITC, should reposition and redefine carefully the respective roles they play, so as to work out how to truly help and encourage commercial enterprises to inject resources in R&D. We need to think with a business mindset and be business-oriented, in order to find out the market for R&D deliverables. With corresponding initiatives, we need to think about how to market these products and expand their market. If we do not look into these business models, we will stand still and make no progress.
420 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
When we talk about scientific research, it covers two levels of research. The first level involves basic research, an area where, I believe, the business sector may be unwilling to invest a large amount of resources, and so we have to rely on the Government for the input of more resources in this area. However, if we have not done enough in basic research, the business sector may not be easily attracted to invest in applied research and innovation research. The trades and industries in Hong Kong will have to capitalize on the application of technologies. In fact, many enterprises are prepared to invest more in, or explore, R&D for the benefit of their business, either in terms of a business model or a production and operation model, or how to apply technologies in the innovation of products or services. In fact, they are particularly interested in the application of technologies when talking about the issues of a smart city, IoT (Internet of Things), Big Data, etc. The financial sector is taking a lead in using technologies, but in fact other industries are also keen to tap into the technologies, just that they are often still in search of a "starting point". They simply do not know where and how to start. Of course, major international companies may have their own team to undertake the task, but how can medium-sized enterprises start initiatives in this area? In this connection, I opine the Government should think more about which departments or organizations can help these enterprises to capitalize on the technologies. At present, there seems to be a gap in applied research and innovation research, and there is no organization in place to help or attract commercial enterprises to invest in these areas of research.
So, if the Government cannot find a solution or sort out these questions after thorough consideration, the Bill or the scheme proposed therein will still be useless no matter how good it is. I thus hope that with coordinated efforts as a whole, the Government can strive to take things forward, so as to accomplish the mission announced by the Chief Executive, and that is, to increase the gross expenditure on R&D as a percentage of the GDP to 1.5% by 2022. I hope the percentage can be higher. In order to achieve this goal, there is still a lot to be done, apart from introducing the Bill. I hope the Administration has formulated a comprehensive plan and will come to the Legislative Council again to discuss the details with us and give us timely briefings on the relevant matters, so that it can subsequently take forward the plan together with the business sector, the education sector and the industry.
President, I so submit.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 421
MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): President, Hong Kong needs to develop a diversified economy, and we have talked about this for a long time. Innovation and technology is definitely an essential part of a diversified economy. The Government says that it attaches great importance to innovation and technology, and in fact, it did step up its effort in developing innovation and technology in the past few years. We support this direction and appreciate what the Government has done.
Our present target is not at all easy to meet. According to Carrie LAM, the Government is prepared to spend $45 billion on the research and development ("R&D") of innovation and technology by 2022, representing 1.5% of our Gross Domestic Product ("GDP"), and there is one condition―the Government will reverse the present government-led market to a private-led one. In other words, as colleagues just said, based on the past record of only 200 R&D applications for tax deduction, involving a sum of $1 billion, we will need to have an increase in such applications by at least 20 times to reach the ratio of 1.5% of the GDP by 2022 and achieve the goal of sustaining a private-led market.
This "super tax deduction" is obviously one of the important tools to achieve such a goal. This is something we all agree to, but we differ in how to use this tool. As we pointed out in our discussions in the Bills Committee, if we refer to those activities that are not included as qualifying R&D activities for tax deduction, we will find that this "super tax deduction" is still very tight-fisted. By "tight-fisted", I mean despite our ample strength in basic research, we need to put this research strength into application. I believe we would not expect that this "super tax deduction" can transform Hong Kong into a place like the United States with research knowhow on developing a space rocket. We may be able to do so in the future, but at least definitely not now. Hence, many R&D activities on applied technology should be promoted and encouraged.
From the Administration's response to the enquiry of Mr Charles Peter MOK as a Bills Committee member, we note that by definition, some of the items are clearly not included as qualifying R&D activities. For example, "any efficiency survey, feasibility study, management study, market research or sales promotion" is not included. These items are about marketing, and we understand why they are not included. But regarding the exclusion of "the application of any publicly available research findings or other knowledge to a plan or design, with an anticipated outcome and without any scientific or technological uncertainty", I think it will inhibit the use of many applied technologies. How should we interpret this exclusion?
422 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
The next exclusion is easier to understand, and that is "an activity that does not seek to directly contribute to achieving an advance in science or technology by resolving scientific or technological uncertainty". If I do not get it wrong, and Secretary, please correct me if I get it wrong, it means that basic scientific research is not included as a tax-deductible activity.
But the rationale for the next exclusion is again difficult to understand: "any work to develop the non-scientific or non-technological aspect of a new or substantially improved material, device, product, process, system or service". We are at a budding stage in the development of innovation and technology. As I just said, in considering how to create such a favourable atmosphere, the Administration should be more embracing in attitude. Please do not forget that only when an enterprise has made a profit will it be eligible to claim tax deduction for its R&D activities. I am talking about the profit before tax. Against this backdrop, if we aim to encourage the development of innovation and technology, we should adopt a more embracing attitude in considering the scope of tax-deductible activities.
When people set up an enterprise to undertake R&D and claim tax deduction for their R&D activities, they have to make an application with the Inland Revenue Department ("IRD"). In case of any questions on the application, IRD will consult colleagues and experts in the Innovation and Technology Commission ("ITC") on whether the application meets the R&D requirements in terms of innovation and technology. Due to their different roles, it is conceivable that IRD will strictly process the application from the perspective of a gatekeeper of public coffers, while ITC will be more embracing in understanding and interpreting the items that are eligible for tax deduction, since it has a broader goal of fostering a better overall atmosphere for innovation and technology in society.
I thus have a proposal for the Secretary's consideration. In order to let an enterprise know sooner the eligibility of its R&D activities for tax deduction, the enterprise can be allowed to directly indicate its intention to undertake a certain R&D project to ITC. If ITC issues a tax voucher for the enterprise, it means that all items of the R&D project are recognized by ITC as tax deductible. This will help the enterprise to decide on its investment projects and let it ascertain early the eligibility of its projects for tax deduction. I think this will be conducive to the enterprise. This is another point I wish to make.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 423
The third point I wish to say is about the atmosphere. At present, our private-led R&D on innovation and technology is weak. Apart from setting up this system of tax deduction, the Government should also step up its effort to attract enterprises to Hong Kong. We certainly welcome local enterprises, but attracting international enterprises to Hong Kong is even better. So, ITC, InvestHK, or the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Offices overseas should work with this attitude to recruit global business investment and attract various enterprises to Hong Kong by offering our "super tax deduction".
In my opinion, the Government does not have any specific strategy on this matter at this stage. Has the Government sent any business recruitment teams overseas to promote this tax deduction, so as to attract enterprises to establish a branch or office here in Hong Kong? Or, is it passively waiting for the tax deduction applications? I hope the Secretary can later respond to this point and tell us more about it, so that we can rest assured that the Government already has a strategy in place to proactively attract interested enterprises from around the world to Hong Kong.
Lastly, there is still another problem we need to address. There is a quest for talents anywhere in the world. How do we retain talents in Hong Kong? The point is that our efforts must really work to retain talents in Hong Kong. This is something complementary in nature. If enterprises are willing to come to Hong Kong, talents will naturally stay in Hong Kong.
However, if our strategy only focuses on the Greater Bay Area economy, or finding business opportunities in the Mainland, as far as the development of innovation and technology is concerned, we should be mindful not to turn Hong Kong into only a stepping stone, or a platform, for talents to go to the Mainland for further career development. I think this is something the Secretary should be mindful of. If we cannot retain talents in Hong Kong through a series of measures, we will only be making all the efforts to serve other people. I often emphasize this point.
Here, I wish to cite a listed biopharmaceutical company as an example to remind investors of the risk of investing in the biopharmaceutical industry. The company is listed in Hong Kong, but its entire R&D centre is located in the Mainland. It has successfully initiated different research projects and obtained deliverables. Its biopharmaceutical products are marketed in the Mainland as a lot of time can be saved if the company obtains its product certification from the Mainland authorities.
424 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
I wish to invite the Secretary to respond to this point because biopharmaceuticals and biotechnology, apart from AI (Artificial Intelligence), are a major R&D item in Hong Kong. When a biopharmaceutical company manages to turn its R&D projects into deliverables, it naturally wants to market the products in larger markets. This determines where the company will base its major R&D projects. The edge of Hong Kong lies in its sound protection of intellectual property, but we cannot rely on this edge alone. If it takes a lot of time for a company to apply for marketing approval for its deliverables, this will also be a factor that an investor will consider in deciding the location of the company.
Developing biopharmaceuticals is one of our important R&D directions in the future. The Secretary has repeatedly pointed out that biopharmaceuticals is one of the fundamental research areas where Hong Kong's strength lies. Hence, we should break the restraints in this area by pooling talents in Hong Kong and protecting intellectual property, so as to increase the appeal of the 300% tax reduction on R&D activities. I hope that through my elaboration of the few points above, the Secretary will know that the Democratic Party supports his plan on R&D tax reduction.
However, the vetting and approval procedure in Hong Kong needs to be adjusted. The Administration should adopt a more embracing attitude. I echo some colleagues in that we can take a relatively lax approach in the beginning, and then consider picking out the black sheep in the industry, taking into account the development of the situation when a better atmosphere is in place. We found something very impressive in the duty visit to Israel last year. The Israeli Government is very embracing, accommodating and supportive in dealing with matters related to innovation and technology. Not only the offices under their directors of bureaux, but also different government departments adopt this work attitude. They all know that different departments have their individual work portfolios and are facing their own political pressure, but they say different government departments in their country will still work in concert and strive to find a way to tackle any problems.
I thus think that this is a very important element. Secretary, after this system of "super tax deduction" has been put in place in Hong Kong, would Secretary and all colleagues in government departments please understand that the most important element in innovation and technology is change. They need to change their bureaucratic mentality. They need to understand that there will LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 425 be many setbacks in the development of innovation and technology. It requires the acceptance of the community and the understanding of government departments to create an atmosphere that encourages innovation and technology to take root in Hong Kong.
If innovation and technology is to become the driving force for the future economic restructuring of Hong Kong, the attitude of the whole society and the Government has to change, apart from the policies on funding or tax deduction. Innovation and technology is a very unique area. It has to go through repeated setbacks to achieve positive results occasionally in some projects. If we expect success from every investment and adopt this as a measuring standard, I am afraid it will be difficult to create an environment conducive to innovation and technology. After all, the development of innovation and technology involves a considerable extent of experiment, as well as frequent setbacks and difficulties, but this is the road we must travel in the process of fostering innovation and R&D.
I speak in support of the Inland Revenue (Amendment) (No. 3) Bill 2018, and I hope that innovation and R&D can take root in Hong Kong. Thank you, President.
MR HOLDEN CHOW: President, first of all, I support the Inland Revenue (Amendment) (No. 3) Bill 2018 to allow tax deduction for research and development ("R&D") expenditure for qualified local institutions. This will certainly provide an incentive to advance our innovation and technology business and industry. The Chief Executive has pledged to raise our city's R&D expenditure to 1.5% of our GDP in few years' time. We are still way behind the target and I think we do have a lot of work to do.
Tax advantage is of course only one of the factors, among many others, to foster our innovation and technology industry, and another curial factor is talents. I think Hong Kong should really make full use of our renowned international status to appeal to talents worldwide and companies worldwide to set up their headquarters and regional offices in Hong Kong. We need to attract talents from all over the world to come over to Hong Kong and work here. Only if we do this, we will be able to enhance our innovation and technology industry.
426 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
I agree with my colleagues that we should proactively engage international companies large or small and governments, just to tell them we are very determined to develop our city into an international innovation and technology hub. Indeed, in Hong Kong, we do provide a less-than-usual business regulatory environment. We would try to eliminate red tape. Expatriates love living here. We are a very cosmopolitan city. And I need to tell everyone that if the employees are eager to move here, then their companies will be willing to move here too.
I am neither a tax expert nor a R&D expert, but I wish to put in my two cents on how to boost the technology industry. The crux of the matter here is, President, how to promote Hong Kong to the rest of the world and that we could be a high-flier in the innovation and technology industry in say 10 to 15 years. And I stress and I repeat, only if we are able to attract all the talents from all around the world to come over to Hong Kong, we will be able to prevail.
Thank you.
DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): President, I have no objection to the Government's current proposal of attracting information technology ("IT") companies to set up their business in Hong Kong by way of offering enhanced tax deductions.
However, Secretary, you are not the first time to act as a leader. Given that you had lived in the United States and worked as an IT professional for so long, you must be well aware that IT talents, in particular those with vigour, a fertile mind and innovative insights who are committed to the city where they belong, are crucial to information technology development. Take a look at today's Hong Kong. How many young people out there have hopeful visions of the future? How many young people take Hong Kong as a place for them to go on living and pursue lifelong career development? Some of my colleagues and I have visited some start-ups in the United States where innovative and capable young people who are happy to stay in Silicon Valley far outnumber those in Hong Kong.
It has been stated in an article published on an internationally renowned website that a city that can attract talents to stay and work there should satisfy five prerequisites: First, the city can provide room for young people to live and work; second, it can provide a favourable and reasonable information LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 427 environment just as what Mr MOK often refers to, namely an environment in which information data is made accessible to all; third, the status of the city is recognized by the international community; fourth, the local leaders are far-sighted and representative of the citizens; and last, people can establish their own prestige in the city. Except for the third one, Hong Kong has failed to satisfy those prerequisites as an international city. Our young people, including the children of senior government officials, have gone abroad to study in the junior high schools. According to the Secretary for Education, he has taken the least effortful approach and so his children attend international schools as a result. It is because the existing education system in Hong Kong will only drive young people away, rather than attracting them to come and stay.
Generations of young people went abroad to study in secondary schools and universities until graduation. Having experienced better education systems, will they be willing to come back to Hong Kong and let their children continue to suffer in this city under its lousy education system, do you think? After marriage, talented people engaged in different sectors (including the IT industry) will choose to emigrate to other countries when their children are old enough to attend primary or junior secondary schools because they realize that Hong Kong is hopeless and has no future. This is precisely their reality.
On the other hand, if you tell those young person running start-ups to stay here and they really do stay, where are they supposed to live then? To live in subdivided units? Or to sleep underneath staircases? There is utterly no way for them to live with dignity in Hong Kong. They can only choose to either go on living under their parents' roofs or live in cubicles―cases of IT professionals living in cubicles have become commonplace here in Hong Kong. There is no hope in this city since our Government has to rely on making profits generated under its "high land premium policy" and housing policy. This is something we all know, although people do not bother to mention it expressly. So this is the reality. May I ask the Secretary: How are we supposed to convince our younger generation to stay and run start-ups …
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, the Council is having a debate on the Inland Revenue (Amendment) (No. 3) Bill 2018 ("the Bill") right now. Having spoken for four minutes, however, you are still not speaking on the question under debate.
428 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): I do support giving a Second Reading to the Bill, President, but please listen to me first …
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Please come back to the question under debate.
DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Nevertheless, I think it is not enough to use tax policies to attract more people. When the Government offers enhanced tax deductions in a bid to attract businessmen to invest in Hong Kong, those interested businessmen will certainly need to look for talents. Actually, both developing start-ups and starting up businesses call for talents because people are the assets that count most. However, Hong Kong has no future as perceived by the young people, and so they will choose to leave this city.
Next, there is the issue of free flow of information. This year's Policy Address is quite ridiculous in that it proposes the opening-up of the operating data by operators of green minibuses, but not the franchised bus companies and the MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL") which have the biggest collection of such data. What kind of society is it? What does it has to offer in order to attract young people to engage in the IT industry? Even the data possessed by the Government, which can influence government policies, is not made public. And so the Government finds an alternative way to open up certain information by making accessible real-time arrival information of green minibuses. Well, why not also open up the data of taxis then? This serves to illustrate how incapable our Government is. People from other places will never consider developing start-ups in Hong Kong when they see that policies and laws in Hong Kong are much too outdated and our Government has not even been able to do a good job in the opening up of data. Suppose I am a young man or an entrepreneur of a start-up who wants to retrieve useful data to facilitate business growth, but it will not be possible either because the data is completely withheld or because the Government is reluctant to provide the data …
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK, I remind you that it would be more appropriate to present, during policy address debates, the arguments you have raised just now.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 429
DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): President, I am talking about the issue of tax deductions right now and will finish speaking very soon.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Please come back to the question under debate as soon as possible. I will ask you to stop speaking if you keep on digressing from the topic.
DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Even if you do not stop me from speaking, I am almost done here. President, the last thing I want to talk about is the fourth prerequisite, namely the city must be led by a far-sighted leader. However, what does our leader "777" speak of every day? It is always about "the Greater Bay Area (the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area)", "'one country' is of greater importance or has higher priority than 'two systems'" and the like. Being bombarded by such remarks every day, how our young people are supposed to live in Hong Kong? IT professionals are not robots. It will not be the case that they are completely preoccupied with matters about running start-ups after returning to the office, and just turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to the world outside upon stepping out of the office. Given the stifling environment (including the social and political atmosphere) where they are stranded and young people are being turned down by society one after the other, how can they feel the vitality of the city? After all, will anyone choose to establish a start-up in a place with no vitality?
As we all know, among our competitors are many different countries and cities. They outperform Hong Kong, President, not only in respect of tax deductions, but also in the sense that the vibrancy of the entire city can make young people willing to stay and make contributions. You may try asking some local talents to see how many of them are willing to stay and contribute to society. This is what Hong Kong really has to worry about. The total number, upon adding up the respective numbers of Hong Kong people who are willing to run start-ups in Silicon Valley and elsewhere like Ireland and Singapore, will be way bigger than the number of those found in Hong Kong. However, our Government is so marvellous indeed that it has come up with the idea of attracting talents from the Mainland to come to Hong Kong as it might be better for talents from outside to blend with local talents. Yet, is this really what we aim to achieve?
430 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
Developing start-ups is unlike developing hardware. Of course, there is the Lok Ma Chau Loop area for us to develop a wide array of hardware in the future. At present, we have put in place arrangements for tax rebates. President, I have to reiterate that I actually support the Government's current proposal of offering enhanced tax deductions. Nevertheless, the crux of running start-ups lies in people as well as how to make them willing to stay in the industry. Otherwise, when the IT professionals withdraw from the industry one by one, people who stay in the city will only be those engaged in speculative activities―well, there is actually another alternative, namely to first become a civil servant for some while and then switch to establish a career in the political arena. As Carrie LAM had once said, people aspiring to establish a career in the political arena had better be former civil servants. If so, then why does the Government not create more IT posts in the civil service?
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK, you are still digressing from the question under debate. The Council is now discussing the issue of tax deduction instead of IT or start-ups.
DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): I am almost done, President, and I am speaking on the issue of tax deduction. I support the offer of tax deductions.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I will ask you to stop speaking if you still do not come back to the question under debate.
DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): President, I reiterate that the proposal of enhanced tax deductions has my support. However, I think the Government has neither done a good job nor made enough efforts in this regard. I do hope the Secretary and his team can reflect upon their efforts. Apart from enhancing tax deductions, there is a lot more that Hong Kong has to do. A place must be governed by a government led by a far-sighted leader while offering a sound environment in order to make its young people stay. Otherwise, it is nothing more than an enlarged "empty shell", just like the case of the Mainland, where people are also adept at producing "empty shells".
I so submit. Thank you, President.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 431
MR ALVIN YEUNG (in Cantonese): The speech made by Dr KWOK Ka-ki just now was, again, ruled by the President to have kind of digressed from the question under the current debate. However, if we take a closer look at his impassioned speech, we will know that his position is the same as that of the Civic Party: We all support the tax rebate proposed under the present Bill. I would like to point this out in very clear terms.
Still, President, it remains really difficult to do scientific research in Hong Kong. Many start-ups suffer from a lack of both capital and talents. A further impediment to them is the unpredictable government policies that are prone to change and out of tune with the innovation and technology ("I&T") milieu every now and then. By the time the two are in tune, we may already be running late as the specific technology in question has failed to keep up with the times.
The Government introduces a "super taxation deduction" regime this time for R&D expenditure incurred by technology-based enterprises, and it indeed comes as a well-devised policy to those organizations and enterprises which are willing to invest in research and development ("R&D"). I hope that this policy can help attract overseas scientific research institutes or enterprises to set up business and invest in Hong Kong, thereby bringing true benefits to the territory.
President, I must emphasize once again that the Civic Party supports this "super tax deduction" initiative just as we are supportive of any other measures that are conducive to Hong Kong's I&T development. Just like the majority of our colleagues here, I do not come from an I&T background, yet I do have some observations. I would like to say in particular that, during the last summer recess, I had the opportunity to go on a study trip with Mr Charles Peter MOK to Silicon Valley in the United States, where we came across issues directly related to I&T.
President, as the whole world is now keen to ride on the bandwagon of the hot I&T trend, presumably all of us would like to ask: Will Hong Kong be able to grab a share? In the summer this year, we had the chance to visit some Hong Kong people working in the United States, in particular those who are engaged in the I&T field. We asked them if the proposed "super tax deduction" regime would be an attractive policy initiative to them, and whether it could actually lure I&T talents to return to Hong Kong from the United States. Those people who were developing start-ups there all shook their heads to say no. Why? They said that the tax deduction sounded quite attractive when they first heard of it. 432 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
But then, to qualify for such deduction, an enterprise must be able to generate profits and pay the tax. President, we must note that to start-up entrepreneurs, the key actually lies in their having the means to pay the tax. But these start-up entrepreneurs have not even come close to paying any tax, not to mention the benefit of enjoying the "super tax deduction".
President, you may think that these conditions are just attainable, even to the start-ups, and the cases of micro enterprises may not be applicable to Hong Kong. But is this an absolutely correct view? President, let us be clear that those new technologies with proven efficacy, innovation and profitability will shine on the global stage and be welcomed everywhere in the world. I would like to mention here a Hong Kong person who had earlier caught the attention of the entire world in Apple's new phone launch event. He is David. Thanks to Mr Charles Peter MOK's connection, I was lucky enough to have dined with David when he was in Silicon Valley. David sat by my side and showed me right before my eyes the new technology which attracted global attention in the Apple launch event. He showed me how to use that application with a phone when we dined. The application, which has attracted investment from NBA stars, is developed by a Hong Kong person. President, to David, the tax deduction is obviously irrelevant to his decision about returning to Hong Kong or otherwise. His decision clearly hinges on whether Hong Kong can provide him with the stage, the soil and the space for growth.
President, I am not going to give Secretary YANG a tall order, asking him to persuade Apple Inc. to move to Hong Kong expeditiously. I do not think this is realistic. But I believe Secretary YANG shares the concern of those who are anxious about Hong Kong's I&T development―whether we can attract talents with a fertile mind and insights to return to Hong Kong. President, although Hong Kong has slipped one place to second this year among the most competitive economies in the world, it is unlikely that we cannot attract start-ups and technology-based enterprises to come. For sure, I&T will continue to be the most important economic driver in the future and it should be all the easier to achieve a success in Hong Kong. The United States is a world leader in technology and I understand that Hong Kong can hardly compare to the United States. However, we can compare Hong Kong with the other places in the region: Singapore, Taiwan or even the Mainland. Upon comparison, it surprises me that Hong Kong is not the first choice in the region for I&T enterprises and I&T investors. We do have to ask why.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 433
Let us see, one by one, where the Asia-Pacific headquarters of leading technology companies are located. Google's data centres are in Taipei and Singapore, and Facebook also operates its data centre in Singapore, according to its latest announcement. Dyson, a company which attracts the attention of consumers in the world with their innovative hair dryers and fans, announced last year a plan to build electric vehicles. In a press statement released just yesterday, Dyson said that the manufacturing facility for its electric cars would be located in Singapore.
President, it is Singapore again. Comparisons have often been made between Singapore and Hong Kong. While Singapore has managed to resolve its housing problem in recent years, Hong Kong is still struggling to catch up. In terms of technological development, Hong Kong is once again lagging behind Singapore. When visiting the United States, we met with a number of technology companies, asking them whether they would choose Hong Kong as the location for their headquarters or bases in Asia, or simply whether they would consider Hong Kong if they have planned to set up business in Asia. At that time, our friends all looked uneasy in front of us and they sidestepped the question. So we then asked what their choice in Asia would be, aside from Hong Kong. Yes, to the surprise of none, they all said: Singapore. President, we also visited a number of municipal governments in Silicon Valley which were taking forward their smart city plans. Even those governments all held the city state in high regard as a model to be learned from. Then, we do have to think about the reasons why. Singapore is privileged with two conditions that meet the I&T development needs: abundant supply chain resources and ample supply of high-technology talents.
President, why do we have the ancient saying that "one turns pale at the mention of a tiger"? This is because tigers prey on people. Then, why do the I&T people turn pale at the mention of Hong Kong? The problem arose some years ago when InvestHK invited Uber to come to Hong Kong. After arriving in Hong Kong, Uber was prosecuted in the next minute by our law enforcement authority and became a defendant in the Court. Moreover, the Calendar App is also required to be removed from Tesla's vehicles in Hong Kong for it is considered illegal here. These world-class scandals in the I&T field have been cited by our overseas friends as the reasons for not considering Hong Kong. President, these may not all be the responsibility of Secretary YANG who sits in the Council today. But he must have some hard feelings deep inside. When we are to confront an enormous bureaucracy, some outdated regulations and certain bureaucratic mindset that is afraid of trying new stuff, all these will 434 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 become a tiger that kills people with all conservative and rigid red tape. Under such circumstances, how can Hong Kong attract technology-based enterprises that we truly value?
President, a venture fund investor told me while I was in Silicon Valley that there are three key elements for I&T development: money, talents and environment. Money is seldom in shortage today in most parts of the world. In fact, the governments in many places have ploughed in money and encourage talents to engage in the I&T sector. And money is definitely not an issue to an international financial centre like Hong Kong. Talents and environment are the key considerations that count more to prospective investors. However, frankly speaking, the best talents in Hong Kong in the last couple of decades have all been working as professionals or in the financial sector. How many of these finest people, would you say, are engaged in the fields of computer and electronic engineering?
President, I note that the Policy Address this year proposes the launch of talent admission schemes for attracting overseas talents and scientific research institutions to come and stay in Hong Kong. But let us look at the fact: while the Government introduces this "super tax deduction" initiative and new talents recruitment schemes, it remains inhibitingly difficult for any enterprises to hire expatriates and apply working visas for them if they are not big companies or tenants of the Science Park.
As regards the environment, President, the Government will certainly say we have the Greater Bay Area. But to many expatriates, the Greater Bay Area is something unheard of. And indeed, the Government cannot turn overnight the Greater Bay Area in China into a place comparable to the Bay Area in the United States, as the transformation needs to be supported by the necessary conditions. It calls for the bold adoption of local technology, formulation of vigorous promotion policies, and creation of a favourable environment by the municipal government, so that attractive conditions can be effectively made available. It definitely cannot be done with a snap of fingers: no way will the Greater Bay Area come out of thin air and instantly turn into a place like the Bay Area in Silicon Valley in the United States.
President, Hong Kong is obviously a place conducive to I&T development in terms of talents. However, owing to unfavourable policies and outdated legislation, we are trailing behind Mainland China, Singapore and Taiwan in terms of opportunities. The Government is now taking an initial step with the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 435 introduction of this "super tax deduction" initiative. This step in the right direction has our support. Nevertheless, I hope the Special Administrative Region Government can understand that we need its policy support all the more. As it takes two to tango, we need policies on all fronts to work in concert in order to create an environment conducive to I&T development. Only by doing so can we attract foreign enterprises and expatriate talents to come over here and invest and settle in Hong Kong.
I so submit.
IR DR LO WAI-KWOK (in Cantonese): President, the Chief Executive proposed in the Policy Address last year to increase the percentage of research and development ("R&D") expenditure to the Gross Domestic Product ("GDP") from 0.73% to 1.5% within five years. Subsequently, Financial Secretary Paul CHAN announced in the Budget that he would set aside an additional $50 billion for innovation and technology development. Moreover, as an incentive to encourage private enterprises to invest in R&D, he also announced that enterprises would enjoy a 300% tax deduction for the first HK$2 million qualifying R&D expenditure, and a 200% deduction for the remainder. As manifested by these policies and initiatives, the Government does have the determination to break the strait jacket that has impeded innovation and technology development, and has responded to the strong aspirations expressed by members of the commerce, industry and technology sectors all these years. This is indeed worthy of our recognition and support.
Members of the Business and Professionals Alliance for Hong Kong ("BPA") have been in contact with a number of chambers of commerce, associations and professional societies that we represent, such as the Federation of Hong Kong Industries, the Hong Kong General Chamber of Commerce, the Hong Kong Institution of Engineers, etc., and they have actually been urging the Government all these years to provide enterprises with tax concessions to encourage and support investment in R&D. It is not until now when the Government has finally accepted our suggestion, and we would say that it is better late than never.
President, the Inland Revenue (Amendment) (No. 3) Bill 2018 ("the Bill") is intended to achieve the policy objective mentioned above and the following two main purposes: firstly, to provide for enhanced tax deductions for certain 436 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 expenditures incurred in relation to R&D activities; and secondly, to introduce additional safeguards to prevent the abuse of tax deductions in respect of R&D activities.
President, according to the World Digital Competitiveness Ranking 2018 published by the International Institute for Management Development in Lausanne, Switzerland, Hong Kong's ranking in digital competitiveness has dropped from the seventh in the world last year to the eleventh. Hong Kong's competitiveness is affected by a relatively late start in such areas as mobile electronic payment systems and our development as a smart city. Hence, there is indeed an immediate urgency to encourage investment by private enterprises in R&D, and gradually increase the percentage of R&D expenditure to GDP. In its reply to a question raised in this Council earlier, the Innovation and Technology Bureau stated that if the share of R&D in the private sector could grow robustly, achieving a higher percentage of R&D expenditure to GDP was not a target beyond reach.
I, together with other Members of BPA, have suggested to the Government that it should demonstrate a longer term commitment and go further to set specific targets to increase the percentage of R&D expenditure to GDP to 2.5% within 10 years, while at the same time establishing a clear assessment mechanism and key performance indicators for conducting systemic assessments by phases. In the short term, just as what the business and technology sectors have repeatedly reflected to the Administration, there are still some restrictions that need to be addressed in the implementation of the proposed tax deductions.
Many representatives of the commerce and industry sectors and major chambers of commerce are of the view that such restrictions are unreasonable in some respects and are not conducive to achieving the policy intent of the Government. Hence, in order to tie in with the implementation of the Bill, the Government should expeditiously review and enhance the existing tax deduction mechanism for R&D expenditure, including taking an embracing approach in dealing with the list of designated local R&D institutions, extending the scope of qualifying R&D activities and relaxing their territorial restrictions. For instance, consideration should be given to further relaxing the relevant restrictions to cover R&D collaboration projects in science and technology which are spearheaded by eligible enterprises in Hong Kong but undertaken in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area ("the Greater Bay Area"), so that such projects LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 437 would be eligible for certain tax deductions. This will not only benefit more enterprises but can also promote cooperative partnerships in scientific research in the Greater Bay Area.
Let us take an example for illustration. As exchanges between various cities in the Greater Bay Area have become more frequent, the Government should provide support for the systems of electronic identity and electronic payment developed in Hong Kong, and carry out advance studies on their interconnectivity with various related systems in the Greater Bay Area, thereby fostering the efficient flow of people, goods, information, capital and services within the Area, and facilitating Hong Kong's transformation into an international innovation and technology hub. In order to implement the above proposals, the authorities concerned should engage in pragmatic discussions with the industrial and technology sectors.
President, some fellow Members have just now spoken highly of the policies and measures in Singapore to promote innovation and technology. We opine that Hong Kong should draw on the successful experience in other places, but I have to point out that Singapore's success is also attributable to the following three key elements: firstly, creation of land through reclamation; secondly, importation of talents and foreign workers; and thirdly, formulation of a number of preferential and support policies by the Singaporean Government to attract newly-established enterprises and overseas companies to settle in the country.
Of course, the greatest opportunity before us today is presented by the development of the Greater Bay Area. Looking back on the history, I wish to point out that in the beginning of the reform and opening up of our country 40 years ago, the injection of capital, technology and management skills from Hong Kong was indeed a critical and significant driver to the development of the whole Pearl River Delta ("PRD") Region, although the geographical description "Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area" was not used then. Today, as the industries in the whole PRD Region have already reached a rather sophisticated level, we need to consider how further enhancements can be made so that the nine major cities in PRD Region, Hong Kong and Macao can complement each other and stride forward together.
Hence, innovation and technology is indeed vitally important to us, and Hong Kong possesses its own strengths in this area. For example, some local universities have attained outstanding performance in scientific research, and 438 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 quite a number of laboratories here have actually achieved a standard at the national level. Recently, under the national policy of our country, such laboratories have already been given the official title of "national laboratories". With regard to the production chain in PRD Region, complementary cooperation among different cities will definitely help to take the innovation and technology development to a new height in the entire Bay Area. Therefore, the SAR Government's policies and initiatives to promote R&D definitely warrant our support.
Therefore, on behalf of BPA, I support the early passage of the Bill by this Council. I so submit.
MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): President, as many colleagues including my fellow party members have already spoken on the subject, there are only a few points which I would like to add briefly.
Indeed, places and cities in the world are all competing to attract scientific research institutions and foster favourable opportunities for the local economies to grow. Such a global competition is going to continue over the next few decades, in which all players will strive to advance from a more primitive mode of development to an increasingly technological one.
However, what kind of atmosphere, environment and background should be made available to attract scientific research institutions to settle in Hong Kong, so as to facilitate more thriving development in scientific research? The factors involved are numerous and just too complicated, and the subject under discussion today, that is, the proposed provision of super tax deduction for scientific research, is only one of these many factors. It is true that the past performance of Hong Kong in this respect has lagged behind that of other jurisdictions, because on the one hand we in the past might not very much consider it necessary as a policy to promote the development of scientific research. On the other hand, even though it was considered necessary to do so, given the competitiveness of Hong Kong, it was open to question as to whether the introduction of such a tax deduction initiative was the best way to achieve the objective.
Over the years we have indeed been taking a hesitant stance, and eventually have come to realize that places worldwide are competing for a share of this "pie". If our tax deduction measures apparently compare far less LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 439 favourably with those introduced in other jurisdictions, and when such a unfavourable factor has grown to such an extent that it hinders the development of our scientific research, the strengths that Hong Kong has long possessed in areas other than tax deduction will be seriously undermined. Therefore, against this background, I think we should adopt such taxation measures, and the current legislative proposal is in fact a belated effort.
Nevertheless, conversely, does it mean that the introduction of such super tax reduction measures can definitely achieve the intended effect? I would like to raise two points in this respect. Firstly, we have to closely review their effectiveness, and ascertain whether there are enterprises truly benefiting from such tax deduction measures after the implementation of the proposed regime. In other words, such measures should produce the desired results very soon in the next few years, particularly given that with a global vision, multinational companies simply do not care whether you are taking any initiatives to promote the development of the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area ("the Greater Bay Area"). They will be interested in such concession measures only when these are considered well-founded and financially viable.
We need to understand that research and development ("R&D") activities involve risks on various fronts. The investment risk is indeed very high, and R&D institutions will manage to break even as long as one out of ten projects can succeed. The problem is that although we are willing to provide both "the chickens and the soya sauce", are these adequate to attract investors and convince them that when the whole thing is a gamble after all, some favourable factors other than super tax deduction measures do exist to make Hong Kong a place worthy of settling? In fact, no matter what we are talking about, be it the Greater Bay Area or a national scientific R&D centre, we have to consider all the relevant factors as a whole, including the visa policy introduced to attract talents, and even the arrangements for allowing their dependants to stay in Hong Kong, facilitating their children's admission to international schools here, etc.
An enterprise predominantly engaged in scientific research will have to think and consider its business from a global perspective, including the protection of its intellectual property rights, and Hong Kong has been doing well in this area. The most crucial factor lies in the second point I am going to make. It is a crucial point we should note: Although Hong Kong may definitely get certain advantages or benefits from the tax deductible expenditures incurred by such enterprises, such as those salary and R&D expenditures, the deliverables of their R&D projects are, after all, most important to us.
440 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
Hong Kong actually may not be benefited much from offering tax deductions to enterprises for a few years, even though they rent offices or recruit staff here. What counts most to us lies in the final deliverables of their R&D projects, and where they follow up by further exploring and promoting the deliverables, and this will bring about the greatest profits. If such enterprises find the entire atmosphere and environment in Hong Kong very favourable during the R&D process, they will take it as an additional pulling factor for them to stay in Hong Kong and undertake follow-up projects here, and I believe this is the only way which can bring us considerable benefits.
Certainly, another crucial point is whether the deliverables of R&D projects will be used for products development, and whether arrangements will be made for the listing of the enterprises concerned, or their merging with other R&D enterprises by further utilizing the deliverables of their R&D projects, so as to foster cooperation in scientific research through acquisition, merger, further integration, etc. I think global competition for scientific research technology has become a major trend now, but then who are our competitors? The answer is: all places in the world.
Given Hong Kong's inherent strength, I am sure Hong Kong will be able to achieve success if our strength can be integrated with our country's relevant systems. However, we are now facing one big issue. Although I do not wish to politicize it, I have to remind the Government that when the United States are now acting so aggressively, will Hong Kong still be regarded as being in a position where it can adhere to the unique principle of "one country, two systems"? If certain scientific research projects require some forms of technological cooperation between the United States and Hong Kong, and this has caused a concern among the United States or the whole world that there may be a technology transfer of a sensitive nature to Mainland China, will the deliverables of the R&D projects concerned still be further developed in Hong Kong? I think this is a concern that we must address squarely in the next few years.
Whether we can dutifully and truly enforce the law on the control of certain strategic commodities and technological products is equally important. I have to give a prior warning here because war hawks, the conservatives or people picking on China in the United States are actually as ferocious as wolves and tigers. If Hong Kong is partial in law enforcement or the control of sensitive technology, thus giving them a handle against us or an impression that we have not done LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 441 enough as promised to faithfully uphold the principle of "one country, two systems", their scientific research companies will not invest their research resources in Hong Kong and develop their business here for a meagre sum of tax deduction, no matter what we do and what tax deductions we offer.
They know all too well that Hong Kong is a part of China, and such being the case, will they continue to stay in Hong Kong to carry out R&D activities on sensitive technology? China has often been accused of stealing technology from other countries. Regardless of whether such an allegation can be substantiated, if this is what others perceive, the export control of technology vis-à-vis tax deduction for R&D expenditures will definitely become a focus for discussion in the next few years. We should never think that with our offer of some tax deductions, enterprises will surely be attracted to Hong Kong to develop scientific research business here. Frankly speaking, we all know very well which countries have the finest scientific research talents. No matter what kind of super tax deduction measures we are going to introduce, they will mean nothing if the deliverables of R&D projects undertaken in Hong Kong are considered vulnerable to being stolen and the restrictions on the transfer of technology can also be easily violated, as perceived by some countries according to their policy perspective. Therefore, I would like to remind the SAR Government that it should dutifully enforce the law in this respect.
Of course, even though we act dutifully to enforce the law, our efforts may eventually be counteracted by some tricky tactics. Should it be a strategic policy for our country to engage in the stealing and transfer of technology, the Hong Kong Government will not be notified of such acts. Hence, there is no need for the Customs and Excise Department or various departments of the SAR Government to think too much, and they only have to take enforcement action in accordance with the letter of the law. If the state security departments are determined to bypass Hong Kong in an attempt to obtain, steal and snatch such deliverables, they will have no scruples about the action by the Customs and Excise Department because they have advanced technology to outsmart the latter. The Administration also need not think that Hong Kong will be condemned by Beijing for uncovering such cases, because I am sorry to say that it may be a deliberate attempt to let us uncover a few such cases, so as to promote Hong Kong as a place where law enforcement action will be taken dutifully. The tactics employed by them are so sophisticated that we can never understand.
442 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
Under the principle of "one country, two systems", Hong Kong enjoys the status as an independent customs jurisdiction. We can just act to enforce the law dutifully by fulfilling our undertaking to comply with certain treaties on strategic commodities. There is no need for us to think about any triggering circumstances. This is the last thing we should do, because our country will have its own consideration, and will assess what it really needs, what price it can pay and what should be done.
Not many colleagues would probably take the point I raised to remind the SAR Government from this perspective. I would like to add this as a footnote to urge that the Government should, apart from offering tax incentives, take special heed of the issues on various fronts amid the current state of international affairs.
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 Innovation and Technology to reply. Then, the debate will come to a close.
SECRETARY FOR INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY (in Cantonese): President, I would first of all like to thank the Bills Committee on Inland Revenue (Amendment) (No. 3) Bill 2018 ("the Bills Committee"), the Legislative Council Secretariat and the Legal Advisor for their hard work, which has enabled the smooth completion of the deliberation on the Inland Revenue (Amendment) (No. 3) Bill 2018 ("the Bill"). I also thank different stakeholders for their support to and valuable views on the Bill.
In order to promote domestic research and development ("R&D") by more enterprises and nurture Hong Kong's R&D capacity, the Bill proposes to implement an enhanced tax deduction regime for expenditures incurred by enterprises in carrying out "qualifying R&D activities". The proposed measure is introduced in response to the aspirations of the R&D sector, and implement the relevant proposals put forward by the Chief Executive in her election manifesto and her Policy Address last year.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 443
After the enactment of the Bill, R&D expenditures eligible for tax deduction will be classified as either "Type A expenditures" which qualify for 100% deduction, or "Type B expenditures" which qualify for the enhanced tax deduction. Tax deduction for "Type B expenditures" will be granted under a two-tiered deduction regime. The deduction will be 300% for the first $2 million of the aggregate amount of payments made to "designated local research institutions" for "qualifying R&D activities" and expenditures incurred by enterprises in carrying out in-house qualifying R&D activities, and 200% for the remaining amount. There is no cap on the amount of enhanced tax deduction. The arrangements are applicable to R&D expenditures incurred by enterprises on or after 1 April 2018.
Regardless of whether the expenditures are spent on outsourced or in-house R&D activities, they will be eligible for enhanced tax deduction as "Type B expenditures" as long as they are spent on "qualifying R&D activities". As for R&D expenditures on "R&D activities" undertaken outside Hong Kong, they may still be eligible for the existing 100% tax deduction as "Type A expenditures" for such activities. We consider the classification of "R&D activities" and "qualifying R&D activities" appropriate in that it can provide suitable incentives for different types of R&D activities, while helping promote local R&D activities and nurture local R&D talents.
The Bill also empowers the Commissioner of Inland Revenue to seek advice from the Commissioner for Innovation and Technology for R&D claims and advance rulings applications, and empowers the Commissioner for Innovation and Technology to designate any university or college located in Hong Kong, or any other institute, association, organization or corporation located in Hong Kong that undertakes qualifying R&D activities in Hong Kong, as "designated local research institution" for tax deduction purposes.
Some members of the Bills Committee considered the scope and definition of the terms "qualifying R&D activity" and "qualifying R&D expenditure" ambiguous. However, in determining whether a project falls within the definition of "qualifying R&D activity", we need to take many factors into consideration, such as the state of knowhow and technology at the commencement of the project, its direct contribution to an advance in science or technology, etc., and it is not possible to draw up a simple definition. If any enterprise wishes to know whether its planned R&D project meets the 444 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 requirements of "qualifying R&D activity", and whether the expenditures to be incurred are eligible for enhanced tax deduction, it can submit an application for an advance ruling by the Inland Revenue Department.
Some members also pointed out that enhanced tax deduction should also be granted for R&D activities outside Hong Kong, for example, 150% for those R&D activities undertaken in the Greater Bay Area. We take the view that the key policy objective of the Bill is to encourage more local R&D activities, and granting enhanced tax deduction to R&D activities outside Hong Kong will run contrary to this objective. Besides, this will involve cross-border tax audits, but it will be difficult for the Inland Revenue Department to verify such overseas R&D expenditures. As a matter of fact, R&D expenditures on R&D activities undertaken outside Hong Kong may still be eligible for the existing 100% deduction as "Type A expenditures".
Discussions were also conducted in the Bills Committee on the detailed requirements for designation as a "designated local research institution". We consider that any local institution or corporation which satisfies the specified requirements may apply to become a "designated local research institution", and such requirements include expertise in providing R&D services in one or more specified fields of science or technology, sufficient qualified and experienced R&D talents, equipment and facilities for the provision of R&D services in the specified fields, sound project management experience and appropriate track records, etc. We will set up an expert panel comprising members from relevant industries and the academia to advise on the assessment process. It is anticipated that for a less complex single field application where no on-site assessment is needed, the assessment will be completed about six weeks after the applicant has submitted all the required information.
Some members of the Bills Committee have expressed concern that given the anticipated large number of applications by research institutions for designation as "designated local research institutions", the Innovation and Technology Commission might take a longer time to process such applications, and taxpayers might decline to enter into formal agreement with or defer payments to such institutions until their designation, thereby adversely affecting the cash flow of these institutions. In this connection, I will propose amendments later to allow a taxpayer to claim tax deduction for a payment made to a local institution if the institution is designated as a "designated local research institution" within six months after the date of payment.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 445
President, the Bill is conducive to promoting R&D investment by private enterprises, fostering sustainable development of scientific research in Hong Kong and grooming local R&D talents. The Bill and the amendments which I will propose later have already obtained the support of the Bills Committee, and I urge Members to support and endorse them.
I so submit. Thank you, President.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the Inland Revenue (Amendment) (No. 3) Bill 2018 be read the Second time. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(No hands raised)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority of the Members present. I declare the motion passed.
CLERK (in Cantonese): Inland Revenue (Amendment) (No. 3) Bill 2018.
Council became committee of the whole Council.
Consideration by Committee of the Whole Council
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Council now becomes committee of the whole Council to consider the Inland Revenue (Amendment) (No. 3) Bill 2018.
Members may refer to the Appendix to the Script for the debate and voting arrangements for the Bill.
446 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
INLAND REVENUE (AMENDMENT) (NO. 3) BILL 2018
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I will first deal with the clauses with no amendment. I now propose the question to you and that is: That the following clauses stand part of the Bill.
CLERK (in Cantonese): Clauses 1 to 4, 6 to 12 and 14.
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 the clauses read out by the Clerk 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 of the Members present. I declare the motion passed.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now deal with the clauses with amendments. I now propose the question to you and that is: That the following clauses stand part of the Bill.
CLERK (in Cantonese): Clauses 5 and 13.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 447
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): The Secretary for Innovation and Technology will move his amendments to amend clauses 5 and 13.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Members may now proceed to a joint debate on the original clauses and the amendments.
Secretary for Innovation and Technology, you may move your amendments.
SECRETARY FOR INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move my amendments, as set out in the Appendix to the Script, to amend sections 6, 8, 9, 10 and 11 in Schedule 45 to the Inland Revenue Ordinance, and to re-organize section 15 of the Inland Revenue Ordinance necessitated by the passage of the Inland Revenue (Amendment) (No. 2) Bill 2018.
During the scrutiny of the Inland Revenue (Amendment) (No. 3) Bill 2018, some members of the Bills Committee expressed concern that a taxpayer might decline to enter into formal agreement with, or defer payments to, a research institution, given the considerable time required for the Innovation and Technology Commission ("ITC") to process the research institution's application for designation as a "designated local research institution", thus adversely affecting the cash flow of the research institution.
In general, for a less complex single field application where no on-site assessment is needed, ITC can complete the assessment in about six weeks after it has received all the required information. However, having considered members' views, we agree to widen the scope of the meaning of "research and development expenditure". This will allow taxpayers to claim tax deduction for payments made to a certain local institution within six months prior to the institution is designated as a "designated local research institution". We are of the view that a six-month eligibility period is reasonable and has struck a balance among various views.
Chairman, the Bills Committee has considered and expressed support to the amendments proposed by the Government. I urge Members to pass the amendments. Thank you, Chairman.
448 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
Proposed amendments
Clause 5 (See Annex I)
Clause 13 (See Annex I)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendments moved by the Secretary for Innovation and Technology be passed.
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 the amendments moved by the Secretary for Innovation and Technology be passed. 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 of the Members present. I declare the amendments passed.
CLERK (in Cantonese): Clauses 5 and 13 as amended.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That clauses 5 and 13 as amended stand part of the Bill. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 449
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(No hands raised)
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority of the Members present. I declare the motion passed.
CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): All the proceedings on the Inland Revenue (Amendment) (No. 3) Bill 2018 have been concluded in the committee of the whole Council. Council now resumes.
Council then resumed.
SECRETARY FOR INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY (in Cantonese): President, I now report to the Council: That the
Inland Revenue (Amendment) (No. 3) Bill 2018 has been passed by committee of the whole Council with amendments. I move the motion that "This Council adopts the report".
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by the Secretary for Innovation and Technology be passed.
In accordance with the Rules of Procedure, this motion shall be voted on without amendment or debate.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
450 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
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.
Third Reading of Government Bill
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Government Bill: Third Reading.
INLAND REVENUE (AMENDMENT) (NO. 3) BILL 2018
SECRETARY FOR INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY (in Cantonese): President, I move that the
Inland Revenue (Amendment) (No. 3) Bill 2018 be read the Third time and do pass.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the Inland Revenue (Amendment) (No. 3) Bill 2018 be read the Third time and do pass.
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 ― 24 October 2018 451
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(No hands raised)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority of the Members present. I declare the motion passed.
CLERK (in Cantonese): Inland Revenue (Amendment) (No. 3) Bill 2018.
Resumption of Second Reading Debate on Government Bill
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This Council resumes the Second Reading debate on the Employment (Amendment) Bill 2018.
EMPLOYMENT (AMENDMENT) BILL 2018
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 20 June 2018
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Chairman of the Bills Committee on the Bill, will first address the Council on the Committee's Report.
MR WONG TING-KWONG (in Cantonese): President, in my capacity as Chairman of the Bills Committee on Employment (Amendment) Bill 2018 ("the Bills Committee"), I report the deliberations of the Bills Committee.
The Employment (Amendment) Bill 2018 ("the Bill") seeks to amend the Employment Ordinance to increase the paternity leave for an eligible male employee from three days to five days. The Bills Committee held two meetings with the Administration. Here below, I will briefly report the matters over which Bills Committee members have expressed concern or differed in opinion.
Members of the Bills Committee generally welcome the legislative proposal to extend the duration of statutory paternity leave. Some members, however, are of the view that male employees should be entitled to a seven-day 452 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 statutory paternity leave, so that working fathers can more comprehensively take care of their new born baby and their partner. In this connection, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Mr HUI Chi-fung and Mr Gary FAN have separately indicated their intention to propose an amendment to extend the duration of statutory paternity leave to seven days. Dr Helena WONG has also proposed an amendment to extend the duration of paternity leave to seven days one year after the commencement of the enacted Ordinance.
Some other members do not support the proposal to further increase paternity leave to seven days. These members opine that increasing statutory paternity leave from three days to five days will increase the cost of small, medium and micro enterprises, making them even more difficult to deploy manpower. Hence, these employers will face even bigger operational difficulties if paternity leave is further increased to seven days.
According to the Administration, in considering the proposed increase of paternity leave to five days, it has made reference to the result of the review conducted by the Labour Department on the implementation of statutory paternity leave, the views of employees and the affordability of employers including small and medium enterprises. The Administration stresses that the present legislative proposal has secured the consensus of the Labour Advisory Board ("LAB") and is considered the only acceptable option.
In the light of the Administration's stance on the duration of paternity leave, Mr HO Kai-ming proposed an amendment to impose a statutory obligation on the Government to review the number of paternity leave days at least once in every year after the commencement of the enacted ordinance. In discussing this proposal at the Bills Committee, a majority of the members mentioned the Administration's commitment in 2014 when the legislative proposal of a statutory paternity leave regime was considered. The Administration undertook at that time that it would review the arrangement of statutory paternity leave one year after its implementation. However, since the implementation of statutory paternity leave in February 2015, the Administration has only conducted one review which led to the proposed increase of statutory paternity leave from three days to five days. While agreeing to the amendment, these members consider it necessary to further enhance the paternity leave benefits, and opine that the Administration should undertake to review the duration of paternity leave annually.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 453
Some other members do not support this proposal. They take the view that on the matters related to the enhancement of paternity leave benefits, various stakeholders should strike a proper balance having regard to the affordability of employers and the interests of employees, and respect the consensus reached in LAB on the statutory paternity leave arrangement. According to the Administration's response, it has been, from time to time, reviewing the labour legislation in the light of the socio-economic development in Hong Kong, and improving employees' benefits on the principle of balancing the interests of employees and the affordability of employers. The Administration thus does not see the need to provide a timetable for the review of statutory paternity leave, or find it necessary to achieve this purpose by way of legislation.
At the meeting of the Bills Committee on 25 July 2018, it was decided by way of a majority vote that I would move an amendment to that effect on behalf of the Bills Committee. However, the President ruled earlier that the amendment was inadmissible as it would have a charging effect within the meaning of Rule 57(6) of the Rules of Procedure.
Moreover, some members are of the view that, instead of setting the rate of paternity leave pay at four fifths of an employee's average daily wages as in the case of maternity leave and sick leave, employees on statutory paternity leave should be entitled to full pay. In this connection, Mr HUI Chi-fung and Mr Gary FAN indicated their intention to propose amendments respectively; and Dr Helena WONG also indicated her intention to amend the Bill to the effect that the rate of paternity leave pay be increased to full pay one year after the commencement of the enacted ordinance.
The Administration reiterates that the Bill seeks to extend the duration of statutory paternity leave to five day, and other arrangements of the existing paternity leave regime will remain unchanged, including the rate of paternity leave pay, and LAB also supports the Administration's proposal.
In response to members' concern over statutory paternity leave being inapplicable to a miscarriage, the Administration says that it will look into various issues in relation to miscarriage cases when conducting the review on maternity leave.
Lastly, the Bills Committee has no objection to the technical amendments to be proposed by the Administration later on and the resumption of the Second Reading debate on the Bill.
454 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
President, I now would like to express my personal views on the Bill.
President, this Council has resumed the Second Reading debate on the Bill which seeks to increase the duration of statutory paternity leave from three days to five days. Six Members proposed a total of 20 amendments, of which 10 were ruled admissible in this Council by the President.
Among the proposed amendments, one was initiated by Mr HO Kai-ming in the Bills Committee. The amendment sought to propose a review of paternity leave days once in every year. As decided by the Bills Committee by way of vote, I gave an notice to move the amendment on behalf of the Bills Committee, but it was ruled inadmissible by the President. According to the President's ruling, the existing ordinance does not contain any provisions requiring the Government to conduct reviews of paternity leave days at specific intervals. The amendment thus imposes a new and distinct function on the Government. The Government also submits that the amendment is inconsistent with the long title of the Bill, and that it would have a charging effect as an estimated additional staff cost of about $3.7 million per year will be incurred for establishing a dedicated team to fulfil the new statutory obligation, and this is contrary to the relevant provisions of the Rules of Procedure.
I will thus focus on the 10 admissible amendments. These amendments, which are proposed by Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Mr Gary FAN, Mr HUI Chi-fung and Dr Helena WONG respectively, seek to extend the proposed five-day paternity leave to seven days. The Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong ("DAB") and I have reservation about these amendments. The main reason is that the proposed paternity leave arrangement has already secured the agreement and the consensus of the labour and business sectors as represented by LAB. We should thus support what LAB has discussed and agreed to. Because of this reason, DAB and I will vote against all the amendments proposed by the aforesaid Members.
LAB is the most widely represented board of employers and employees, comprising representatives from major labour groups and trade associations. The proposals put forward by LAB based on its deliberations on issues concerning both employers and employees do have indicative significance, and will serve as an essential reference for the Government in policy formulation. As LAB is a forum for employers and employees to express and exchange their views, I am afraid any proposal that has not been thoroughly discussed and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 455 agreed to in this forum is unlikely to get the majority support of the employers, and the employees as well. Without the support of either sector, it is difficult to implement any relevant legislative proposals and they will be doomed to failure.
During the discussions in the Bills Committee, some members expressed the view that an extended 5-day statutory paternity leave was still not enough for a father to take care of his newborn baby and partner. They pointed out that during the deliberations of the former Bills Committee on the Employment (Amendment) Bill 2014, members then had already urged for extending the duration of statutory paternity leave to seven days. They therefore took the view that the Administration should seriously consider further extending statutory paternity leave to seven days this time.
I think it is quite understandable for some colleagues here to press for better benefits for employees by proposing the extension of paternity leave from three days to seven days, instead of five days as proposed in the present Bill. However, I must stress that their request must be reasonable, and should only be put forward after taking into consideration the affordability of employers and the need to strike a proper balance among the interests of various stakeholders. Such consideration is necessary especially when many legislative proposals in recent years have impacts on the employers. Coupled with the impacts of the China-United States trade war that will gradually be felt in our economy, many enterprises find it difficult to remain viable. That said, I believe that through more discussions and better mutual understanding when society progresses, together with the support from the Government, employers will make all possible effort within their means to progressively improve the benefits of workers.
In fact, on top of providing statutory paternity leave as required by legislation, many commercial enterprises are now aware of the importance of offering better employee benefits and, on their initiative, have granted longer maternal leave and paternity leave for their employees. Even before the Legislative Council discussed the Bill, some companies have already provided a five-day paternity leave, or even a six-day paternity leave, for their employees. As employees are the important resources of a company, I do believe employers will be willing to offer attractive employment terms to retain their staff as long as they can afford. Of course, we also hope that the Government can roll out measures to serve as incentives for enterprises to provide more benefits for their employees.
456 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
Moreover, paternity leave is intended for fathers of newborn babies, in order that they can give emotional support to their partners and help them to recover early after giving birth and guard against the possibility of having postnatal depression. Paternity leave can enable husbands to accompany their wives in their difficult times, while learning how and helping to take care of the newborn babies. This will enhance the harmony of the family. Given the request for better paternity leave entitlement, I hope that the Administration can also step up promotion and education through different media channels to clearly explain the intended purpose of providing paternity leave. It serves to remind that no fathers of newborn babies should only enjoy the holiday by having fun themselves and leave their family members in the lurch. This will definitely defeat the original purpose of paternity leave.
With these remarks, President, I oppose all the amendments proposed by Members.
MR TONY TSE (in Cantonese): President, over the past decade or so, the Rate of Natural Increase in Hong Kong has been declining, with the lowest rate at only 0.9, and it is not until recent years that it has gradually increased to the present rate at about 1.1. Despite the increase, compared to the rest of the world, our fertility rate is still on the low side. This has exacerbated the problems of ageing population and manpower shortage, thus affecting the socio-economic development of Hong Kong. In fact, many couples in Hong Kong also want to have their own children, but they are scared by two words. What are these two words? The first one is "money", as they are afraid that they are unable to afford the enormous and long-term expenses of rearing children. The other word is "busy", as many couples need to work to support living and they are worried that there is no time to take care of their children and accompany them in their development.
In recent years, the Government of the Special Administrative Region ("SAR") has introduced not a few measures to encourage Hong Kong people giving birth to children. They include raising the child allowance for newborn babies and the general child allowance, offering subsidies to early childhood education, providing baby-sitting rooms and breastfeeding rooms in government offices and encouraging the provision of such facilities in private buildings, introducing three days' statutory paternity leave in 2015 and proposing in the Policy Address this year to extend the duration of statutory maternity leave from LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 457 the existing 10 weeks to 14 weeks. All these are reasonable measures to help encourage giving birth and improve labour rights. In principle, I support all the above measures and the Employment (Amendment) Bill 2018 ("the Bill") which seeks to increase paternity leave from the existing three days to five days.
Of course, some employees think that the increase of two days is still not enough. They hope that it can be further increased to seven days or more so that they can have more time to take care of their newborn babies and their wives who just delivered the babies. And some people ask to revise the existing paternity leave pay arrangement from the daily rate of four fifths of the employee's daily wages to full pay. From the perspective of enhancing labour welfare, I can understand these requests. But in my view, in order to smoothly roll out some measures to resolve any labour issues, especially those involving legislation and enforceable measures, the most desirable approach is to reach a consensus between employers and employees before they are implemented in a gradual and orderly manner. If the Government or the Legislative Council makes some changes unilaterally, the result may possibly be counter-productive. It is likely that employers and employees will be antagonistic to each other and unwilling to discuss at the negotiation table, thus making it much more difficult to deal with matters involving labour rights or improve labour well-being in the future.
In days to come, the Legislative Council is going to deal with other legislative amendment proposals which will have more far-reaching implications and may be more disagreeable to certain employers, including the abolition of the offsetting arrangement under the Mandatory Provident Fund scheme, enhancing paid maternity leave and the regulation or otherwise of the working arrangements immediately after major natural disasters. If we, here in this Chamber today, has damaged the negotiation mechanism which provides room for discussions, it may not be good to the employees, employers and even Hong Kong society as a whole.
In regard to the proposal asking for annual reviews on the paternity leave duration by the Government, of course, President has already ruled this amendment inadmissible. I actually do not support the amendment concerned as it is not practicable. As we know, it will take at least a few months to conduct any policy review, while both the employers and employees need to be consulted during the review. Annual reviews will mean constantly conducting reviews, resulting in wastage of time, manpower and resources. If Members really think that statutory paternity leave must be increased to seven days, entitled to full pay 458 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 and subject to annual reviews, and they are so displeased with the Bill introduced by the Government, they might simply veto the Bill. President, I personally of course do not want this Bill to be vetoed. But if Members have so many views, does it mean that this Bill should not be passed, and will voting it down be one of the options? However, I surely hope that after the political reform controversy last time, we will learn the art of how to communicate, compromise and "pocket it first".
Finally, President, I would like to say that the SAR Government, being the employer who hires the largest number of employees in Hong Kong, should be a pioneer in labour rights. I thus hope that the Government can, where practicable, set an example in going beyond the statutory requirements concerning paternity leave. For instance, as early as 2012, the Government took the lead in implementing five days' paternity leave in the Civil Service, and recently, it announced the extension of paid maternity leave to 14 weeks with immediate effect. I believe that these two measures are much welcomed by civil servants.
President, I so submit.
MR HO KAI-MING (in Cantonese): President, paternity leave was endorsed in 2014. Since then, all men in Hong Kong, including me, are entitled to three days of paternity leave. If the Employment (Amendment) Bill 2018 ("the Bill") is passed today, the paternity leave will be increased to five days. Even though five days cannot be regarded as long period, this still marks another step forward in a way. When the Employment (Amendment) Ordinance 2014 was passed, the Government promised the labour sector and all employees in Hong Kong that a review would be conducted one year into the implementation of the Ordinance. While three years have lapsed when the entire review is completed today, the promised deadline has offered Members a basis for following up the question of whether the Government has conducted any review.
Perhaps the Government has learnt a bitter lesson from this and does not want employees to "chase after" it again, so it refuses to specify the time for a next review after announcing in the 2017 Policy Address that the paternity leave will be increased to five days. During the Bills Committee's scrutiny of the Bill, I presented an amendment in the hope of specifying in law a review of paternity leave once every 12 months. At the time, the Bills Committee endorsed that an LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 459 amendment would be proposed under its name. Regrettably, the Government argued that a serious review would require money and my amendment should be inadmissible under the Rules of Procedure as public money would be involved. What is more, the President also rejected my amendment, very much to my disappointment. This shows that the Government has not been quite so serious all along. Given that a serious review requires money, any review which does not require any money is actually not serious at all. Such an argument is ripped of any sound reasoning whatsoever.
(THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, MS STARRY LEE, took the Chair)
Actually, in 2017, the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions ("FTU") and the labour sector conducted a questionnaire survey involving all trade unions in Hong Kong on the provision of five-day paternity leave. We summarized several points from the views of trade unions we received on the amended number of paternity leave days. First, 95% of the trade unions considered the paternity leave days to be inadequate; second, 75% of the trade unions supported the Government's proposal to increase paternity leave from three days to five days; third, 85% of the trade unions supported increasing paternity leave from three days to five days and further to seven days; and fourth, full pay should be provided for paternity leave. Will trade unions reject five days altogether if they fail to fight for seven days? In my view, most trade unions do not hold such a view. Over half of the trade unions considered that the labour sector should not object the proposal to increase paternity leave to five days.
As can be seen from the above findings, the views of trade unions are very clear. So, an increase in the number of the paternity leave days is definitely necessary. The mainstream view holds that employees and the labour sector must support the Government's proposal to increase paternity leave from three days to five days, yet at the same time we should also continue to strive for an increase to seven days. As we can see, half of the trade unions will not agree to the labour sector raising objection to this proposal.
So, the amendment regarding an annual review I raised with the Bills Committee precisely reflected the wish of trade unions for supporting and accepting five days of paternity leave before continuing to strive for an increase to seven days. Secretary, paternity leave of five days is honestly insufficient. I 460 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 know that you were not entitled to any paternity leave long ago. But frankly speaking, the number of days is not enough, as the first three days of the five-day paternity leave and the two days that follow can only be spent as company for the wife in hospital and at home respectively. We are worried that in the days to come, the Government may lack any genuine intention to conduct a review and the supremacy to bargain with the business sector, and the time for a review would thus remain unknown. As such, we prepared this amendment to the Bill.
Actually, as we can see from various precedents, the Employment Ordinance is in need of many amendments concerning labour rights and interests. But the Government has failed to undertake this task properly. Besides, many labour laws have not been reviewed in the light of social changes and the development of global trends. For these reasons, Hong Kong lags behind the whole world in many labour rights and interests. People from the business sector sometimes criticize us for being insatiable, saying that we keep putting forth demands one after another. This is true, because the labour legislation has not been amended for prolonged periods, and many contents are honestly out of tune with the whole world. One example is Hong Kong's maternity leave. It was introduced in 1970, and the 10-week-long maternity leave is paid at the rate of 80% of the total wages. But in the case of South Korea, Japan and Singapore, their maternity leave durations are 90 days, 98 days and 112 days respectively. They even offer full pay for the whole maternity leave period. Secretary, Hong Kong conducts a review only after a lapse of 48 years, and after the whole process of review was completed and changes were subsequently, the total lapse of time was 50 years. Deputy President, it takes 50 years to complete a review. How can I possibly believe the Secretary's words that a review will be conducted as and when appropriate? Therefore, we hope the Secretary can honestly give all employees in Hong Kong an account on the appropriate time for a review.
Particularly, all employees in Hong Kong are merely entitled to five days of paternity leave. There is a dire need for Hong Kong to review the number of leave days. For instance, parents in Canada are entitled to a total of 75 weeks of parental leave. And, this figure has been further increased by five weeks. Hong Kong's neighbours South Korea and Japan offer a year of parental leave to facilitate parents' care of their children. Hong Kong is way behind these countries as it merely offers five days. While we want to strive for a few more days, the Government has nonetheless refused to promise us the time of implementation. So, we must begin to make strenuous efforts right now in order LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 461 to catch up with them. I hope the Secretary can tell us in his speech when the next review and amendment exercise will be conducted. All employees in Hong Kong are eager to hear some good news from him.
FTU began its fight for paternity leave in 2006. The whole process of some 10 years' hard work has seen the change from no paternity leave to three days of paternity leave and a further increase from three days to five days as requested today. Such changes are simply hard to come by. All along, employees, employers and the Government have been the three parties to the discussions on labour protection. If Members have followed the recent development, they will notice that employers honestly hold an attitude marked by an indifference to employees' plight, and they think that not even one day of paternity leave should be provided. But then, in the face of such an attitude, the Government merely adopts the role of a "judge" or "referee", thinking that it will be fine for it just to coordinate both sides as a middleman without assuming any stance or role in the population or childbirth policy. Why is Hong Kong so backward when it comes to childcare and labour protection? This is precisely one of the major reasons. Therefore, employees must count on themselves and the relevant mechanism, so as to strive for such protection. Without the Government's participation, it will actually be hard to strive for even one day. As we have successfully striven for five days of paternity leave, we will certainly accept it first, in the hope of striving for more days as expeditiously as possible in the future.
Some may ask why we should refuse to strive for seven days. Actually, nobody wishes to strive for seven days of paternity leave more eagerly than we do. But the reality, as it stands, is that the Labour Advisory Board has successfully striven for five days of paternity leave. We will definitely accept it first. A bunch of people often criticize those who help employees and fight for employees like we do instead of reprimanding the Government and employers. I think this is very unfair. Can this stand to reason?
Some people may also ask why FTU should disagree with the amendments striving for the provision of seven days of paternity leave. Frankly speaking, it is very easy for us to show our support, and we may do so simply by pressing a button. But does this mean that we are able to strive for actual benefits for employees? FTU takes a very simple perspective. We hope that any actual benefits can go into employees' pockets. As it is already hard to strive for five days of paternity leave, and we may fail to strive for seven days of paternity leave 462 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 despite our support for it, we strongly and really hope that we can pocket the five days of paternity leave first, so that employees can get some actual benefits. So, FTU is indeed well aware that the two-day increase in paternity leave is a fruit attained by the labour sector with immense difficulties, and we must protect it and refrain from doing anything to destroy it. Today, we hope to strive for five days of paternity leave as soon as possible before the Chinese Lunar New Year. But I hope that the Secretary can give an account to employees and tell them when they can enjoy seven days of paternity leave. We will continue to go after him if this is not fulfilled.
Deputy President, I so submit.
MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, in the face of an ageing population, a relatively low fertility rate and a demand for young labour force, increasing welfare benefits for children and formulating various family-friendly measures have now become the important public policies of many countries and regions. Chief Executive Mrs Carrie LAM puts forth in this year's Policy Address a proposal to increase maternity leave to 14 weeks so as to meet the minimum level recommended by the International Labour Organization, responding somewhat to the community's demand.
But then, are procreation responsibilities exclusive to mothers? We know of course that they are not. While only women can give birth, men do have to shoulder parenting and education responsibilities for their new born babies, and some of the most basic of such are changing diapers, milk feeding, taking their babies to have vaccination. Without support from the father, the mother will certainly find it very hard to take care of the baby on her own. Such support from her partner is particularly needed right after the delivery, given her physical frailty. Unfortunately, the great majority of wage earners in Hong Kong enjoy only seven to 12 or 13 days of leave in a year and it is definitely hard for them to find adequate time to take care of their wives and new born babies. For the sake of building a caring environment favouring the growth of babies and infants, on top of formulating maternity leave, many countries also make changes to their statutory leaves to provide the necessary support, one example is the paternity leave we are now discussing.
Hong Kong is always bragging itself as an international city. But it is notorious that the territory has, for many years, failed to keep up with the development of other advanced countries and regions in a number of aspects, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 463 especially in terms of the respect and benefits enjoyed by workers. I have said just now the Policy Address proposed implementing 14 weeks of maternity leave. But the problem is that we lag behind other regions by several decades in implementing such a 14-week maternity leave policy. We introduced the 10-week maternity leave in the 70s last century. Since then, some 30 years or so have passed before we start the discussion to revise it to a 14-week leave now. Do you find the case disheartening? What is even more outrageous is that paternity leave was not introduced until 2015 and as a meagre three-day leave bestowed to us rather condescendingly. After a lapse of three years, the Government finally agrees to conduct a review and proposes to grant two more leave days, also in a condescending manner. This proposal is not only a much watered-down version of the 7-day leave demanded by the labour sector but also, as a matter of fact, a very backward measure when compared with the other countries and regions. We believe it is necessary for the Government to account for this. However, the Government did nothing to explain the proposal and some colleagues from the pan-democratic camp have to propose amendments to the original motion, increasing paternity leave from five days to seven. However, is it good enough to have seven days? Of course, we certainly will say it is not. But employers or the Government question why we consider seven days not enough and accuse us of being insatiable with regard to leave benefits.
Deputy President, we have listened to such remarks for quite a number of times. However, I am not sure if they have listened to the comments made by certain scholars. Citing research findings, these scholars said that longer paternity leave could allow husbands to provide emotional support to their wives and help reduce the latter's risk of developing depression. And the most serious consequence of postnatal depression is the retarded development in children's cognition. Hence, rather than being insatiable, we are actually driven by practical needs.
Deputy President, we may even try to take one more step forward and think even more broadly. We should not argue only about the days of paternity leave and maternity leave, instead, we should focus on driving forward the existing system and the entire labour policy to reach the family-friendly goal. At present, the support available to family carers in Hong Kong is obviously inadequate and the International Labour Organization has always been asking governments of various countries to take care of the carers, for they are making huge contribution to economic and social development. Therefore, to me there is a lot of work that needs to be done apart from implementing maternity and 464 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 paternity leaves. Employers may accuse us of being insatiable since the demands we raise are seemingly endless, but then, these are the genuine needs of the community. Areas that we have to work on include legislation on standard working hours, allowance for carers, parental leave for both parents to take care of their infants, baby leave, and so on. Employers may feel uneasy after hearing these, but the fact is that such leaves have already been put in place in many countries. These counties would like to see families spend more time in rearing the next generation, so that children can grow up in a healthy environment, instead of being neglected because of their parents' work.
Indeed, we all understand that it will bring more harm to society if we cannot get more familial care as babies, infants and youngsters. The detriment may include the need for more prisons and more social workers, and all these involve social costs. Employers have not included these costs in their calculation; otherwise, they will not find our demands insatiable.
Deputy President, we have no intention to exaggerate the issue we put forward today. Actually, I would like to ask employers not to be too short-sighted with regard to these issues; otherwise, the resulting social repercussions will be even more distressing.
Deputy President, some may think that such a lot of procreation related leaves are doing more good to wage earners than is necessary. Indeed, employers will definitely see things this way. But, as we all know, other countries―like what Mr HO Kai-ming said just now―for instance, our Asian neighbours South Korea and Japan, are providing 52 weeks of paternity leave. Please note, it is a 52-week leave and there literally is a world of difference between theirs and ours. Have Members ever wondered why their economies are so well developed? There are actually good reasons to account for this. But then, rather than trying to learn from them, Hong Kong cares nothing but cheese-paring and pays no respect to staff welfare or the family-friendly principle. As such, we hope the Government can work out more measures to enable parents to better perform their familial duties.
Actually, some countries have even launched parental leave sharable between men and women. In other words, both parents are allowed to share a long holiday so that parent of either gender can have more time to take care of the children. This is what is important to us. And some other countries―I dare LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 465 not say too much on this, lest I am seen way too greedy―some countries grant adoption leave of up to 12 weeks to foster parents. Let us reflect on this: what attitude and perspective have these countries adopted in treating child rearing parents? I do hope we can all spare a thought on this.
However, our society today is so mean in this respect. A colleague of ours even told the public that paternity leave should not be granted, not even one single day. How does he see the rearing of the next generation when making such a comment? This is so pathetic, as we attach no importance to this issue and focus only on the material interest right in front of us.
Mr WONG Ting-kwong and Mr Tony TSE, the second Member who spoke today, both keep on saying that the paternity leave proposal is a hard-won measure which should be treasured. I do treasure the leave proposal, of course, and will not decline it just because it is only a five-day leave. I will take it anyway. However, the problem is that this so-called "hard-won" consensus is sought only in the Labour Advisory Board ("LAB") but not among the general public. If we try to consult the general public, we will know if reaching a consensus among the people is equally hard and we will understand people's preferences and demands. Now they choose to engage in closed-door discussions where the middlemen, the public officers, only take the role of the host presiding over the meetings and insist not to intervene in the discussions between the two, saying any consensus reached by the two sides will be implemented. So, this is the perennial problem in the system: proposals on all sorts of issues must be endorsed by LAB before they are presented to this Council for discussion and approval.
Deputy President, we have actually pointed out time and again that we will not be able to strive for better labour benefits if this mechanism is not to be revamped. This is a foregone conclusion. But the Government keeps on impeding us with this point, hindering us from bypassing LAB and preventing Members of this Council from making the final call. This is what is most pathetic.
Many a time, the Government raises no objection to the demands put forward by the labour sector. However, such demands will eventually end up in either one of these two scenarios: first, the Government withdraws the original proposal in a refusal to discuss the relevant appeal; second, the demand is 466 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 presented to LAB beforehand as consent has to be sought from the employers. This is their attitude all along. Why does the Government refrain from consulting the public on their preferences?
Deputy President, I do understand that it will add to the operation difficulty of small and medium enterprises if labour welfare is to be enhanced. We all understand this. I also know perfectly well that the increase of staff welfare will mean heavy pressure to small and micro establishments. We all know this. But then, we should be aware that in many countries, employers are not made to shoulder labour welfare all alone, as their governments also take on part of the burden. A case in point is that, with regard to the maternity leave proposal this time, the Government has also offered to take up part of the expenditure incurred for the tenth to the fourteenth week of leave.
We ask for seven days' paternity leave today but do not want to stop at this. We hope to have a minimum of 14 days or two weeks of leave. But employers will certainly find this suggestion all the more outrageous. They are reluctant to yield to the demand for merely two more leave days and it is impossible for them to agree to a 14-day leave. But Deputy President, in fact we hope the Government will pay salary for the seven additional days of leave, so as to lessen employers' burden and allow employees more time to look after their babies. This exactly is our target.
Unfortunately, they keep on insisting we had better pass the proposed amendment as soon as possible, as it is a hard-earned one. It really is regretful that the voting result we are going to see later in this Council will be nothing but the veto of the majority of amendments. We can do nothing but to accept the original motion as a two-day increase is anyway better than no improvement at all.
The problem, though, is that such a scenario reruns eternally. I am not trying to point an accusing finger to my friends in the labour sector. But let us recall that we did ask for an increase to seven days in the last review. Yet, we get only five days today after waiting for three years. If we now pocket this five-day proposal first, how long do we have to wait before getting two more days to have a total of seven days? With our eventual target being 14 days, how much longer do we have to wait? Let us reflect on the example I cited just now: it actually takes us more than three decades to get maternity leave extended from LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 467
10 weeks to presumably 14 week, as the latter is still under discussion. I just wonder how much longer it will take us to reach our target. And I am not sure if we can live to see its realization if it has to be delayed again.
I am not trying to move the amendment now, I will do it later. But I hope we can give this a thought: we really have waited too long, would the Government please grant us this modest appeal today to increase paternity leave to seven days? This move can help reverse the trend in which procreation duties in the family are taken up exclusively by women. It gives men the chance to share the duties and relieves women's procreation burdens, allowing both parents to take care of the next generation together. This is our biggest wish and I hope all of you can give me your support.
Deputy President, I so submit.
MR POON SIU-PING (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the amendments introduced under the Employment (Amendment) Bill 2018 ("the Bill") have been long-overdue. Paternity leave came into effect in 2015. But a review is conducted only three years later, and the objective is merely to increase the number of leave days to bring it on a par with the five days of paternity leave for civil servants. Also precisely because the review is long-overdue, some Members have proposed amendments, requesting to further increase the paternity leave in the light of Hong Kong's socio-economic development and amend it from five days as proposed by the Bill to seven days and even more to 14 days. Some Members also request to raise paternity leave pay to full pay. As a Member representing the labour sector, I can totally understand all these requests.
My attitude towards paternity leave has remained the same throughout, and I adhere to two principles: First, refining the Bill as far as possible to improve employee rights and interests; and second, enabling the expeditious implementation of the relevant improvements to benefit employees. Therefore, as a Member of the labour sector, I will consider various factors prudently before making my voting decision.
Besides, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Chairman of the Bills Committee on Employment (Amendment) Bill 2018 ("the Bills Committee"), once proposed an amendment on behalf of the Bills Committee and requested the Government to review the paternity leave days every year. Regrettably, the amendment was 468 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 rejected by the President and cannot be proposed. Apart from putting forth certain reasons of technicality, the Government's reply regarding an annual review of paternity leave points out that the Secretary for Labour and Welfare will review paternity leave and other employee benefits as and when appropriate, and that it is not necessary to achieve this objective by enacting legislation. Speaking of this kind of assertion, the labour sector has already learnt a bitter lesson.
During the scrutiny of the Minimum Wage Bill in the Legislative Council, the labour sector requested to change the frequency of adjusting the minimum wage from once every two years to once a year. At the time, the Government gave a similar assertion in its reply, saying that it would conduct a further review after the implementation of the Minimum Wage Bill to review whether an annual adjustment of the minimum wage would be conducted. The implementation of the statutory minimum wage already began in May 2011, and over seven years have passed since then. Despite repeated calls from the labour sector and pro-labour rights groups in society for the Government's implementation of an annual adjustment of the minimum wage, the Government seems to have totally forgotten the promise it made during the scrutiny of the minimum wage and pays no heed to the demand of the labour sector. With this previous experience, we can hardly believe the Government's assertion of "conducting a review from time to time" again.
Deputy President, I wish to add a brief point here. Apart from requesting the Government to review the number of paternity leave days every year, we also think that it needs to examine how paternity leave can be used more flexibly. Britain implemented a new paternity leave model in as early as 2015 and combined paternity leave and maternity leave into parental leave, which could be shared between the husband and the wife. Parental leave is not a complicated concept. As long as the wife ends her maternity leave earlier and returns to work, her untaken maternity leave will become parental leave which can be taken by the husband. Combining maternity leave and paternity leave without increasing the total number of leave days is more beneficial to parents who need to take care of their babies. I hope the Government can give active consideration to the idea.
Deputy President, I so submit.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 469
DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, around 16 or 17 years ago, Secretary Dr LAW Chi-kwong, who is present now, was a Legislative Council Member, and he once put forth a proposal on family-friendly policies. At the time, he said to this effect, "The authorities should consider the idea of enabling fathers to enjoy (say, two weeks of) paid paternity leave around the time of childbirth." Dr LAW Chi-kwong has assumed office as a Bureau Director today, and his view back then was already very progressive. Today, he nevertheless dismisses Members' requests back then as being out of tune with the times. He revises his words today and instead says that the authorities can only accept five days of paternity leave.
Deputy President, the Government already began the full implementation of the arrangements for enabling all civil servants to enjoy five days of paternity leave with full pay in 2012. My first child was born when I was in the United States 30 years ago, and I was also entitled to paternity leave. I have forgotten how many days of leave I had then, because this is honestly very remote from now. As the head of an organization at the time, I enjoyed much flexibility. As far as I remember, this arrangement―even if I was the head of an organization, I must also follow the rules―enabled me to stay at home and take good care of my baby, such as changing its diapers and feeding it in the middle of the night. After each of my three children was born, I would get out of my bed in the middle of the night to change its diapers and feed it. Then, I would go to work in the morning, and I would help my wife with childcare after returning home from work. This experience is very important to me, and I believe that to my children, the time we spent together was likewise a good opportunity for cultivating our relationship. All this has enabled me to establish a very close bond with my three children as I had the opportunity to truly and personally take care of them.
Without paternity leave arrangements … Particularly, Hong Kong is a Chinese community, and men are dubbed "the master of the house". Their responsibilities seem to be largely "external", in the sense that they need to go to work to earn money. Not all men will take paternity leave even if it is provided. Various surveys show that in many overseas regions, let alone Chinese communities, if employees get their paternity leave pay at a discounted rate, or if the conditions on taking paternity leave are not good, as much as 80% of their male employees or above will not take paternity leave, or they will think that it is not necessary to take all their paternity leave.
470 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
In the case of Hong Kong, the 2016-2017 information showed that male civil servants who actually took paternity leave merely accounted for 2.8% of the total number of male civil servants in the Government. I believe they were among a small number of male civil servants who became fathers of one or more children. In other words, even if paternity leave is provided, male employees may not always take it or take all of it. In that case, is it necessary to provide paternity leave? Definitely yes. Employers should not only provide a sufficient duration of paternity leave. A progressive view holds that male employees should be mandated to take paternity leave. If not, their employers may think that as they need to take care of their families and go to work to earn money, they may be unable to concentrate or focus on their duties. As a result, their overall work performance and career development may be hindered. Therefore, requiring them to take paternity leave is better than the mere provision of paternity leave. Certainly, Hong Kong still lags far behind this.
Dr LAW Chi-kwong, a former Member, already put forth his proposal on family-friendly policies as early as 17 years ago. Despite some 10 years of discussions, if today Members read a report compiled by the Legislative Council―the Legislative Council issued a report two years ago, and it examined the family-friendly employment policies in selected places―they will find that Hong Kong is almost the most backward region. That report is an information note compiled by the Legislative Council on its own, and it examines six family-friendly employment policies in five selected Asian regions, including mandatory maternity leave and paternity leave, childcare leave, flexible work arrangements and nursing breaks. Hong Kong merely implements two of these six initiatives. Taiwan implements all the six initiatives, while South Korea and Japan also implements five of them. The case of Singapore is less satisfactory as it only implements four of the initiatives, yet Hong Kong merely implements two of them. The issue has been discussed for some 10 years, but all such discussions are actually empty talks.
Does paternity leave only concern men? Obviously no. Many overseas studies show … I have read some journals (such as The Economist) or newspapers which are very popular in the business sector, and I have come across an article published on 15 May 2015. The article points out that a father who takes paternity leave will be more committed to his family roles, and that the parents' relationship with their children will be exceptionally good after their children have grown up. Such early commitment will bring forth far-reaching impact. A study conducted by the University of Oslo finds that if a man (or LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 471 father) takes paternity leave to accompany his baby, the baby's development or even his performance during secondary school education will be better compared to other children.
Besides, fathers' taking of paternity leave will also have positive impacts on women's career development. The reason is that as the father helps the mother with childcare, the mother can go back to work earlier and develop her career with greater flexibility.
For these reasons, paternity leave is not only beneficial to fathers' cultivation of a good parental relationship but also a fairer arrangement enabling women to focus on their work. This is precisely a point emphasized these days, the point that both the father and the mother should take up childcare responsibilities. Paternity leave is favourable to cultivating or improving family relationship or even marital relationship, and also preventing postnatal depression as mentioned by Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung just now. If an employee is happy and healthy, he will be able to improve his finances, job commitment and productivity. This is mentioned in The Economist.
Members may have heard of a magazine called Forbes. Forbes advocates in its 3 May 2018 issue that male employees should be mandated to take paternity leave. Not only should such leave be provided, but employees should also be mandated to take such leave. And, it will even be the best if the father and the mother can both take their leave. They have found that if parents both take their leave, if fathers take paternity leave, the rate of mothers staying out of work will drop drastically by 50%. The reason is simple―the case of Hong Kong is the same―and that is because many women have to quit their jobs after giving birth at the child-bearing age. This may be against their wish, but since they are so eager to take care of their babies, they are left with no other alternatives and can only choose to take care of their babies and give up their jobs. With the provision of paternity leave, with the provision of adequate paternity leave, the father can share some responsibilities and in turn spare the need of the mother to quit her job or put an end to her career. Forbes even considers this policy to be beneficial to society as a whole.
Just now, Mr WONG Ting-kwong kept emphasizing that all proposals on the labour or employment policy must first undergo discussions in the Labour Advisory Board ("LAB"), saying that if LAB reached an agreement, such proposals could be implemented expeditiously, and if LAB failed to do so, they 472 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 could not be implemented. According to Forbes, the talents or leaders we nurture today should not be prepared solely for coping with cut-throat competitions, and good leaders should possess the qualities of catering for employees and grooming them with care. If a leader possesses such qualities, regardless of what position he holds, he can … He needs to possess such qualities and visions to be able to take up a leadership role in the business sector. With paternity leave, parents can share parental responsibilities between themselves, and this can in turn create room for cultivating a good relationship among family members. Paternity leave does not solely concern labour relationship. It is actually also conducive to social development. This is what Forbes says.
As clearly pointed out by The New York Times on 28 November 2017, if the employer of a job fails to provide adequate paternity leave, no one from the young generation today (those born after 2000) will like the job. Their survey finds that a high proportion of young people will change their jobs if better family-friendly policies are offered, or may even agree to work in other countries. They also notice that many large corporations have already made significant improvement to their paternity leave arrangements. For instance, Ernst & Young―Mr Kenneth LEUNG should know it very well―recently began to offer four months of paternity leave with full pay to its employees. Deputy President, it is four months of paternity leave. American Express offers 20 weeks of parental leave to its employees, while International Business Machines Corporation offers 20 weeks of maternity leave and 12 weeks of paternity leave to its employees. Has all this plunged these corporations into immense difficulties? Obviously no. Have the various countries we mentioned―we have not yet talked about the European Union and other places―encountered enormous economic difficulties? Have all such companies sustained financial deficits? Obviously no.
According to the Government's projection based on its voluminous data, the additional expenses to be incurred by an increase from three days to five days merely account for 0.01% of the overall remuneration expenditure, or 1/10 000, to be precise. Even if the paternity leave is increased from five days to seven days, the expenditure concerned will only rise by 2/10 000 if computation is done on the basis of paying four-fifths of the wages. In the case of full pay, the relevant expenditure will only increase by 3/10 000. That is to say, an employer who pays $10,000 as wages will be able to afford the expenses on providing seven days of fully paid paternity leave if he pays $3 more. Our mere request LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 473 for seven days of paternity leave is actually very modest, to speak less of our demand for fully paid paternity leave. And, it is still no match for the Secretary's proposal on family-friendly policies back in 2001.
Secretary, please do not be such a miser and say that if Members demand an increase to seven days, you will withdraw the Employment (Amendment) Bill 2018. You must not forsake your ideals. As a social work professor, you must hold fast to your ideals, stand by grass-roots people, seek justice for them and strive for social justice. You are more able to give play to the social work spirit in your present position.
Thank you, Deputy President.
MR YIU SI-WING (in Cantonese): Deputy President, it is normal that a wife wishes to have her husband's company and care after giving birth. It is also an undeniable fact that there are more and more voices from different places in the world asking to increase paternity leave and, of course, Hong Kong is no exception. Hence, after a consensus has been reached between employees and employers, the Government decides to increase paternity leave from three days, which has been implemented since 2015, to five days, in order to respond to the aspiration of society. This is also a result of the joint efforts of the employee representatives and employer representatives in the Labour Advisory Board ("LAB").
In Hong Kong, over 90% of the companies are small and medium enterprises ("SMEs") and micro enterprises, and it is the same in the sector of travel agencies. The companies mentioned by Dr Fernando CHEUNG earlier are large enterprises, but we have to look at the problems faced by SMEs and micro enterprises. Most of these companies only employ three to five staff members, or even less. Let me take our trade, travel agencies, as an example. In the face of Internet competition and direct marketing of product suppliers, our operation is very difficult. Hence, under general circumstances, we will not increase manpower so easily, and companies will recruit a small number of staff each time only when it is absolutely necessary to fill a vacancy.
The work of travel agencies is rather complicated, which includes dealing with immigration procedures, package tours and individual visit products, and different customers have different service requirements. Even general staff will need to go through basic training to attain a certain level of professional skills in 474 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 order to meet the various requirements of customers. In case there are any mistakes or omissions due to their carelessness, the itineraries of customers will be affected and both customers and the company will suffer losses. Therefore, when a staff member is on leave, the employers will have to be very cautious in staff deployment so as not to affect the service quality. However, as I just mentioned, it is rather hard to find a suitable substitute worker with multiple working skills. Even if he can be identified, it is also difficult for him to meet the working requirements concerned. Hence, finding these substitute workers is not an easy task. I reckon that other similar SMEs and micro enterprises in the service industry are actually facing the same problem. Therefore, any changes to the existing leave arrangement have to be prudently handled. We cannot only consider the pressure of employees but neglect the difficulties faced by employers who are SMEs and micro enterprises.
Deputy President, the Policy Address released lately suggests abolishing the offsetting arrangement under the Mandatory Provident Fund ("MPF") scheme and enhancing maternity leave. And this time, the Administration suggests legislation on increasing the paternity leave days. On top of the said additional burden, there will also be potential impact on the Hong Kong economy arising from the recent trade war between China and the United States, which means that enterprises are going to face greater pressure. As I mentioned earlier, while SMEs and micro enterprises have greater pressure in manpower deployment, they are also in lack of flexibility in terms of capital. Hence, the introduction of each strategy benefiting the employees will bring heavy capital burden on SMEs and micro enterprises. Large-scale companies and corporations, with their rich resources, can surely cope with market changes. Since it is easier for them to make manpower deployment arrangements, the impact on them will be limited. However, the situation is much more difficult for SMEs and micro enterprises. Following the introduction of more strategies restricting the enterprises, they will be those who suffer most directly. If this situation goes on, large-scale corporations and enterprises will further monopolize the market in Hong Kong. I hope that the Government can take this into consideration in its policy formulation, and Legislative Council Members can also pay attention to this in their deliberation of the legislation. The names referred to by Dr Fernando CHEUNG earlier are large-scale enterprises and corporations and they certainly possess abundant resources. But let us think about this question: What about the remaining 90% of enterprises which are SMEs and micro enterprises? I hope Members can give more consideration to this aspect.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 475
Deputy President, a Member proposed an amendment, asking to set a regular review timetable on the paternity leave arrangement. Although this amendment has been ruled by the President as inadmissible and thus could not be proposed in this Council, I still want to stress again that if policy adjustments are too frequent, it will impose a heavier workload on various parties and put a strain on our manpower and finances. At the same time, in view of the complicated and frequently changing political and economic environment which is full of uncertainties, I think it is better to stay put rather than making changes. Let us imagine that if a regular annual review mechanism is set up for paternity leave, under public pressure, paternity leave benefits will definitely not be downwardly adjusted in each review. Even if it is decided that no change will be introduced, I guess the employee representatives in LAB will not accept the decision and will insist on making an upward adjustment. Should that be the case, what would happen after a few years? The number of paternity leave days will multiply. How, then, can SMEs and micro enterprises withstand the impact? SMEs and micro enterprises form a major force behind Hong Kong's economic development and also serve as one of the starting points encouraging young people to start their own businesses. If the threshold of business operation is being raised incessantly, the competitiveness of enterprises will be further weakened, the burden on young people in starting businesses will be heavier and the room for survival of SMEs and micro enterprises will also be affected.
Deputy President, Hong Kong has long been improving our labour welfare in a gradual and orderly manner, from nothing to something, from less to more, and from unregulated to regulated. In the process of improving labour treatment, the Government is playing the role of a coordinator. It has set up a communication platform for employees and employers so that both sides can reach a consensus on some issues of common concern, and I think it is a feasible way. As we all know, minimum wage and this paternity leave arrangement are the results of their consensus. In fact, no matter how we enhance the welfare, some people in society will still find it insufficient. If Members only consider the interests of the stakeholders that they represent, insistent on their own views and fail to take the overall interests of the territory as their prime concern, employees and employers will lose their mutual trust, thereby rendering the path to reach a consensus more difficult. As such, I think that regarding this paternity leave issue, as the Government has already achieved a result after consulting the views of LAB in accordance with the mechanism, we Legislative Council Members should respect this mechanism which has been working effectively. 476 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
We should proceed step by step in a gradual and orderly manner and avoid complicating the issue, lest any adverse effect will be created. For these reasons, I will not support the amendments to be moved by various Members.
With these remarks, Deputy President, I support the Government's amendment.
MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, in 2014, I was both lucky and unlucky to have been elected as the Chairman of the Bills Committee on Employment (Amendment) Bill 2014. It was the very year when the Government sought to legislate for three days' paternity leave. Within the Bills Committee, a wide diversity of views was expressed respectively by Members representing the labour sector, Members from the business sector, pro-establishment Members and pan-democratic Members. The power struggle during the entire legislative exercise on paternity leave was very complicated. The Government insisted that it could only offer three days of paternity leave, stating that it was a take-it-or-leave-it offer. As Matthew CHEUNG, the then Secretary for Labour and Welfare, told me personally, what the Government meant was that we could either accept the proposal of three days' paternity leave or reject it, and there would not be any alternatives. After some seven to eight meetings, we ended up adopting a prudent approach and accepted the 3-day paternity leave as a first step.
Now, when we review paternity leave three years after the commencement of the relevant legislation, the Government once again shows the same take-it-or-leave-it attitude. If we want to make any other amendments, the Government may withdraw the Employment (Amendment) Bill 2018. Actually, I do not understand why the Government has to do so. Just now I heard … actually I have prepared a speech to express my views towards paternity leave and population policy, but now I wish to respond to Mr YIU Si-wing who just talked about problems troubling micro, small, and medium enterprises. The problems mentioned are not unsolvable. Of course, if some employees always take leave, their employer will have to consider the effect on operating costs and manpower. But the point is that in recent years, serious manpower wastage has been plaguing micro, small, and medium enterprises, whether their business concerns professional services or not. Some small accounting firms have relayed to me that they have difficulties in recruitment. Their employees may quit their jobs after working there for two to three months and then change to the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 477
Big Four accounting firms, say Ernst and Young, which Dr Fernando CHEUNG mentioned, because the employee benefits these firms offer are really favourable. A male employee of a small company may only have 5 days' paternity leave, but once he has changed to a large company, he may be entitled to paternity leave of 10-odd days.
That being the case, why would young people choose to work in micro, small, and medium enterprises? There are two reasons. First, they can have more opportunities to get exposure to different types of work in their profession within a short time and to deal with a greater number and a wider scope of tasks. These are the opportunities that micro, small, and medium enterprises can offer to young people. Contrarily, if they work in large companies, they may not be delegated with those great responsibilities so soon. Second, micro, small, and medium enterprises allow more flexibility in working hours. What I am trying to say is that I also have a deep understanding of problems such as those concerning travel agencies which Mr YIU Si-wing just mentioned, as many of my friends work in small and medium travel agencies. In fact, they have employed artificial intelligence or information technology in many ways to resolve their problems. Nowadays, many travel agencies have been using different technologies to assist in handling matters like reserving air tickets and handling enquiries about package tours. Even if the employees responsible are not at the office to handle these matters, they will still be able to address customers' problems satisfactorily and quickly. By the way, we just completed the scrutiny of the Inland Revenue (Amendment) (No. 3) Bill 2018 which concerns innovation and technology. Innovation and technology is precisely the solution to most, if not all, of the troubles caused by the situation where an employee is unable to go to work but needs to deal with business issues.
Deputy President, I also wish to share my personal experience. I am lucky enough to have been working in a large multinational enterprise for years, and meanwhile, I am the head of a very small department also. Naturally, as a department head, I have to pay attention to departmental matters like manpower deployment, staff wastage rate, and whether colleagues are pleasant at work. Very often, we will be faced with some difficult decisions at work. Let us say an employee wants to take two weeks' study leave while approval for such kind of leave is discretionary due to manpower shortage. If this employee is not allowed to pursue further studies or to take leave, he or she may start to think of quitting the job, because after all, he or she is just trying to enhance his or her competitiveness and will benefit the company in the long run. I personally have 478 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 also encountered some situations of this kind. As Mr YIU Si-wing said, while an employee may have received training for a long time from the relevant organization which has spent a lot of resources and time for that, he or she may leave the organization several years later and change to another company. Of course, the reason may be that the new company offers more favourable benefits and a higher pay. However, it may also be due to the employer's lack of concern for the long-term development and feelings of the employee. In the end, the employer will have to hire another person from the labour market and, once again, provide the new recruit with training. There is simply a great difference between the costs involved in such process and the costs of giving employees a few more days of leave. Thus, if employers can consider the situation from a medium-to-long-term perspective, they will obviously get the right answer.
And on the other hand, I think that there is a difference between employers in Chinese societies―of course, I am not saying all of them―and those in Western societies. When an employee gets promoted to the managerial level or becomes an employer, he or she will invariably boss around, ordering staff members to do this and that while he or she just sits back and waits for the work to be done. In my view, when any staff member needs to take maternity or paternity leave, or other kinds of leave, the department head or the employer should actually roll up his or her sleeves and handle the relevant work for the staff member or employee. But certainly, this kind of employer-employee relationship and culture may not be acceptable to all employers.
Deputy President, I am just talking about my past experience. If a staff member really needs to take maternity or paternity leave, his or her basic duties will be taken care of by me or another staff member of more senior rank. This arrangement is perfectly alright as the enterprise will be benefited in the long run. Coming back to paternity leave, the increase from three days to five days is only a very small step forward. For people who are new to parenthood, three days' or five days' leave is certainly not sufficient at all, as everyone can imagine.
(THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair)
I still remember that at the time when my first child was born, that is in 1999, civil servants were not entitled to paternity leave yet, whereas my company actually had a global policy that each father was entitled to a special benefit of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 479 five days' paternity leave. Such benefit, however, was not applicable to the Hong Kong office of the company in 1999. When I asked for the reason, I got the answer that paternity leave was not common in Hong Kong. It was also stated that there was no such need and no one had ever done so. Apparently, I was extremely discontented because other offices around the world were offering their staff members five days' paternity leave, but the Hong Kong office was an exception because paternity leave was not common at that time and the Government did not take the lead by setting an example. Indeed, let us think about the process of delivery. Even for a mother having a natural delivery, she may still need to stay in the hospital for some 10 hours, waiting for the moment of childbirth with the infant's father staying by her side. That means he will spend some 10 hours there as well. After the delivery, the infant's mother may have to stay in the hospital for another day for observation. So, altogether three days have elapsed. To accompany his wife, the husband has also spent three days going to the hospital. But our existing paternity leave comprises only three days. Having left the hospital, the parents will need to prepare things for the newborn, to feed it, and so on. In fact, as we all know, they may not have much time to rest at night. Well, to the President, it is perhaps something happened long time ago, but to me, it is not. As I can still remember, I had to get up perhaps two to three times every night then. When a baby is under one month old, or at a very young age, its parents may have to get up two to three times to change diapers for it and to feed it. If the father is not entitled to any more days of leave and needs to go to work punctually the next morning, his productivity and powers of concentration will be greatly affected. I think that if we can combine maternity and paternity leave, this will allow people to have flexibility in making their arrangements, thus making it a more desirable long-term option and direction.
In this year's Policy Address, the Chief Executive has proposed extending maternity leave from 10 weeks to 14 weeks. If the Government can further consider combining paternity leave with maternity leave, making a total of, say 16 weeks, and allowing both the father and the mother to decide how to use these 16 weeks, such flexibility may actually provide a greater incentive for young people to have children, thus replenishing our ageing population. In Hong Kong, the average birth rate of each woman of childbearing age is only 1.2. Today, very few families are having two children, let alone three or more. So, if paternity leave is increased by two days, those people will only get two more days to use. And if it is further extended to seven days then, people will only have four more days of paternity leave, even in the case of a family with two 480 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 children. Such extension is simply negligible and so is its impact on the economy. However, this will serve as an indication that the Government cares about us. What is more, this will pass on the message that employers care about their employees, a message which is more important to enterprises, as compared with the actual negative impact on the economy. Just as I stated when Deputy President was present, employers' caring attitude will actually bring long-term benefits to their companies or enterprises in the end. Since many countries have already put in place shared parental leave arrangements, I hope that the Government will explore the matter in this direction in the long run.
I have also heard different views from the business sector, most of which are against increasing paternity leave days. But I hope all of you can think about these questions: Is your current mode of operation the best for your business? Do you have a high staff wastage rate? Does it take you a lot of time to conduct staff recruitment exercises? When you compare the various costs with the costs of providing a few more days of leave, I do not think you will fail to pick an option which is smarter, more caring and more favourable to your enterprises in the long run.
President, I so submit.
MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, I speak in support of the Second Reading of the Employment (Amendment) Bill 2018. The rationale for my support is naturally the prospect of an increase in paternity leave days. However, the current increase is certainly far from adequate, and that is why I have also proposed amendments this time in a bid to strive, at a later stage, for an extension of paternity leave to seven days instead of five days as currently proposed by the Government. I will have something to add later regarding the content of the amendments.
I make this speech in the capacity of not just a Member, but also a hands-on father from a family without foreign domestic helpers, so my speech indeed represents the voice of many families. In addition to members of the community, I would also like to ask Secretary Dr LAW Chi-kwong these questions: Why is paternity leave necessarily an issue of labour policy? Why must it be discussed between employers and employees? Is our society so simple? If that is not the case, why is paternity leave not a matter between father and mother? Why can it not be a common matter of concern between the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 481 father's and mother's families? Why not? So, a number of Members have mentioned about family-friendly policies, which the Secretary is also familiar with. What we propose is that the subject of paternity leave should definitely be discussed in tandem with issues such as the calculation of paternity leave pay, promotion of breastfeeding, enhancing nursery rooms for more convenient use by women and families, home-based child carers, child care services, full-time kindergarten and parental leave. All these should be discussed together within the scope of family-friendly policies. I had a profound experience in this regard. Were it not for the opportunities for me, as a husband and father, to keep my wife company during the early days of our newborn children, she would not have been able to successfully breastfeed. I believe my wife will support me in citing breastfeeding as an example to underscore my point. So far, my children have not consumed any powdered formula, not even a single can. Breastfeeding can last until a child is three to four years old. It is a task very much reliant on the company of a husband and father to accomplish.
I do not know if infancy appears to the Secretary as something very distant in the past. Often, without the father's support, a newborn baby may not necessarily know how to suck milk during breastfeeding. There are methods though. The husband may search the Internet for useful tips. When breastfeeding is practiced, family members may sometimes create much frustration. Elderly family members may hold the view that the baby should be fed with thin congee and water at an earlier stage, and suddenly breastfeeding seems futile. The husband should also help explain to family members that it does not work out that way, and convince the elderly family members to believe in science and trust the thoughts of this generation. Breastfeeding does not always work out well. There are odds that the mammary glands may get clogged or inflamed, causing pain. Then the husband's role is to accompany the wife to attend a follow-up consultation, see a specialist nurse, schedule the next follow-up, and keep her company.
Apart from breastfeeding, many problems may be encountered in caring for newborns. Jaundice may occur in the first week of life, in which case it is necessary to make an appointment with the Maternal and Child Health Centre for phototherapy and measurement of height and weight. I remember that during a follow-up consultation, when my child was stripped of the clothes and diaper in a nursery room in order to have the height and weight measured, the feeble mother needed her husband by her side. This was a very realistic example not too distant from me. It happened just a few years ago, and it means a lot to me.
482 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
So, why do we not put more emphasis on family-friendly policies? Does the Secretary think that this is beyond his purview, so he has to ask Secretary Prof Sophia CHAN? Is that really the case? After all, it is about attaching importance to not just family-friendly policies, but also family status. Should the Government not be the first to tell the whole community that the father and husband plays a very important role in a family? Unfortunately, discrimination against family status still exists in society. Many employers still say: "You may not be given opportunities for promotion and studies abroad because you are a babysitting father who always needs to take care of his child." Will the Government tell employers right away that it actually values highly the important role fathers play in caring for children? To sum up, a pioneering move to extend the paternity leave is a symbolic manifestation that a father can help take care of the family.
Of course, CK, you may think that this is not under your purview. Leave it to Patrick NIP then. Nevertheless, considerations are very limited in our current discussion about the paternity leave. Mr LEUNG, actually my view is that whether a society is civilized or not should be judged by how it treats those who are most disadvantaged, lowly and helpless, as well as what policies and how many resources the government gears towards them. Parents of newborn babies are among the most in need of care in the hierarchy of society. They are not asking for a long period of time, but just the first few weeks of life of the newborn, because children will grow up soon. Why is it so hard for the Government to go easy on them? Is there really such a big difference between five days and seven days? Hence, when hearing the Member representing the business sector say that the greedy wage earners are never satisfied with their demand for longer leave, and some Members say that further moves are undesirable because the business sector cannot cope with the demand any more, I just feel that they are making some very uncivilized remarks. Is corporate social responsibility not exactly the civilized approach currently recognized by society as a whole? How many wage earners would have some more children just out of greed for several days of paternity leave? That will not be the case, because having children is a big decision in life. After all, Secretary, do you think our society should move towards civilization?
Many Members, particularly those from the labour sector and the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions ("FTU"), mentioned earlier that the Labour Advisory Board ("LAB") had reached consensus on the issue of paternity leave, and the Secretary also said that we should respect LAB, and so a five-day LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 483 paternity leave is the only acceptable option. May I ask whether LAB is your sacred protector or your scapegoat? Is LAB open to discussion as some Members suggested earlier? Some Members said that they would engage in communication and then ask the pan-democratic Members who proposed amendments to learn how to compromise and "pocket it first". I find this notion really ridiculous. How much does LAB represent wage earners? Some Members pointed out just now that as a non-statutory organization per se, LAB has no statutory power to intervene in the Council's deliberation on the paternity leave days. The way it is composed has also been questioned for many years. There are six representatives of employees, among them one was appointed by the Government and five were returned by election, but how? It turned out that the pro-establishment camp had made use of its own resources to secure the lion's share of trade unions underpinned by large ones, enough to control the entire election process. Besides, each trade union has one vote regardless of its size, ranging from only several members in small ones to 90 000 in large ones such as the Hong Kong Professional Teachers' Union. Therefore, Mr LEUNG, with a small-circle election, can LAB really represent the voice of 3.9 million wage earners? If we went outside today to seek the voice of wage earners, would that be for a five-day or seven-day paternity leave? I think the answer is obvious. Given that LAB's members were not returned by direct elections among wage earners on the basis of "one person, one vote", and there are no reasonable indirect elections to represent their interests either, how representative is LAB? I think it can only represent the Government, employers and the pro-establishment camp, but definitely not the voice of wage earners at large. Therefore, the five-day statutory paternity leave is far from adequate.
It struck me to hear the colleagues from the labour sector and FTU keep saying earlier on that a five-day paternity leave is really not enough, and Mr HO Kai-ming say he would keep asking the Secretary every day for an annual review. However, now that the amendments submitted by some pan-democratic Members and me to seek a seven-day paternity leave are placed in front of Mr HO, he does not support them. He has said that Hong Kong's paternity leave and family-friendly policies are lagging behind the world, but now that the amendments are placed in front of him, he will not even press a button to support them. In retrospect, we had an opportunity to let FTU press the button in 2014, and the bill for a seven-day paternity leave in Hong Kong could have been passed, but they did not cast any votes despite their presence at the time, resulting in the motion being negatived due to insufficient votes. I do not have a crystal ball, but I do foresee that this scene will be repeated today. Those colleagues 484 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 representing the labour sector and FTU will either leave the Chamber or refrain from voting despite their presence, thus watching the amendments for a seven-day paternity leave being negatived and wasted. I hope that this scene will not happen.
They would say that we should definitely not support the seven-day paternity leave, because if we support it now, the Government will withdraw the Bill. Secretary, is that the case? If so, is it not even more imperative for those courageous pro-establishment colleagues to work hand in hand with the pan-democrats in support of a seven-day paternity leave, and then make concerted efforts to pressure the Government not to withdraw the Bill? This is the real interest of wage earners. Why do pro-establishment Members lack the guts to make such remarks? Has LAB already compromised? Is LAB a group with vested interests that, which would, upon agreement on how to share the collusive pie, submit its proposal to the Council and pressure Members to endorse it? Is this considered openness to discussion? Secretary, this is an act to threaten, coerce and force all the wage earners in Hong Kong and the elected Members into accepting the Government's five-day paternity leave proposal. If you ask for seven days, you get nothing but a three-day paternity leave, not even an iota of concession. In my view, this approach is despicable.
Finally, I wish to talk about what Dr Fernando CHEUNG mentioned earlier. That is, when Secretary CK served as a Member representing the pan-democratic camp 17 years ago, he advocated family-friendly policies on behalf of the Democratic Party and demanded the provision of paternity leave and an extension of maternity leave, and the leaves should be with full pay as well, but the Government turned a deaf ear at that time. Now that we, this generation, have joined the Council and advocated family-friendly policies to the Secretary, demanding an extension of paternity leave to seven days, he, in the capacity of Secretary today, has turned a deaf ear to our views and said that he will only accept a five-day paternity leave. I find this so ironic. Is it true that all politicians who have joined the Government or the Council and become part of the pro-establishment camp must bury their conscience? When they need to represent the rights and interests of the grassroots and wage earners, why do they lack the courage to speak out for what they initially believed? In the battle of political interests and the power struggles in the business and labour sectors, why do they lack the courage to speak out for what they most deeply believe, strive for workers' best benefits, and make the best decision for parents and their families, with a view to developing a more civilized society?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 485
Therefore, Mr LEUNG, I will support the resumed Second Reading of the Bill, but with a condition, of course, and the condition is that we still wish to continue with our efforts in convincing other Members to accept our amendments for extending the statutory paternity leave to seven days at the committee stage. It is on this premise that I support the resumed Second Reading of the Bill.
I so submit. Thank you, Mr LEUNG.
DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): President, the Democratic Party has long been striving for the implementation of family-friendly policies, and Mr HUI Chi-fung just mentioned some of our views. We have been striving for seven days' paternity leave with full pay, and also 14 weeks' maternity leave with full pay. In regard to the legislation on paternity leave, the three-day paternity leave has been implemented in Hong Kong since February 2015. In December 2014, we passed the Employment (Amendment) Bill 2014 in the Legislative Council. Back then, we proposed three amendments, and one of them was accepted by the Government. As regards the other two amendments, I proposed that paternity leave should be increased from three days to seven days, and that the employee's wages during paternity leave should be increased from a rate of four fifths of his average daily wages to full pay.
Regrettably, the Government was so intransigent at that time. The Secretary for Labour and Welfare back then, who is now the incumbent Chief Secretary for Administration, said to me, "Helena, why don't you withdraw these two amendments? If you move these amendments, we may probably withdraw the Bill." While the Government insisted on not accepting these amendments, Members from the pro-establishment camp also defended the position of the Government. As a result, my two amendments were unable to be passed and the starting point of paternity leave was set at three days.
After a short period of some three years but less than four years, this Council has to discuss afresh the issue of extending the paternity leave. President, at present, the Government says that after discussion and review with the Labour Advisory Board ("LAB"), it has decided to increase statutory paternity leave from three days to five days. The Democratic Party of course welcomes this change, as this is a piece of good news. The Hong Kong Institute of Asia-Pacific Studies conducted a telephone survey on this issue recently. According to the survey findings, whilst close to nine-tenths (88.7%) of the 486 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 respondents supported increasing statutory paternity leave, more than half (54.5%) of the respondents considered that increasing statutory paternity leave to five days was still insufficient.
Originally, six Members introduced a total of 20 amendments with the aim of increasing paternity leave from five days, as proposed by the Government, to seven days, and amending the wages from partially paid to full pay. Regrettably, the Government was unwilling to accept our amendments. On 18 October, a fax was sent from the Labour Department to my office, setting out a whole range of reasons why the Department believed the President of the Legislative Council should not find our amendments admissible. We only have a very short period of time to prepare for this. On 19 October (i.e. within one day), I made a rebuttal, in the name of myself and Mr HUI Chi-fung, to Labour Department's reasons for not letting us move our amendments. The President has recently given approval to five Members for moving 10 amendments, and among those 10 amendments, two are proposed by me. In the forthcoming debate session, I will discuss the issue of amendments again. Nevertheless, I sometimes do not quite understand why the Government has to be consulted on whether the amendments from Legislative Council Members are admissible. It is Members' right to introduce amendments. Why should the Government be consulted on whether they can be introduced by us? Executive hegemony has already suppressed the Legislative Council to the extent that not much of our dignity is left. However, our role is precisely to introduce amendments or bills.
I would also like to make a response. At the beginning of the debate, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Chairman of the Bills Committee, mentioned that he would not accept our amendments, and he also said that the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong ("DAB") would not support increasing paternity leave to seven days or our proposals regarding the wage issue. His main justification was that at the LAB meetings, an employee-employer consensus had already been reached, and hence only the five-day paternity leave would be accepted, further increasing the leave by one more day would not be considered accepted. The incumbent Secretary for Labour and Welfare, Dr LAW Chi-kwong, has also claimed that five days' paternity leave is the only option acceptable to the Government, because this five-day leave is the result of discussion achieved by LAB. He has even threatened the Legislative Council that if Members should introduce amendments to extend the paternity leave, the Government might withdraw the Employment (Amendment) Bill 2018.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 487
In fact, such kind of intimidation is already ineffective, Secretary, because the former Secretary also made similar remarks. Nevertheless, I think this practice should not be encouraged. The Government always threatens Members by saying, "If you do not accept this option, you will have nothing and we will withdraw the Bill." I find this very hegemonic. Is the Government heading towards authoritarianism and executive hegemony so that it can ignore and suppress the rights of Legislative Council Members? We can see this trend developing, and I do not want to see the Government under Mrs Carrie LAM heading towards tyrannical hegemony. For instance, the Government has announced that it will construct a Hong Kong Palace Museum in West Kowloon, but without much prior discussion even within the West Kowloon Cultural District Authority. Many members of the Authority were still kept in the dark when the Government suddenly announced its plan to construct this museum, saying that it was the result of discussion with the Beijing authorities. These days, we can see this practice in many cases and also some projects under consultation, like East Lantau reclamation and land supply. Before any consultation result and report are released, the Government suddenly introduces the Lantau Tomorrow Vision advocating the formation of 1 700 hectares of land by reclamation. But then, when we introduce amendments to the Bill, the Government says that if we do so, it may withdraw the Bill. This is really a menace and I find it most unsettling.
I would like to return to the role of LAB. Is LAB's discussion result a good reason for rejecting any amendments seeking to increase paternity leave days? The Democratic Party surely cannot accept the justification just mentioned by DAB or Mr WONG Ting-kwong. In my view, LAB is merely a consultation platform on which the employee and employer representatives, brought together by the Government, deliberate and discuss certain issues of concern, and the result of their discussion can at best be a proposal only. It does not mean that after they have come up with a decision, the Legislative Council has to capitulate. Therefore, I raise a stern protest against the remarks made earlier on by the Labour Department in turning down the amendments proposed by Members and the Department's practice of taking LAB as its shield. At present, not only are we denied of the opportunity to increase paternity leave days, but Mr HO Kai-ming of the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions is also not allowed to move today his amendment asking for annual reviews. I feel sorry and sad for him. But it does not really matter. Even though his amendment is not allowed to be moved, he can support my amendments which can actually achieve the same effect or do even better than his.
488 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
I am grateful to the President of the Legislative Council for allowing us to move 10 amendments, which will be handled today or tomorrow morning. As I have mentioned earlier, LAB, being a platform for consultation, can neither override nor replace the Legislative Council. It is because the Basic Law only empowers the Legislative Council, not LAB, to legislate and to amend bills. Hence, LAB cannot replace the Legislative Council or formulate any legal regulations on behalf of us, like saying that paternity leave can only be increased from three days to five days, and not allowing us to change or amend it. As such, I believe we really have to seriously respect the power to introduce and amend bills vested in the legislature by the Basic Law.
President, a moment ago, I heard some pro-establishment Members, including Mr YIU Si-wing, raising another reason for not supporting the amendments, and that was an economic reason. According to him, Hong Kong may be affected by the trade war between China and the United States. Not only Hong Kong's economy but even the business environment would be affected, such that small and medium enterprises ("SMEs") and micro enterprises might be unable to withstand the ever increasing threshold for doing business. Their business will be affected and they will be unable to withstand the cost impact. In fact, Mr YIU Si-wing is not the only one bringing up this argument. This argument was not discussed by us three years ago because there was neither a trade war between China and the United States nor any fomentation by Donald TRUMP back then. Some Members have expressed concern over the trade war between China and the United States. They anticipate that once the trade war breaks out, the economy of Hong Kong may go downhill. If it is really because of the trade war between China and the United States that the economy of Hong Kong goes downhill and it has become more difficult to do business, under the circumstances, should the Government still squander money like dirt, spending a few hundred billion or over ten hundred billion dollars from our reserves on a large-scale reclamation project to create 1 700 hectares of land? Should it not be time for pro-establishment Members to stand on our side and ask whether public money can be used in that way? If we anticipate that the business of enterprises will not be promising in the future and our economy will encounter difficulties, should we not be more prudent in using public money? It appears to me that they have raised no unequivocal objection to the Lantau Tomorrow Vision which seeks to use up all our reserves to create 1 700 hectares of land by reclamation.
As such, I think these Members are taking the trade war between China and the United States as an excuse, asking us to think carefully whether the paternity leave should be increased from five days to seven days, and whether the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 489 enterprises in Hong Kong can really withstand the impact. In my view, if we do some calculations … I agree that the sums should be done clearly. In fact at the meeting of the Legislative Council Panel on Manpower held on 19 December 2017, the Government has submitted a paper in this regard. What is the result of the cost impact assessment of increasing paternity leave days? The paper says that based on the data of 2015, the Government conducted a broad-brush assessment of the cost impact in the event of enhancing the statutory paternity leave benefits. It was roughly estimated at that time that if paternity leave was increased from three days to five days, the additional impact per annum would be around $84 million, i.e. less than $100 million, if the rate of paternity leave pay was maintained at 80% or four fifths of an employee's wages as compared to the current three-day paternity leave with pay at 80% of an employee's wages. The cost impact would increase to around $137 million per annum if employers were required to provide full pay instead of 80% of an employee's wages.
Following our amendments, if the number of paternity leave days is amended from three to seven, what would be the result of the cost impact assessment? The Government says that the additional cost impact per annum would be around $168 million if the rate of paternity leave pay is maintained at four-fifths of an employee's wages, while the additional cost impact per annum would be $242 million for paternity leave pay at full pay. In fact, we are talking about a small increase from $84 million to $168 million, or the difference between $100 million and $200 million. Under the entire economic system of Hong Kong, will SMEs and micro enterprises be affected by the increase of just a few days of paternity leave, which involves some $100 million to $200 million, to such an extent that they could not remain in business? Hence, I think when they claim that they cannot accept our amendments to increase paternity leave to seven days, they are just exaggerating the so-called inability of employers to withstand the cost impact.
At this stage, I believe employers should support paternity leave. As mentioned by Mr Kenneth LEUNG earlier on, the unemployment rate in Hong Kong is very low at present, standing below 3% at some 2.8% only. Hong Kong is basically at full employment. In fact, employees are the most important asset of employers. How can employers do any business when no one is working for them? Hence, retaining employees is of the utmost importance. We can see that in order to compete for manpower, many enterprises have increased paternity leave to five days or seven days on their own initiative. Some large-scale corporations have even increased paternity leave to 14 days (two weeks), while 490 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 many enterprises are offering full pay. Therefore, in this Council, they should not try to mislead others by saying that if paternity leave is increased to seven days, SMEs and micro enterprises will not be able to withstand the impact, as this is basically not the situation. What we are saying is that if paternity leave is increased from five days to seven days, the additional cost involved may (The buzzer sounded) … just be two days' wages.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr WONG, please stop speaking.
DR CHENG CHUNG-TAI (in Cantonese): The proposal under discussion today is introduced by the Government to extend paternity leave from three days to five days by amending the Employment Ordinance.
Let me first make my position clear that, regarding the amendments to be moved by pan-democratic Members later to further increase the duration of paternity leave from five days to seven days, I will of course vote for them. However, if their amendments are negatived, I will vote against the Government's proposal to change paternity leave entitlement from three days to five days. I do not think that we should "pocket it first", and neither do I consider it necessary for us to accept such a sugar-coated proposal, something that resembles "feces coated with sugar". My stance is not based on any high-sounding principle; nor is it a matter of whether we should take the petty favours. I take this stance simply because I stand to uphold my due dignity both as a Hong Kong resident and a father.
From the perspective as a member of the public and as an employee, I do not think an increase of paternity leave by two or four more days will affect my decision on whether to have a child. With regard to the difference between five days' and seven days' paternity leave, I as a man do not think that I will risk the well-being of my life just for two days of paternity leave. My consideration should in no way be affected by these two additional days of paternity leave, and if I decide to have two more children after the increase of paternity leave entitlement, I should undergo a test on my intelligence quotient.
Conversely, just now a number of Members, especially those representing the business sectors, argued that increasing paternity leave entitlement from five days to seven days could entail economic implications. I would like to point out LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 491 solely from the perspective of corporate management that if increasing paternity leave entitlement for male employees from five days to seven days would impact on the business operation of a small-to-medium enterprise, I would urge this enterprise to look into its corporate management system! How come a company should possibly run into operational troubles simply because one of its male employees is on paternity leave? Some may argue that they are not talking about just one employee, and it may so happen that 10 male employees are going to take paternity leave at the same time. In the event of such an unlikely coincidence like this, these 10 male employees will take paternity leave all at the same time, and the company will thus be facing an economic crisis, financial deficits and a heavy blow to its business. However, should the company eventually fail because of this, there must be something wrong with its business operation, otherwise it will not be in such a fragile position.
Hence, the above worries are indeed a sheer exaggeration. What kind of enterprises will close down simply because of the paternity leave for male employees being extended from five days to seven days? I can never imagine such a possible scenario. Some may of course argue that we have to take the costs involved into consideration. If so, there will be a need for the Secretary for Labour and Welfare to engage an actuary to do the calculations, or to work out on his own how much money will exactly be involved. Will the cost incurred be millions, tens of millions or hundreds of millions of dollars. But then, what is the point in doing this?
As pointed out by Chief Executive Carrie LAM in her speech in delivering the Policy Address, her work is taxing and not easy at all. She needs to remain resilient under pressure, take care of the domestic and external milieu and unite all sectors of the community, and as the first female Chief Executive who strives for a happy life for the people and good governance, she has the responsibility to do more in promoting women's development. As a woman, especially a housewife and a mother, she would strive in earnest to foster amiable family relationships and promote family harmony so that there will be favourable conditions for a father to take up more responsibilities in the family. All this, in my view, is quite understandable.
Therefore, my stance is very clear. In determining whether we should support the paternity leave options of five days, seven days or even more days, we should simply ask ourselves how much respect we have for life. What I mean here is not the life of animals or plants, but the life of generations of Hong 492 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
Kong people, and buddy, what is there left to argue about? If you want to talk about money matters and try to judge the value of my daughter in money terms, please pardon me for saying that I would be more than willing to give up my position as a Member of this Council, and things are as simple as that. As for the point about economic implications, let me reiterate my point from a governance perspective: If increasing the paternity leave entitlement for male employees from five days to seven days could lead to a big financial reverse, I must say our society really deserves a miserable collapse!
What is the difference between five days' and seven days' paternity leave from a personal perspective, or from the perspective of a father like me, an employer and even the Chief Executive? Perhaps there is no great difference, and the money involved does not amount to astronomical figures! Let me reiterate that if putting it in a politically correct perspective, we should bear in mind that granting paternity leave of at least seven days has already been the subject under discussion in Mainland China, and a general view has gone so far as to propose that male employees should be allowed to take paternity leave of 30 days. Why should we not adhere to the principle of "one country, two systems" at this point in time? Should we feel ashamed for arguing here if paternity leave entitlement should be amended from three days to five days?
Somebody may ask if I am intending to advocate the implementation of "one country, one system"? Let us not involve ourselves in political issues like this, since we should not politicize the subject of paternity leave. Hence, please do not take the analogy I made just now too seriously. Actually, I wish to compare Hong Kong with Norway where male employees are entitled to paternity leave of 14 weeks, and who does not consider this attractive? Some may think that with such a long duration of paternity leave, taxpayers will be required to pay more tax, but is it not the fact that we are also required to pay rent, rates and Government rent? Have we only paid a small amount of tax money to the Government? Apart from indirect tax, we and indeed a lot of "wage earners" have to set aside one third of our salary for tax payment.
Let me make my position clear once again: I will vote against the Government's proposal if the amendments to be moved by pan-democratic Members are negatived. I do not care what criticism this will attract, and I object to amending paternity leave entitlement from three days to five days. It is because this has reflected a lack of respect for me as a father or a male citizen in Hong Kong, and it is as simple as that. It is purely a matter of value judgment, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 493 and there can be no reason at all, because I consider the proposal an insult to me. My decision on whether I should have a child will not be affected by an increase of paternity leave by merely two days. Do you understand?
I would like to talk about a trivial matter here, and it is also relevant to the subject under discussion. When the Chief Executive delivered the Policy Address on 10 October, she put forward a proposal firmly and resolutely, stating that maternity leave for the Government's employees would be increased from 10 weeks to 14 weeks with immediate effect. It occurred to me at once that as maternity leave entitlement for the civil service would be increased with immediate effect, I wondered if this was also the same case for employees of the Hospital Authority or staff of the Legislative Council Secretariat.
I met some Secretariat staff in a lift later that day and realized that quite a number of Secretariat staff were expecting a child, and this is really something that we should be happy about. I then asked them whether maternity leave granted by the Legislative Council Secretariat would be increased from 10 weeks to 14 weeks. As a matter of course, I asked a staff member of mine to draft a letter to The Legislative Council Commission ("LCC"), but I meddled with the contents of the draft letter …
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHENG Chung-tai, you have digressed from the subject. Please speak on the subject of paternity leave.
DR CHENG CHUNG-TAI (in Cantonese): President, I have not digressed from the subject as setting the scene is essential to story-telling, otherwise how can we build it up to a climax? This will also make the whole thing less boring for you, because it is 7:00 pm now and normally speaking, horse races have already started. I am not saying this to tease you.
I therefore wrote to LCC that afternoon, urging for an immediate increase of maternity leave entitlement for staff of the Legislative Council Secretariat from 10 weeks to 14 weeks. However, when I received the letter drafted by my staff, it suddenly occurred to me that what Carrie LAM proposed that day was an increase of paternity leave, and I therefore revised the subject of the letter to "paternity leave". The whole thing has thus switched from pressing for enhanced maternity leave for female employees of the Legislative Council 494 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
Secretariat to urging for an increase of paternity leave entitlement from 10 weeks to 14 weeks, and the revised letter was then even quickly uploaded onto the Internet.
A few days later, some reporters asked me if I had mixed up maternity leave with paternity leave, and why I had mistaken the enhanced 14-week maternity leave proposed by Carrie LAM as paternity leave. I of course replied that it was just a typographical error, but as a matter of fact, the discussions on paternity leave and maternity leave make no difference to me, and both should fall within the scope of family policy. The granting of paternity leave should not be taken as a policy matter for men and fathers, but simply one of the areas within the ambit of family policy.
If the Government wants to promote a family-friendly policy, the granting of maternity leave should then be discussed together with paternity leave entitlement, and in the course of discussion, we would definitely touch on the following basic issue: Why should we increase paternity leave entitlement in Hong Kong today? In my opinion, increasing paternity leave entitlement is reasonable, even so for an increase by 14 weeks. This is because the situation in Hong Kong has already changed. With so many women joining the workforce nowadays, mothers can no longer stay at home to take care of their baby after childbirth, while their husbands go out to work, just like what most women did 30 or 40 years ago.
Most parents of this generation are double-income couples, each earning a monthly salary of $20,000 to $30,000. Should they have a child under such circumstances? If so, the wife can no longer go out to work, and what should they do then? If they are lucky enough, the baby's grandparents may be willing to help and look after their child, and through this mutual trust can be built up between the two generations as well. However, in the majority of cases, family disputes may arise because the husband may not be on good terms with his mother-in-law, while the wife cannot get along well with her mother-in-law either, and so on and so forth.
Given such restraints, as Hong Kong's economic structure has undergone some fundamental changes, a lot of women have joined the labour market by taking up employment. But now the Government tells these female employees that during the childbirth period, their husbands will only be entitled to three days' paternity leave. In this connection, I have some personal experience to share. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 495
My daughter was born last year and three days after her birth, she was discharged from hospital on exactly the same day when Carrie LAM came here to attend her first Question and Answer Session in this Council. As you all can imagine, I did not have any sleep the previous night, and so what could I do during the Chief Executive's Question and Answer Session? I did nothing, just sitting and daydreaming. What punishment may a Legislative Councillor receive for daydreaming during a Council meeting? He may not be able to get re-elected in the next term at most. Of course, he will be rendered jobless and this will still be a problem though.
However, ordinary "wage earners" are entitled to three days' paternity leave only, and what consequences will arise if they have to go to work reluctantly around the time of their child's birth? Normally speaking, what will be the difference between paternity leave lasting five days and seven days? Employees will still accumulate their earned leave to a certain number of days, and then take vacation leave for a certain period, together with the two additional days of paternity leave granted by the Government and the Saturday and Sunday in between. This is what people of my age group generally consider adopting as a strategy. The Government is just proposing to grant two additional days of paternity leave. Yet some people are taking it as a big deal and many businessmen have even opposed the proposal.
A quick survey by the company management will reveal that no matter how long a male employee has taken paternity leave, he will have to follow up the outstanding work during his absence after resumption of duty. This is the reason why Dr Fernando CHEUNG has cited the relevant figures just now to illustrate that although male civil servants are entitled to paternity leave, the rate of taking such leave is still on the low side. It is because they still have to finish all the work on their own, and cannot just go away leaving their work unattended. Will their boss be affected then? The answer is in the negative, or else the employee concerned should have been fired.
Hence, there are arguments raised just now that we need to consider the pressure faced by enterprises and the business sector. The reasoning behind such arguments is only concerned with exploitation, and more specifically, a matter of how Hong Kong people should be exploited. Fathers in Hong Kong are deprived of the right to consider if they could build a family or raise a child; Hong Kong families are deprived of the right to consider what they should do to maintain and foster the well-being for generations of people in Hong Kong; we as 496 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
Hong Kong people are deprived of the opportunity to choose not to rely on immigrants from Mainland China as a source of population growth in Hong Kong. This should not be the case. Sufficient means should instead be provided for people of this generation to have their children, and it should also be ensured that the genuine culture and values of Hong Kong can be maintained.
If judging from a political perspective, we can only come up with one conclusion, and that is, the Government might as well opt not to grant any paternity leave, while admitting immigrants from the Mainland on the one hand, and suppressing Hong Kong people's aspirations for having children on the other. In this way, we can sum up the thrust of the whole matter in only five words: "To eliminate Hong Kong people". This is in essence a judgment from a political point of view. However, I do not think we should reduce the matter to a political issue, because there are still many other examples that can illustrate the point about eliminating Hong Kong people. With regard to the discussion on increasing paternity leave entitlement for male employees from three days to five days, the examples I cited earlier should be adequately convincing. What exactly are we discussing now? How much money will be involved? What administrative procedures should be put in place? There is no ready answer.
Let me reiterate my point. When one of our fellow Members in this Council has just announced the good news that she is expecting a baby, the media and many members of the "yellow ribbon" camp are criticizing her for requesting special arrangements to be made for remote voting, so that she can continue to exercise her powers as a Member and participate in votings during her maternity leave. I have to make it clear that if Ms YUNG Hoi-yan really wishes to have such arrangements put in place, so that she may vote at home during her maternity leave, or when she is not able to cast her vote in this Chamber because of her pregnancy, I would express my support for her suggestion. The reason is very simple: She as a Member does have such powers, and the Secretariat of this Council should put in place arrangements to facilitate the exercise of her powers as a Member. Anyone who is a feminist should support her request instead of criticizing her. This is my basic stance. The Government should make all possible efforts to create a level playing field for all in society (The buzzer sounded) … I so submit.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHENG, please stop speaking.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 497
MR AU NOK-HIN (in Cantonese): President, I wonder if I am the last one to speak today. To put it in a nutshell, the Employment (Amendment) Bill 2018 ("the Bill") under discussion today is introduced by the Government to extend the paternity leave for male employees from three days to five days. Secretary Dr LAW Chi-kwong, who is here now, has made it clear that a five-day paternity leave is the only acceptable option to the Government because the Labour Advisory Board ("LAB") has already completed its discussion on the proposal.
But frankly, people have voiced out many reasons for a longer paternity leave. One is that civil servants are already entitled to a five-day paternity leave, and it seems a little unfair that ordinary workers only have three days of such leave. This differential treatment is also found in the case of Hong Kong's public holidays. Now that they ask for a universal treatment, we should support it. Why do so many Members of the pro-democracy camp ask for two more days of paternity leave? In terms of labour benefits, Hong Kong lags far behind many other places in the world. Employees in some of these places are already entitled to a seven-day paternity leave. Why does Hong Kong not take one further step forward?
The Bill resumed its Second Reading debate today. What is the point at issue? Five Members have proposed amendments to the Bill. Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Mr Gary FAN and Mr HUI Chi-fung ask for a seven-day paternity leave, and Dr Helena WONG … these amendments do not simply seek an increase of paternity leave to seven days. There is also a middle-of-the-road option, proposing a progressive increase of paternity leave to five days first and then further to seven days one year later. Honestly, Members are provided with different options for voting. If Members think that increasing paternity leave to seven days is too aggressive, they can opt for the progressive option.
I again earnestly call on Members, from the pro-establishment camp or other camps, to think carefully and not to be hidebound by conventions, especially those arising from the so-called consensus and direction of LAB. In this speech, apart from speaking on paternity leave, I will also throw my spear at LAB. Whenever a labour issue is under debate, I have to throw my spear at LAB because I always hear familiar arguments from the Government whenever we discuss the issues of paternity leave, statutory minimum wage, standard working hours or the abolition of the offsetting arrangement under the Mandatory Provident Fund ("MPF") scheme in this Council. For instance, regarding the 498 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 proposed five-day paternity leave, the officials representing the Government, or the representatives from the business sectors and the Government, who are birds of a feather, told us that the proposal was a hard-earned consensus in LAB between the employer and employee representatives. In other words, they mean that we in the pro-democracy camp … no, they prefer naming us the opposition camp … they mean that we should not stand in the way or be insatiable, and we should accept the proposal. But should we accept a proposal like that?
What about the views expressed by the employers? At this juncture, I have to mention a radical Member in this Council. I always think that he is very radical and he is Mr Tommy CHEUNG, but again he is absent today. Given that he is so radical, he should be consistent with what he said in public, but I do not find any amendment proposed by him today. It is because he said in public that there should not be any paternity leave at all, not even one day. We have been discussing this subject for so long. The provision of paternity leave has become a major global trend, but he publicly said there should not even be one day of paternity leave. Can I say that he is standing in the way? Why should we in the pro-democracy camp always be the ones blamed for standing in the way, but not Mr Tommy CHEUNG? Why is there such a different treatment?
I am not making ungrounded remarks. Mr James TIEN, his fellow party member and a former Member of this Council, immediately teased Mr CHEUNG by saying that a person could only enjoy a few days of paternity leave in his lifetime. Even his fellow party member has such a different understanding. While I believe that it is the consensus of society to establish common ground while accommodating differences, this is definitely not the so-called consensus reached in LAB. Why? I often say that the business sector and the labour sector represented in LAB are not the representatives of all business operators and workers in Hong Kong. Their representatives are the directly-elected Members in this Council who have the mandate of the people. All these Members are returned by "one person, one vote". Some of them are employers and some are employees. But the Government prefers the "zero-vote" LAB to be the representative body, the employer and employee members of which are only nominated or elected by their respective sectors. We often say that the consensus mechanism of LAB is fundamentally inherited from a highly business sector-oriented system set up by the Government when Hong Kong was a British colony.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 499
I think the logic is simple. If the Government does not put up this stage, if it has not set up LAB, the industrial and business sectors will have no place to sing their ridiculous tune. I believe Secretary Dr LAW Chi-kwong understands this point very well. He probably knows it, just that he cannot say it out. I know he already feels very troubled about the issue of abolishing the offsetting arrangement of MPF. He is worrying about whether the proposal to create certain posts can be passed at the meeting on Monday. On the matter of paternity leave, I will, for the time being, pardon the Secretary, having considered the fact that he has attached great importance to social welfare policies. He has taken this post and he has to let his buttocks command his head. There is little he can do. He has no choice but to stick to the consensus of LAB because the Government has already fixed this show.
Moreover, I also have understanding towards Members of the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions ("FTU"). I understand their dilemma only too well. They often have to follow the consensus reached at LAB. At heart, they may want to fight for more, but eventually have to respect the consensus. But nobody asks FTU to join this show with LAB. If they represent the people, they should come out and fight for them, rather than engaging in the closed-door politics with LAB.
Again, I wish to cite Karl MARX for a simple illustration. Mr LUK Chung-hung and I often exchange views on Marxism. According to Capital, workers fight for their due pay, working hours and other rights by uniting together, going on strike or resorting to other means of trade unions, rather than through closed-door politics or closed-door negotiation. Karl MARX thinks that the power of workers is weak as the supply of labour exceeds the demand. This enables employers to select workers at will. Any worker may lose an employment opportunity just because another worker asks for a lower wage. Unity is their only power for them to engage in a genuine negotiation with their employers. Mr LUK Chung-hung will speak after me. Perhaps he may have something to say in response. However, I wish to offer my earnest and well-intended advice, and that is, LAB definitely can never be the representative body spearheading a fight in such a way.
Let me come back to paternity leave. Why is it better to have a few more days of paternity leave? Many Members mention that paternity leave is more than a matter of labour policy. It is reflective of a family-friendly policy. I do not have children, but I can still understand those who are about to be fathers. I 500 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 can understand that when learning at office that his wife is about to give birth, a man certainly finds it necessary to spare time with his wife; otherwise, she may be at a loss when she is all alone by herself. She may be alone at home or in hospital, feeling very helpless. Should she call her retired father-in-law or mother-in-law for help? We often talk about the need to be family-friendly, and we really need to consider these practical situations. It is not unjustified for male employees to take leave.
Actually, "men make houses, women make homes" may no longer be valid in a modern-day society. Female employees need to take leave for physical recovery after childbirth, and male employees also need to share some responsibilities before and after their wife's childbirth. In Chinese families, the mother is recommended to convalesce for one month after childbirth. The father should at least be entitled to a one-week holiday, but the Government only proposes to give them a five-day paternity leave. I believe we all agree that taking care of family is a well-justified reason for the father to take leave.
If we take a look at the information compiled by the Research Office of the Legislative Council … They have indeed made a lot of effort in preparing these research reports. If we refer to the examples of other countries, employees in Singapore are entitled to 14 days of paternity leave, while employees in South Korea and Taiwan also only have paternity leave of five days, but they are provided with other benefits such as one-year paid parental leave. If Secretary Dr LAW Chi-kwong agrees to provide paid parental leave in the future, we may change our mind, but he has not said anything to that effect. We thus can see the childcare policy in Hong Kong is deplorably poor, and so is the employment policy. At present, the fertility rate of an average Hong Kong family is 1.2. This figure can be found on the Internet. This figure tells that we do feel the pressure. It comes from our worry that we may be dismissed by our employer if we have more babies. This is precisely the reason why paternity leave is implemented in our society.
According to a report on the global ranking of competiveness announced recently, human capital is one of the weakest aspects of Hong Kong's competitiveness performance. Given our poor labour policy and the less-than-satisfactory remuneration for workers, people are discouraged from having children, or dare not to even if they wish to. In view of our increasingly ageing population, the Government claims that effort will be made to address the low fertility rate in Hong Kong. But the aforesaid problem is exactly what the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 501
Government needs to deal with. The Government cannot say that employers are facing immense pressure, while telling us at the same time that the present labour protection for pregnant workers is the best it can offer; so take it or leave it. I think this mentality of the Government is inconsistent.
Moreover, regarding the President's ruling on the amendments, I have to do justice to the Members concerned, such as Mr HO Kai-ming, whose proposed amendment seeks to propose an annual review on paternity leave. First, the Minimum Wage Ordinance is subject to a biennial review. President, you should not rule his proposed amendment inadmissible only because the Government advised that a review would be made in a timely manner. It is already stipulated in the law; otherwise, the review mechanism of the Minimum Wage Ordinance will be unjustified. Secondly, if we just let go of this amendment on a timely review, I do not know when the Government will discuss this matter with LAB again. An information search reveals that the paternity leave regime was first proposed in 2010 by our former Member Emily LAU, but it was not until 2014 that this Council started to discuss paternity leave, and a five-day paternity leave is eventually proposed today. How could I know when the next round of discussion will take place? Could it be "2030+" or 2047?
I thus think that paternity leave and family-friendly policies are very important, and we must stand to uphold them firmly. Our fight for two more days of paternity leave is meant to keep abreast with the world trend. Even if we adopt the most rightist point of view, or an economy-first mentality, or even use maintaining competitiveness as a justification to press for suitable remuneration for employees and workers, it is still reflective of our competitiveness.
Hence, I will support all the amendments, including those seeking to increase paternity leave to seven days, or the progressive option proposed by Dr Helena WONG. But I wish to give a piece of well-meant advice to fellow Members, especially those from FTU. Please abandon LAB and take side with workers. This is the only way to win the respect that workers deserve. This is the only way to stop Members from the industrial and business sectors from saying something so mean here. Regarding the implementation of labour policies, stop living by the breath of the industrial and business sectors, so that the Government need not pay such a dear price to abolish the offsetting arrangement of MPF, an issue yet to be settled. Only by so doing can Hong Kong truly face up to the world.
502 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
Last but not least, I hope Mr LUK Chung-hung, who will speak next, does not mind. I am very glad that we had an opportunity to make a duty visit to the United Kingdom earlier. We even talked about making a visit to the grave of Karl MARX, a great man of the era. I believe he also understands that despite our different political stance, in order for workers to truly stand united, we must stand on the side of the people and fight for the rights of workers. I urge Members to support a seven-day paternity leave.
President, I so submit.
MR LUK CHUNG-HUNG (in Cantonese): President, the subject under discussion today concerns the happiest issue in life which also brings biggest pressure. What is it then? Well, it is about giving births to children and raising them.
There are various things to consider in deciding whether to have children, but there is a consensus in the community that fathers should be entitled to paternity leave as they have to share―Mr AU Nok-hin, please stay a little longer and do not hasten to leave―the mother's work (such as feeding their babies) and pressure as well for this means love for the whole family in that its members share the happiness together, although feeling perturbed somehow. Hence, paternity leave is a must, but will five days suffice? Not really, but should this be accepted? Of course this should be accepted. Why? Actually, all those Members who have spoken, regardless of whether they have proposed amendments, have already stated the reasons for supporting the provision of paternity leave. No objection to the provision of paternity leave has been heard of so far, not even from the business sector. Although Mr Tommy CHEUNG has unfeelingly raised objection in this regard, but he is not present at the moment. Therefore, I am not going to repeat here the reasons for showing support, but would like to tell you the two world records held by Hong Kong.
First, President, it is the birth rate in Hong Kong, which is the lowest in the world. If this situation continues, Hong Kong people will probably not have any more future generations. President, I do not mean to be an alarmist. The birth rate in Hong Kong is 7.7%, which has dropped by nearly half as compared with 13% in 1986 (that is, about 30 years ago) and is so close to the lowest of 7% recorded in 2003. As everyone knows, people dared not give births to children during the economic downturn caused by the outbreak of SARS in 2003.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 503
In December last year, the Central Intelligence Agency ("CIA") of the United States conducted an analysis on the total fertility rates of different places in the world. According to its estimation, Hong Kong was in the bottom fourth among the 224 countries/places surveyed, ahead of Singapore, Macao and Taiwan only. The survey had already taken account of the babies of those "singly non-permanent resident" ("SNR") mothers and foreign domestic helpers ("FDHs") while excluding the SNR mothers and FDHs from Hong Kong's female population. Thus, the actual fertility rate in Hong Kong is lower than the current figure of 1.126 children per woman. Maybe it is true that the birth rate in Hong Kong is the lowest in the world, and so everyone is very concerned about the future of Hong Kong.
But then, why are people reluctant to have children? There are many reasons for this. Some people say that it is because our education system is unreliable while others are of the view that it is due to the housing problem, and some attribute this to the inadequacy of family-friendly policies in Hong Kong: no standard working hours; few holidays with a unfair discrepancy between statutory holidays and public holidays; and poor child care services. Thus, people dare not have children.
The leading female character in the TV drama series Who Wants A Baby? ("BB來了") earlier shown says that giving birth to a child will cost her career for the rest of her life. Of course, people may wonder if increasing the number of days for paternity leave will immediately lead to more births? As some Members have remarked just now, this just will not happen. Yet, I deem paternity leave, as a measure to encourage birth, a form of recognition shown by society or employers towards those who are willing to give births to children of coming generations, in particular the fathers, and it is also meant to be a kind of practical support. Therefore, paternity leave has already had the support of the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions ("FTU") since its implementation. It has been the stance of FTU that we support increasing the duration of paternity leave from null days to three days, and then to the currently proposed five days or even more.
As we often say, we expect not the "best" but "better" when it comes to labour rights and interests. What do we mean by "better" then? Well, it means the tendency towards social fairness and justice. It is absolutely not the case as some employer groups have put it: the greed of the labour sector is insatiable. Rather, it is the greedy capitalists that always have an insatiable appetite for 504 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 money, no matter how rich they are. On the contrary, workers are only expecting to have their fair share of society's fruits of economic prosperity. It is necessary that society should possess the basic elements that enable healthy and all-round people development. Nevertheless, such elements are absent from our daily lives and public policies.
Therefore, over the years, FTU has been proposing the fight for paternity leave since 2006. All from scratch, the course of the fight straddled four legislative sessions, during which we, taking one step at a time, made an all-out effort without glancing back nor shying away as a shirker. We will definitely do whatever it takes to fight for a longer paternity leave if that really works, but is the approach so taken effective? Or is it that some people are pretentiously making a posture or even intending to embarrass FTU? Members may think about it.
Now, I would like to come back to the two world records which I have mentioned just now. Another issue facing Hong Kong is that the rights and interests of local labour have been persistently lagging behind. As Mr AU Nok-hin has mentioned just now, there is a score on workers' basic rights under the item of Pillar 8 (Labour Market) of The Global Competitiveness Report 2018. What is the score of Hong Kong then? Zero, Secretary, it is zero. Are you ashamed of this? A score of zero for such an advanced economy like Hong Kong? How about the scores of other equally advanced economies? Well, Singapore, our closest competitor, scored 88.7 points, while Japan scored 89 points. As to Germany, which is much farther apart but considered to be competitive and have attached great importance to labour rights and interests, scored 94 points. This tells us that competitiveness is actually not incompatible with labour rights and interests. Hence, some employer groups are indeed acting as alarmists by voicing their worry that Hong Kong's competitiveness will be undermined by enhanced labour rights and interests. They do so only for the sake of infinitely maximizing and rationalizing their profits.
I hope that the Secretary can confirm that there is no contradiction between labour rights and interests and social competitiveness. As their labour rights are properly protected, employees will work happily and are healthy and motivated. This will help stimulate domestic demand and thus accelerate economic growth. People will then become more creative and perform better at work, right? In this case, society will naturally see progress on all fronts with enhanced competitiveness. In view of the deplorable situation nowadays, we brought up LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 505 the point about the profound backwardness of the labour rights and interests in Hong Kong when we went over to meet with Vice Premier Han Zheng in Beijing earlier. There are two reasons behind such backwardness. First, there are some unscrupulous miserly employers like Mr Tommy CHEUNG (who is all smiles and full of pride when people call him "The 20-Dollar CHEUNG" ("廿蚊 張")) who exploit others and rip others off their hard-earned money. It is precisely these people who get into the way whenever society seeks to improve labour rights and interests.
Second, the Government has been upholding an attitude of inaction, inactivity and laissez-faire for so many years. It remains nonchalant and just let the employers and employees negotiate with one another on their own over labour issues. If both sides have reached a consensus, the Government will act accordingly. Even if no consensus is reached, it will not do anything that offends either side.
The Government has adopted the same attitude in dealing with the issue of standard working hours. We do not agree to the proposal of imposing contractual working hours, but the Government has still decided to press ahead with it, and that is why the Standard Working Hours Committee is now in a stalemate. As for paternity leave, the number of leave days to be granted is eventually proposed to be increased from three days to five days without our full consent. A review was conducted, and yet at a rather slow pace. The Government promised to conduct the review a year later and it did have done so after one year, but only in the last month of the year. It took a total of three years to get the job done in the end. Employers have no fear precisely because of the Government's inaction and non-commitment as the unscrupulous business sector feel that they will never be prompted or compelled by the Government to take action. However, the Government can actually adopt some policies to push them, such as negotiating with them by warning them that tax concessions will not be granted to the business sector unless it supports the passage of the labour legislation to improve labour rights and interests. Regrettably, the Government has not played its part well in the Labour Advisory Board ("LAB") to uphold justice. I do not mean that it must be totally on the side of the workers. However, can it give more consideration to employees' rights?
I agree that social consensus is really necessary in certain cases. It is for this reason that LAB is set up with the composition that half of the members represent employers and the other half represents employees. Yet, the role of 506 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 the Commissioner for Labour is of paramount importance since he is the Chairman of LAB who leads and steers all discussions at the board meetings, and the final decision rests with him. And as the Secretary for Labour and Welfare is the supervisor of the Commissioner for Labour, he should also attend the meetings the next time when issues related to LAB are being discussed. Had he performed his role with a positive attitude? Or did he simply look on with folded arms while employers and employees were arguing and then slightly increase the duration of paternity leave in the end? Members of the labour sector are indeed very helpless over this all-or-nothing game because we know that the Government will certainly defend the LAB system. There is no reason for it to destroy the system with its own hands. Hence, the Government will absolutely not accept any amendment proposed to the bills that it has submitted to this Council precisely due to the executive-led system in the existing political structure.
Therefore, those Members proposing the amendments should stop deceiving the audience watching the TV right now. When it comes to playing dumb, Mr HUI Chi-fung knows best, including snatching other's mobile phones―I am sorry, his case is subject to judicial proceedings right now―playing dumb to make people believe that it only takes a press on the button and the duration of paternity leave will be increased to seven days. If it is really that easy, then the number of days to be increased may exceed seven days if I press the button repeatedly, say, it could be 49 days any time I press the button seven times (7x7=49). But do you think it is as simple as that in fighting for labour rights and interests? Mr HUI Chi-fung meant to lie to the public in that he did not finish what he had to say, that is, the Government will withdraw the Bill in case any amendment proposed by Members is passed. In that case, the option of five days will no longer be available. This is a difficult decision. Despite our wish to fight for seven days or more, we still have to make a sensible decision when we are only offered the options of three-day and five-day leave period. And here, I must tell the public clearly that a seven-day period or a period longer than that is no real option at this stage.
It is exactly the reason why we find it difficult to support the amendments. In the first place, everyone understands it is difficult for them to be passed during voting in divisions. Even if they are passed, the Government will withdraw the Bill. Thus, apart from giving a show on purpose, it is utterly meaningless to propose such amendments. It will cause the public to lose the only chance of having two more days of paternity leave instead. Previously, the introduction of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 507 the Bill has been dragged on for half a year as some Members insisted on establishing a Bills Committee in disregard of the Government's opposition. But then, why have we still not learned a good lesson from that?
The speech delivered by Mr AU Nok-hin just now must be targeted at LAB. Well, simply disband it, okay? Given his strong dislike of LAB, why does he not propose to disband it? I believe that Mr Tommy CHEUNG will be the happiest of all if LAB is disbanded since he and the business sector represented by him will no longer have to face and negotiate with the representatives of the labour sector. Moreover, there will not be any platform for the Government to intervene. By then, it is probable that no progress can be made as the two sides can only negotiate indirectly with one another via the media.
Therefore, I think LAB is still very important and indispensable under the existing political system. Workers can fight for labour rights and interests and make proposals for improvement through LAB. On the other hand, collective bargaining is certainly very important, but it should only proceed under the premise that negotiations are done through a body comprising members representing employers and employees respectively, and the mutually agreed proposals will be then be submitted to this Council. This way helps, at least, prevent either side from turning its back on what has been agreed upon―well, I trust that Members representing the business sector will not vote against the Bill today. Thus, the existence of LAB is indeed necessary.
Hence, given the current circumstances, we take the view that any proposal to abolish LAB today or significantly play down its role, or even negate the trust in collective bargaining, is tantamount to destroying the negotiation with our own hands. Who will benefit most if this does really happen? I hope Members will give a careful thought to this.
Mr AU Nok-hin has told me just now that during his visit to the United Kingdom, he felt like paying tribute to Karl MARX, one of the greatest men in history, before his grave. And I hope that workers will, sharing a common goal, work together towards achieving a great unity because this is so important. According to MARX's theory of "class in itself" and "class for itself", workers' consciousness should be enhanced and awakened. Workers must rely on those who support the fight for labour rights and interests as well as those trade union activists by taking gradual yet pragmatic steps to organize workers. And then 508 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 we will have the strong power and the solid support from trade unions, no matter which camps they belong to, to press both the Government and employers to improve labour rights and interests on various fronts, on every occasion at the meetings of this Council or on the streets. It should not be like that kind of beautiful picture: A simple press of the button at Council meetings will work magic. After all, will the winning posture mean nothing at all but actual loss? I do hope Members of this Council will reflect on this. Thank you.
SUSPENSION OF MEETING
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now suspend the meeting until 9:00 am tomorrow.
Suspended accordingly at 7:48 pm.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 509
Annex I
Amendments moved by the Secretary for Innovation and Technology
510 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 511
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 24 October 2018 A1
Appendix I
WRITTEN ANSWER
Written answer by the Secretary for Home Affairs to Mr Kenneth LEUNG's supplementary question to Question 6
According to the information provided by the Sports Federation & Olympic Committee of Hong Kong, China ("SF&OC"), in 2013 to 2018, SF&OC did not receive any requests for appeal against its review findings on athlete selection.