LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 6909

OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Wednesday, 10 May 2017

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

THE HONOURABLE WONG TING-KWONG, S.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, B.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 PAUL TSE WAI-CHUN, J.P.

6910 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

THE HONOURABLE LEUNG KWOK-HUNG#

THE HONOURABLE CLAUDIA MO

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

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

THE HONOURABLE LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG, B.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

THE HONOURABLE DENNIS KWOK WING-HANG

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

DR THE HONOURABLE FERNANDO CHEUNG CHIU-HUNG

# According to the Judgment of the Court of First Instance of the High Court on 14 July 2017, LEUNG Kwok-hung, Nathan LAW Kwun-chung, YIU Chung-yim and LAU Siu-lai have been disqualified from assuming the office of a member of the Legislative Council, and have vacated the same since 12 October 2016, and are not entitled to act as a member of the Legislative Council. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 6911

DR THE HONOURABLE HELENA WONG PIK-WAN

THE HONOURABLE IP KIN-YUEN

DR THE HONOURABLE ELIZABETH QUAT, J.P.

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

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

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

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

THE HONOURABLE CHUNG KWOK-PAN

THE HONOURABLE 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

6912 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

DR THE HONOURABLE PIERRE CHAN

THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHUN-YING

THE HONOURABLE TANYA CHAN

THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG KWOK-KWAN, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE HUI CHI-FUNG

THE HONOURABLE LUK CHUNG-HUNG

THE HONOURABLE LAU KWOK-FAN, M.H.

DR THE HONOURABLE CHENG CHUNG-TAI

THE HONOURABLE KWONG CHUN-YU

THE HONOURABLE JEREMY TAM MAN-HO

THE HONOURABLE NATHAN LAW KWUN-CHUNG#

DR THE HONOURABLE YIU CHUNG-YIM#

DR THE HONOURABLE LAU SIU-LAI#

MEMBERS ABSENT:

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

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

THE HONOURABLE KENNETH LAU IP-KEUNG, M.H., J.P.

# According to the Judgment of the Court of First Instance of the High Court on 14 July 2017, LEUNG Kwok-hung, Nathan LAW Kwun-chung, YIU Chung-yim and LAU Siu-lai have been disqualified from assuming the office of a member of the Legislative Council, and have vacated the same since 12 October 2016, and are not entitled to act as a member of the Legislative Council. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 6913

PUBLIC OFFICERS ATTENDING:

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

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

THE HONOURABLE STEPHEN SUI WAI-KEUNG, J.P. SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE

THE HONOURABLE ERIC MA SIU-CHEUNG, 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

MISS FLORA TAI YIN-PING, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

MS DORA WAI, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

6914 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

DEPUTY 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.

Waste Disposal (Designated Waste Disposal Facility) Regulation (Amendment of Schedule 1) Notice 2017...... 74/2017

Dangerous Drugs Ordinance (Amendment of First Schedule) Order 2017 ...... 75/2017

Other Papers

No. 86 ― Quality Education Fund Financial statements and Report of the Director of Audit for the year ended 31 August 2016

No. 87 ― Education Development Fund Financial statements and Report of the Director of Audit for the year ended 31 August 2016

No. 88 ― Qualifications Framework Fund Financial statements and Report of the Director of Audit for the year ended 31 August 2016 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 6915

No. 89 ― Financial Reporting Council Annual Report 2016

No. 90 ― Employees' Compensation Insurance Levies Management Board Annual Report 2015/2016

No. 91 ― Employees Compensation Assistance Fund Board Annual Report 2015-2016

No. 92 ― Occupational Deafness Compensation Board Annual Report 2015-2016

No. 93 ― Pneumoconiosis Compensation Fund Board Annual Report 2015

No. 94 ― Pneumoconiosis Ex Gratia Fund Annual Report for the year from 1 April 2015 to 31 March 2016

No. 95 ― Language Fund Financial statements and Report of the Director of Audit for the year ended 31 August 2016

Report of the Committee on Members' Interests on a complaint against Hon Andrew LEUNG Kwan-yuen

Report No. 17/16-17 of the House Committee on Consideration of Subsidiary Legislation and Other Instruments

ADDRESS

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Address. Mr YIU Si-wing will address this Council on the "Report of the Committee on Members' Interests on a complaint against Hon Andrew LEUNG Kwan-yuen".

6916 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

Report of the Committee on Members' Interests on a complaint against Hon Andrew LEUNG Kwan-yuen

MR YIU SI-WING (in Cantonese): Deputy President, on behalf of the Committee on Members' Interests ("CMI"), I submit the Committee's report to this Council.

In November last year, CMI received a complaint lodged against Mr Andrew LEUNG. Citing media reports, the complainant accused Mr LEUNG of failing to register the shares he owned in two United Kingdom-registered companies since 2008 and thus breaching the registration requirement as laid down in the Rules of Procedure. These two companies are abbreviated to "SHL" and "OGL".

CMI has held four meetings to investigate the complaint and has twice invited Mr LEUNG to provide explanation and information in writing to facilitate the investigation. During the relevant period, that is within the seven years prior to the receipt of the complaint, Mr LEUNG only made registration once regarding his shares in these two companies on 19 October last year, the day following the publication of the relevant media report.

Regarding the first company, SHL, Mr LEUNG said that it was only a representative office of his family business and was set up to provide services for clients in Europe primarily. SHL had only issued one share and Mr LEUNG held half of the share during the relevant period.

In view of Mr LEUNG's admission of failure to register his shares in SHL during the relevant period, members of CMI agree unanimously that Mr LEUNG has breached the registration requirement stipulated in Rule 83(1) of the Rules of Procedure. Hence, the complaint against him in respect of SHL is substantiated. However, CMI finds no information showing that the breach of registration requirement was a deliberate act, or that the breach involved any conflict of interests with his role as a Legislative Council Member. With further regard to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 6917

CMI's past experience in handling similar cases, CMI decides against recommending any sanction on Mr LEUNG for the breach of the relevant requirement.

As for the other company, OGL, Mr LEUNG said that OGL owned the freehold land of a property in London, the United Kingdom. And CEC, a company of which he was a remunerated director and shareholder, owned a flat in that property. CEC was hence a shareholder of OGL. In his first letter submitted to CMI, Mr LEUNG admitted that he had a shareholding interest in OGL as CEC had somehow transferred its shares in OGL to him without his knowledge. CMI subsequently downloaded an Annual Return of OGL from the official website of the Companies House of the United Kingdom Government and asked Mr LEUNG to clarify details of that share transfer.

In his second letter to CMI, Mr LEUNG said that he had assumed the information on the Annual Return was accurate and thus had thought the share transfer had taken place. He therefore admitted in the first correspondence his holding of OGL shares and the failure to register that shareholding interest. However, after verifying with a solicitor for CEC, Mr LEUNG was certain that the shareholding transfer had never happened.

Having considered the clarification and substantiating documents further provided by Mr LEUNG, CMI accepts his explanation and believes that he held no shares in OGL during the relevant period. Hence, the complaint against him regarding OGL is unsubstantiated. However, CMI expresses disappointment over Mr LEUNG's failure to thoroughly verify the relevant facts before submitting his first correspondence and hence provided inaccurate information to CMI.

Deputy President, I so submit.

6918 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

Road safety of trams

1. MR CHEUNG KWOK-KWAN (in Chinese): President, in the early hours on 6 April of this year, a westbound tram suddenly derailed when passing through a bend outside the Court of Final Appeal Building on Des Voeux Road Central. It then crashed fiercely into a tram stop and toppled over, causing injuries to a number of passengers on board. Regarding the road safety of trams, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the number of traffic accidents in the past five years involving trams and the resultant casualties, broken down by cause of accident (including unsatisfactory driving attitude/incompetence of the tram motorman concerned, tram speeding and tram mechanical failure);

(2) whether the Transport Department has, at present, set any requirements regarding the operating speed and daily number of trips of trams; if so, of the details;

(3) of the regular mechanism currently in place to monitor the daily operation of trams;

(4) as it has been reported that several tram derailment accidents had happened in recent years at the spot of the aforesaid accident, whether the authorities have assessed if the design of the curved track concerned is defective, and whether they will explore improvement measures;

(5) as it has been reported that the Hong Kong Tramways Limited ("HKT") has implemented a speed monitoring programme since early this year, under which tram motormen operating trams at speeds lower than the average speed for the same tram journey by a certain extent will be given warnings, and their bonuses and year-end bonuses may even be deducted, which is tantamount to forcing tram motormen to speed, whether the Transport Department has prior knowledge of this programme, and whether HKT's practice has breached the relevant requirements; if the practice has breached the requirements, whether punishment will be imposed;

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 6919

(6) as HKT allows persons who hold only probationary driving licences ("P Licences") to apply for the post of tram motorman, whether the authorities have assessed if such arrangement is appropriate; whether they know the current number and percentage of tram motormen who hold P Licences; and

(7) whether it knows the difference between the duration of induction training for tram motormen and that for bus captains of franchised buses and train captains of Light Rail at present; whether the authorities will review regularly to see if the relevant training duration and contents are adequate; when the last review was conducted?

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Chinese): President, the Government attaches great importance to the safe operation of tram services. In the early hours of 6 April 2017, a tramcar toppled over at the section of Des Voeux Road Central near Jackson Road. A total of 14 people were injured in the accident. With the assistance of the Electrical and Mechanical Services Department ("EMSD"), the Police is actively investigating the cause of this traffic accident. The case is yet to be concluded. Nevertheless, as the safe operation of tram services is at stake, the Government has requested the Hong Kong Tramways Limited ("HKT") to explore adopting precautionary measures to enhance the safety of tram services. HKT has undertaken to follow up on the issue proactively.

My reply to the various parts of Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan's question is as follows:

(1) The figures of traffic accidents involving trams and the resultant casualties in the past five years are provided at Annex. The Transport Department ("TD") does not have the breakdown figures of the accidents by the causes as set out in the question.

(2) HKT has to provide tram services according to the Schedule of Service published in the Gazette. The Schedule specifies the routes of tram services, timetable, faretable, journey distance, journey time and tramcar allocation for each route. According to the existing Schedule of Service, the daily number of trips which HKT shall 6920 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

operate are about 1 700 trips from Monday to Saturday (except Public Holidays) and about 1 900 trips on Sunday and Public Holidays.

As regards the driving speed of a tramcar, the new-generation trams may travel up to 42 kilometres per hour ("km/h"). At present, all tramcars are fitted with a speed recorder (commonly known as "blackbox"). HKT also deploys staff to monitor tram speed on sites with the use of speed detector regularly. Furthermore, HKT stipulates the safe driving speed limits for specific sections of the tram tracks―the safe driving speed limit is 20 km/h for downhill sections and point switch, 15 km/h for curves and tram depot areas, 8 km/h for L-curve turning junction, and 5 km/h for auto-point switch and sections undergoing track works. As the section concerned in this accident is a curve, its safe driving speed limit is 15 km/h. HKT has explained the details of the aforesaid requirements to its tram motormen and requested for their strict compliance with the speed limits in the course of the training programme and guidance for on-site practical training for the motormen.

(3) Monitoring the daily operation of the tramway is the regular responsibility of TD and EMSD. TD monitors if the services provided by HKT are operated in accordance with the Schedule of Services, handles complaints on tram services and follows up with HKT on improvement proposals. EMSD arranges regular staff inspection and testing of the electrical and mechanical equipment of the tramway system (including electrical installations, mechanical components, pneumatic system and braking system, etc.) to ensure operational safety in accordance with the Tramway Ordinance. The above two departments also hold regular meetings with HKT to discuss matters relating to the daily operation of tram services as well as maintenance and repairs issues with a view to monitoring and adjusting tram services.

(4) According to TD's records, there were two tram derailment accidents at the curved track section on Des Voeux Road Central near Jackson Road in the past five years. The first accident happened in March last year. Investigation results indicated that the accident was primarily caused by the improper use of the brake by the motorman, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 6921

which was not related to the design of the tram track concerned. The second accident was the toppling over of the tramcar in April this year. As mentioned above, the Police is still carrying out detailed investigation of the case. Upon completion of the investigation, we will take follow-up actions accordingly having regard to the outcome. TD will also examine whether there is a need to provide appropriate traffic signs and road markings having regard to the traffic conditions at that section so as to remind road users, including tram motormen, that there is a bend ahead and they should decelerate with a view to enhancing the road safety at that section.

(5) HKT indicated that it had implemented a speed monitoring programme under which the average moving speed of the trams was used to measure the driving speed of the motormen, so as to even out the distance between trams to avoid bundling of trams which resulted in irregular headways. We understand that HKT has suspended the programme and will review it after seeking the views of motormen and staff. As the speed monitoring programme is an internal management matter of HKT, prior approval from TD is not required. Neither did HKT inform TD of the programme beforehand. TD has expressed concern to HKT and asked HKT to maintain good communication with its staff if the programme is to be resumed, as well as give prior notice to TD on such matter.

(6) and (7)

At present, an applicant for becoming a tram motorman must be aged 18 or above and hold a valid driving licence (including a probationary driving licence). A motorman must also have a clear record and pass a physical examination before appointment. According to the information provided by HKT, about 70% of its motormen have at least five years of experience of driving a tram. HKT has offered appointments as tram motormen to holders of a probationary driving licence over years. Three motormen of HKT currently hold a probationary driving licence, accounting for less than 1% of the total number of motormen. No problems have been spotted since the arrangement was implemented for years. That said, TD will keep in view as to whether the arrangement will affect the safe operation of tram services.

6922 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

Newly recruited motormen are currently required to receive eight weeks of on-the-job training, which includes two weeks of classroom instructions for understanding tram operation, driving skills, relevant traffic regulations, etc., and six weeks of road-based training for the trainees to acquire practical experience with tram operation. Upon completion of training, trainees must also pass an assessment before they can be formally appointed as motormen. HKT conducts regular reviews of the induction training arrangements for new motormen. The last review, conducted in September 2016, concluded that the current training arrangements are appropriate in that they can equip newly recruited motormen with sufficient understanding of the rules of daily operation and a good level of safety awareness. Based on the review, HKT has also tightened its stipulations on safe driving speed limit. In the light of the accident in question, HKT will examine whether there is a need to further enhance the driving skills and safety awareness of motormen in the training programme.

As regards the training of captains for the Light Rail and franchised buses, the Light Rail also accepts applications from holders of a probationary driving licence for becoming Light Rail captains. Upon appointment, a newly recruited Light Rail captain will be arranged to participate in a captain training course lasting for about 18 weeks, which comprises about seven weeks of classroom instructions and depot training as well as around 11 weeks of driving training. Franchised bus captains, on the other hand, are required to hold a valid "public bus" or "franchised public bus" licence for driving franchised buses. Depending on whether the newly recruited bus captains possess any of the above licences at the time of appointment, the major franchised bus companies will arrange them to attend training courses lasting for around 13 to 32 days. Despite the fact that the tramway, the Light Rail and franchise buses are all road-based modes of public transport, their specific driving procedures and the operational conditions on the road are different from one another. Their specific training arrangements therefore are also different from one another. It would be inappropriate to judge any training programme solely on account of its duration.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 6923

Annex

Number of accidents involving trams and the resultant casualties over the past five years

Resultant casualties^ Year Number of accidents Fatal Serious Slight Total 2012 42 2 10 54 66 2013 52 0 8 66 74 2014 42 0 7 41 48 2015 36 1 8 35 44 2016 43 0 10 45 55

Note:

^ Casualties include tram motormen, pedestrians and other road users.

On-site Meal Portioning Funding Scheme for schools

2. MR IP KIN-YUEN (in Chinese): President, the Environmental Protection Department ("EPD") introduced the On-site Meal Portioning Funding Scheme ("OMPF Scheme") in 2009, under which schools are subsidized through the Environment and Conservation Fund to conduct basic conversion works and install facilities necessary for implementing on-site meal portioning on campus, with a view to promoting "food wise" culture, as well as reducing food waste and the use of disposable lunch boxes. Schools subsidized under the OMPF Scheme ("OMPF-subsidized schools") are required to undertake to implement on-site meal portioning for at least 36 months after completion of all the conversion and installation works. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) in respect of secondary schools, primary schools and kindergartens respectively in which students have their lunch on campus:

(i) of the respective current numbers of schools in which (a) on-site meal portioning is implemented, (b) students bring their own lunch boxes and (c) disposable lunch boxes are provided by meal suppliers, and the respective numbers of 6924 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

students involved, as well as the respective percentages of such numbers in the relevant totals, together with a breakdown by type of school (i.e. government, aided, Direct Subsidy Scheme and private schools);

(ii) of the number of OMPF-subsidized schools among the schools which implement on-site meal portioning;

(iii) in each of the past five school years, of the respective numbers of applications received, approved and rejected by the authorities under the OMPF Scheme as well as the total amount of subsidy granted, and the reasons for rejecting some of the applications (if any);

(iv) in each of the past five school years, of the respective numbers of OMPF-subsidized schools which gave up on-site meal portioning (a) before they had honoured the aforesaid undertaking and (b) after they had honoured such undertaking;

(v) whether it has found out, among the schools in which students have their lunch on campus but on-site meal portioning is not implemented, the number of those schools which meet the conditions for implementing on-site meal portioning, e.g. (a) school premises being completed in 2011 or after and installed with the facilities for on-site meal portioning or (b) school premises currently equipped with the necessary facilities, and the reasons why such schools do not implement on-site meal portioning (including the difficulties encountered); if so, of the details; whether the authorities have offered support to these schools to help them overcome the difficulties; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and

(vi) in each of the past five school years, of the quantity of food waste generated by students having lunch on campus and its percentage in the total quantity of food waste in Hong Kong; among such food waste, the respective quantities of food waste LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 6925

that has not been treated by food waste processors or other methods and food waste that has turned into useful materials upon composting, as well as the respective uses of such materials;

(2) whether it has assessed the reasons why some OMPF-subsidized schools have given up on-site meal portioning; if so, of a breakdown by reason of the number of those schools and the total amount of subsidy granted to them; among them, of the respective numbers of (i) schools that belong to the 26 schools in "matchbox-style premises" with facilities in their premises below the current standards and (ii) other schools with facilities in their premises below the current standards (set out such information by secondary schools, primary schools and kindergartens respectively); whether it has given additional support to these schools to help them overcome the difficulties in implementing on-site meal portioning; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and

(3) whether EPD has, since it conducted a survey in 2010 on lunch supply practice adopted by schools, carried out a relevant follow-up investigation; if so, of the contents and outcome of the follow-up investigation; if not, the reasons for that, and how the authorities evaluate effectively the progress and effectiveness of (i) the OMPF Scheme and (ii) the efforts in reducing food waste in schools?

SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Chinese): President, the Government has been promoting green lunch practices and the "food wise" culture in schools with a view to enabling students to adopt a green living lifestyle and reduce wastage of food. In promoting the "food wise" culture and reduction of food waste in schools, apart from implementing on-site meal portioning ("OMP"), the schools could also adopt measures such as meal portioning in classrooms, students bringing their own lunch, and using reusable or recyclable containers and tableware to promote green lunch practices.

Our reply to the question raised by Mr IP Kin-yuen is as follows:

(1) (i) According to the information of lunch arrangements provided to the Environmental Protection Department ("EPD") by all Hong Kong primary and secondary schools in 2015, 282 6926 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

schools implemented OMP and 400 schools used disposable lunch boxes provided by their lunch suppliers. Details are tabulated as follows:

Breakdown of schools Secondary Number and Primary Secondary Primary Special of schools schools schools schools schools sharing same campus (a) OMP 282 123 142 12 5 (44%) (50%) (4%) (2%) (c) Using 400 189 199 5 7 disposable (47%) (50%) (1%) (2%) lunch boxes provided by lunch suppliers without adopting OMP (b) Students bringing their own lunch boxes―Schools can adopt different types of lunch arrangements simultaneously. For example, some students can join OMP while some students bring their own lunch boxes. Our survey did not have data on this item.

We do not have related information of kindergartens or breakdown by type of school and respective number of students.

(ii) A total of 122 schools, including 45 secondary schools, 72 primary schools and 5 special schools, have received funding from the Environment and Conservation Fund ("ECF") and completed the conversion and installation works necessary for implementing OMP.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 6927

(iii) In the past five years, ECF approved 46 applications from schools for implementing OMP, and no application was rejected. The number of projects approved and the amount of subsidy granted by year are as follows:

Number of Year Amount granted ($) projects approved 2012-2013 15 20,484,231.30 2013-2014 8 10,841,272.00 2014-2015 7 10,159,138.00 2015-2016 4 4,894,929.00 2016-2017 12 17,977,029.00

(iv) Schools subsidized by ECF to install relevant facilities are required to implement OMP for at least three years. A school must obtain prior approval from ECF if the school no longer uses the facilities to implement OMP within these three years. To date, ECF has not received any notification from schools for not undertaking the implementation of OMP within the three-year commitment period. To monitor the progress of implementing OMP, ECF Secretariat conducts site inspections of the schools from time to time and reminds the schools to comply with the conditions of funding approval as necessary. No violation of the conditions has been identified so far.

In addition, three subsidized schools have notified ECF after the three-year commitment period that they would no longer use the facilities to implement OMP.

(v) It has been found that a number of schools cannot implement OMP. This is mainly due to physical and technical constraints for carrying out the necessary conversion works for the arrangement, such as lack of space, potential problems regarding electrical/water installation works and building works to convert an existing area into a kitchen and a dining area. Besides, as some of the schools only have a very small number of students having lunch in schools, they have not arranged any OMP.

6928 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

(vi) According to the school questionnaire survey conducted in 2010, around 100 tonnes of food waste were generated daily by primary and secondary schools in Hong Kong, accounting for about 3% of the total food waste quantity in Hong Kong in 2010. The Chief Executive announced in the 2017 Policy Address that the Government will provide tertiary institutions as well as primary and secondary schools with suitable support for on-site treatment of food waste, with a view to enhancing awareness of students and teachers of the "food wise" culture. EPD is now carrying out the related preparation work.

(2) The On-site Meal Portioning Funding Scheme ("OMPF Scheme") of ECF aims to subsidize schools to carry out conversion works and install facilities necessary for implementing OMP. Schools are responsible for making appropriate lunch arrangements for students. When considering whether to continue to implement OMP after the three-year commitment period, a school should take into account feedback from different stakeholders, other plans of the school, manpower and resource allocation and so on. So far three schools subsidized under the OMPF Scheme are no longer using the facilities for implementing OMP after the three-year commitment period. The main reasons of these three schools for not continuing OMP are insufficient manpower, inadequate space due to increased number of students and adoption of other green lunch practices. The subsidies granted to these three schools under ECF were $1,182,991, $979,837 and $1,453,572 respectively. Among these three schools, one is "matchbox-style premises" and all of them have completed relevant works under the School Improvement Programme. It is noted that these three schools have adopted or will adopt other green lunch practices such as using reusable or recyclable containers and tableware and adopting measures to reduce food waste.

(3) Since 2010, we have collected some data from those schools subsidized by ECF for implementing OMP. Those data include measurements and records of food waste quantity of students after lunch. Depending on the number of days after which the lunch menu repeats, we recommend schools to collect data for at least five days for calculation of an average food waste quantity. According to the data collected before and after implementation of OMP from LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 6929

those subsidized schools, food waste generated per student was reduced by 0.05 kg on average (around 40% to 50%). This proves that the OMPF Scheme could effectively reduce food waste quantity in schools.

Safety of hikers

3. MR CHAN HAK-KAN (in Chinese): President, it has been reported that the first four months of this year already saw the death of five persons, due to sickness or accidents during hiking, and this number has exceeded that of four persons for the whole of last year. Moreover, on 22 March this year, a Principal Fireman died on duty after losing his footing and falling off a cliff in a rescue operation for hikers who had got lost. A mountaineering expert has pointed out that hiking has become increasingly popular in recent years, but hikers often do not make adequate preparation before setting off, which has resulted in frequent accidents. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the respective numbers of rescue operations for hikers carried out in the past three years by staff members of the various government departments concerned;

(2) whether it has plans to step up the relevant publicity work in the light of the inadequate preparation made by hikers before setting off; if so, of the details;

(3) given that the risk of hikers encountering accidents at hiking spots not only depends on geographical factors but also varies from time to time with weather conditions (e.g. very hot, very cold, dry, rainstorm, and strong wind), whether the Government has plans to establish a comprehensive risk rating mechanism and disseminate, from time to time through such mechanism, information on the risk levels of hiking spots to enable hikers to select hiking spots according to their ability, experience and equipment;

(4) whether it will consider establishing an open database on accident black spots in country parks and erecting warning signs on paths leading to such black spots, so as to remind hikers to stay away from danger; and

6930 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

(5) whether it will arrange more staff members of the Fire Services Department and other relevant government departments to receive training on mountain rescue; if so, of the details?

SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Chinese): President, our response to Mr CHAN Hak-kan's questions is as follows:

(1) Mountain search and rescue is mainly carried out by the Civil Aid Service ("CAS"), the Government Flying Service ("GFS") and the Fire Services Department ("FSD"). According to the Police's records, there were 990, 1 134 and 1 327 cases of requests for assistance related to hikers reported via 999 emergency hotline in 2014, 2015 and 2016 respectively. The numbers of rescue operations for hikers carried out by CAS, GFS and FSD over the past three years are as follows:

Year 2014 2015 2016 CAS 118 133 109 GFS 503 560 513 FSD 403 340 357

(2) A number of government departments are involved in publicizing and promoting hiking safety. FSD has posted safety hints on mountain activities, including information on hiking routes, weather conditions, clothing and gears, on the Department's website for public information. In addition, FSD would publicize such messages through various fire safety activities. CAS plans to launch a series of promotional activities on hiking safety from May to December this year. These include distributing "Hiking Safety Checklists" and promotional materials at the starting points of popular hiking trails, organizing talks and promoting through multimedia on hiking safety and accident handling procedures. CAS also held the Launching Ceremony of the Hiking Safety Promotion Campaign with several government departments and mountaineering organizations at Pak Tam Chung P.H.A.B. (Physically Handicapped and Able-Bodied) Site in Sai Kung on 3 May. The Police from time to time publicize messages on safety issues which the public should pay attention to when going on hiking LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 6931

through the "Police Magazine" programme and the Police's Facebook page. A recent episode of the "Police Magazine" programme related to hiking safety was broadcast in January 2017, while two video clips on hiking safety were also uploaded to the Police's Facebook page in 2016. Agriculture Fisheries and Conservation Department ("AFCD") regularly organizes promotional activities to raise awareness on hiking safety, including exhibitions and game booths at shopping malls and Country Parks Visitor Centres, and disseminates safety message through Television Announcement in the Public Interest, website and pamphlets. AFCD also sets up information boards and directory signs at suitable locations in country parks to provide trail information and remind visitors of hiking safety.

(3) AFCD has given advice to hikers reminding them to use trails that are managed and maintained by AFCD, as well as to promote Long Distance Trails, Country Trails, Family Walks and Nature Trails through the "Enjoy Hiking" website and mobile application. The mobile application provide information of hiking routes, such as the level of difficulty of the routes, for the reference of hikers by taking into account the length, gradient, surface condition and time required for completing the journey. Individual hikers and hiking groups could make use of the information to plan for a suitable hiking route according to their physical fitness and experience.

In addition, the Hong Kong Observatory provides weather information, including weather report, forecast and weather warnings (such as tropical cyclone, rainstorm, thunderstorm, cold weather and very hot weather warning signals) through the website, mobile application and various social media platforms. Hikers should pay attention to the updated weather reports and forecast before set-off and during the course of hiking. The hiking activity should be re-routed or called-off if adverse weather is forecasted.

(4) AFCD has already erected warning signs in areas which are more dangerous and with previous record of severe accidents to alert hikers not to go there. AFCD will review the measures from time to time, modify the existing warning signs and install additional ones where needed. AFCD is reviewing and consolidating the relevant 6932 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

information, and will release the relevant information on its website before the hiking season of the year for the reference of hikers in planning their hiking routes.

(5) The Government has arranged training on mountain rescue for relevant disciplined services. We will review from time to time the need for additional training. With regard to FSD, newly recruited fire personnel receive various types of rescue training, including mountain rescue, during their 26-week foundation training. FSD also provides advanced rescue training for its serving frontline fire personnel, which includes mountain rescue, road traffic accident rescue, high angle rescue and basic swift water rescue. In addition, the Special Rescue Squad under FSD has received training in advanced mountain rescue techniques. FSD has kept its mountain rescue equipment under constant review and arranged overseas mountain rescue training for its personnel. To prepare for mountain rescue operations which are increasingly complicated and take place in high-risk areas, and in light of the rising popularity of mountain activities such as stream hiking, mountain biking and shoreline trekking in recent years, FSD has set up a Mountain Search and Rescue Team with three search dogs this year with a view to enhancing its capability in conducting mountain rescue operations. Besides, CAS will deploy members from the Mountain Search and Rescue Company to attend advanced mountain rescue training in the United Kingdom every two years.

Development of high value-added maritime services

4. MR HOLDEN CHOW (in Chinese): President, in recent years, the Government has committed to developing a high value-added maritime services sector, including the allocation of $100 million to set up the Maritime and Aviation Training Fund ("the Fund") in April 2014, the establishment of the Hong Kong Maritime and Port Board ("HKMPB") in April last year, and the introduction of a bill into this Council in March this year to amend the Inland Revenue Ordinance (Cap. 112) to offer tax concessions to attract companies to develop aircraft leasing business in Hong Kong. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 6933

(1) of the number of companies providing maritime services (e.g. ship management, ship broking and chartering, marine insurance, ship finance as well as maritime law and arbitration) in each of the past three years, with a breakdown by type of business;

(2) whether it has examined taking further measures to attract more big maritime services companies to develop business in Hong Kong; if so, of the outcome and whether the relevant measures will include the offer of tax concessions; if it is not included, of the reasons for that;

(3) of the directions and strategies put forward by the Maritime and Port Development Committee under HKMPB for developing high value-added maritime services in Hong Kong and facilitating the maritime sector's development and doing business; of the outcome of the Committee's deliberations and the implementation timetable for the relevant new arrangements in respect of the following business facilitation measures for maritime enterprises: (i) lifting the time limit imposed on barges holding multiple entry permits for their stay in Hong Kong waters, (ii) arrangements to further facilitate overseas contract seafarers entering Hong Kong for ship-boarding, and (iii) entering into agreements with more countries on avoidance of double taxation;

(4) whether it has examined taking measures to attract international maritime bodies (e.g. the International Maritime Organization) to set up offices in Hong Kong to further enhance Hong Kong's status as an international maritime services centre; if so, of the outcome; if not, the reasons for that;

(5) of the respective numbers of students, maritime practitioners and aviation practitioners who have benefited from the Fund to date, as well as the amount of funds involved, together with a tabulated breakdown by type of relevant programmes; whether it has compiled statistics on the respective numbers and proportions of those beneficiaries who have stayed in/joined the maritime/aviation industry after completing the relevant programmes; if so, of the relevant figures;

6934 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

(6) of the latest balance and financial position of the Fund, and whether the authorities will consider further injecting funds into the Fund;

(7) whether it has evaluated the efficiency of (i) Hong Kong's ship registration services, and (ii) the emergency support services provided by the authorities for ships flying the flag of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("HKSAR Flag") during their stay at places outside Hong Kong; if so, of the outcome and how the efficiency of Hong Kong in respect of such services compares with that of other countries/regions; and

(8) of the details of the round-the-clock services provided by the Marine Department for ships flying the HKSAR Flag; whether the authorities will make reference to the practice of setting up offices in 20 maritime and financial centres around the world by the Republic of the Marshall Islands, and provide more efficient and comprehensive round-the-clock services for merchant ships flying the HKSAR Flag; if so, of the details; given that the Marine Department will introduce an online vessel certificate verification service to enable instant verification of the validity of the relevant certificates by shipowners and overseas harbour authorities, of the progress and timetable of this project?

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Chinese): President, the Government attaches huge importance to the development of Hong Kong maritime industry. In addition to the $100 million Maritime and Aviation Training Fund ("MATF") established in April 2014, the Government set up the Hong Kong Maritime and Port Board ("HKMPB") in April 2016. Chaired by the Secretary for Transport and Housing, HKMPB is a high level platform for the Government and industry to work closely to provide recommendation on relevant policies and strategies, so as to reinforce Hong Kong's status as an international maritime centre and to promote our maritime sector and high value-added maritime services to the Mainland and overseas regions, particularly the countries and cities with a vibrant maritime cluster.

Our reply to the various parts of the question raised by Mr Holden CHOW is as follows:

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 6935

(1) At present, there are more than 800 shipping-related companies in Hong Kong offering a wide range of maritime services, including shipping agency and ship management, ship broking, marine insurance, ship finance, as well as maritime law and arbitration, etc. According to the Quarterly Survey of Employment and Vacancies conducted by the Census and Statistics Department last year, there were about 280 companies providing shipping agency and ship management services in Hong Kong in 2016, while another 70 companies providing ship broking services. Besides, according to the information provided by the Office of the Commissioner of Insurance, there are at present 88 insurance companies providing marine insurance services in Hong Kong. Also, 12 out of the 13 members of the International Group of Protection and Indemnity Clubs have presence in Hong Kong, which is the largest cluster of representatives outside London.

Hong Kong maritime services have been performing well. Take the example of marine insurance, the total gross premium of insurance on ships in Hong Kong surged by 10.3% yearly on average in the past decade, which is higher than the annual average growth of 7.1% for the other general insurance business. In 2016, insurance companies in Hong Kong underwrote a total gross premium of over HK$2.5 billion for insurance on ships. As for maritime arbitration, the Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre handled 402 maritime-related arbitration cases in total from 2011 to 2015. In addition, Hong Kong is a top-ranked international financial centre and also a prominent international ship finance centre in Asia. As at December 2016, the loans and advances for the shipping industry in Hong Kong amounted to around HK$101.3 billion, accounting for 2% of total loans and advances in Hong Kong.

(2) To attract world-renowned overseas and Mainland maritime enterprises to operate in Hong Kong, HKMPB is committed to promoting the strengths of Hong Kong as a regional premier maritime services hub to the maritime sectors overseas and in the Mainland. In this connection, the Government has allocated HK$3.1 million to Invest Hong Kong in 2017-2018 to strengthen its support to the promotion work of HKMPB to identify overseas 6936 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

enterprises that have potential to extend their business to Hong Kong, promote Hong Kong as the preferred base for their Asian-Pacific operations, and attract them to set up in Hong Kong.

As for tax concessions, the Government introduced tax concession for corporate treasury centres in 2016 to attract overseas large and reputable enterprises (including maritime enterprises) to invest and set up in Hong Kong.

In addition, HKMPB will continue to actively explore various encouraging incentives and offer recommendations to the Government, with a view to attracting more overseas maritime enterprises to choose Hong Kong as their base for business operation.

(3) The Maritime and Port Development Committee ("MPDC") under HKMPB considers that Hong Kong should develop its maritime industry along three major directions, including (a) to reinforce the development of Hong Kong Port and the shipping market, as well as enhance the function of Hong Kong Port as a hub port in the region, so as to create synergy in developing the maritime services; (b) to attract renowned overseas and Mainland maritime enterprises to operate in Hong Kong, thereby further expanding our maritime cluster and boosting the demand for the high value-added maritime services; (c) to create a business-friendly environment for the industry with a view to enhancing the competitiveness of our maritime services cluster.

The lifting of maximum hours of stay for feeders holding a multiple entry permit will increase the transhipment volume of Hong Kong Port, which will in turn facilitate the development of local transhipment and river trade business. After consulting MPDC under HKMPB and the Local Vessels Advisory Committee under the Marine Department ("MD"), the proposal has been implemented by MD since February 2017.

Regarding the entry arrangement of non-local contract seamen entering Hong Kong for ship-boarding, according to the existing Immigration Regulations (Cap. 115A), non-local contract seamen who come to join a ship in Hong Kong shall not remain in Hong LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 6937

Kong after the departure of the specified ship or later than 14 days after the date of entry, whichever is earlier. The Transport and Housing Bureau and relevant Policy Bureaux and departments are now considering possible measures to facilitate non-local contract seamen who have to remain in Hong Kong for more than 14 days due to unforeseeable circumstances to continue their stay in Hong Kong through applying for relevant employment visa or entry permit.

As for the avoidance of double taxation agreement, Hong Kong has signed shipping-related avoidance of double taxation agreement with 44 tax jurisdictions. Among them, Hong Kong has signed the comprehensive avoidance of double taxation agreements ("CDTA") with 37 tax jurisdictions and the limited avoidance of double taxation agreements on shipping income with six tax jurisdictions, as well as established reciprocal exemption arrangement on shipping income with a tax jurisdiction. Moreover, Hong Kong is now pursuing CDTA negotiations with 13 tax jurisdictions, including Bahrain, Bangladesh, Cyprus, Finland, Germany, India, Israel, Macao Special Administrative Region, Macedonia, Mauritius, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia and Turkey. The HKSAR Government will continue to commence negotiations with other trading partners for signing relevant agreements, so as to establish a more comprehensive network to foster bilateral trade and avoidance of double taxation.

(4) Promoting Hong Kong's maritime cluster and high value-added maritime services is a key development direction of HKMPB. Since its establishment last year, HKMPB has been actively participating in large-scale international maritime exhibitions, organizing events and delegation visits to overseas cities to promote Hong Kong's maritime industry. These include the visit to Athens, Greece in June 2016 to participate in the biennial international maritime exhibition "Posidonia"; and the visit to London, UK and Hamburg, Germany earlier this year to meet with various local maritime enterprises and international organizations (such as the International Chamber of Shipping, the International Association of Dry Cargo Shipowners, the International Association of Independent Tanker Owners and the International Union of Marine Insurance 6938 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

("IUMI"), etc.) to promote the strengths of Hong Kong and explore the possibility for them to set up in Hong Kong. In October last year, IUMI announced the setting up of its Asian Hub in Hong Kong, which is the Union's first offshoot outside its headquarters in Germany.

HKMPB will actively liaise and cooperate with the local maritime sector and related organizations (including the Hong Kong Shipowners Association) to step up our promotion efforts towards the overseas and Mainland maritime enterprises and international organizations and attract them to set up in Hong Kong.

(5) and (6)

As at March 2017, MATF has benefited 1 168 students, 1 282 in-service maritime practitioners and 631 in-service aviation practitioners. Brief description, number of beneficiaries and funding provided for various schemes under MATF are set out at Annex.

The Government does not have statistics on the number and proportion of the above beneficiaries who have joined the maritime or aviation industries after completing respective training programmes. Nevertheless, some MATF schemes are applicable for in-service practitioners of the maritime and aviation industries only. Besides, students who are awarded scholarships to pursue maritime or aviation-related bachelor or master degree programmes are subject to relevant conditions, which include the requirement of serving in the maritime or aviation industries for one year after graduation. According to the surveys conducted by relevant tertiary institutions, in 2016, about 55% of the beneficiaries continued to serve in the maritime or aviation industries in Hong Kong after completing the one-year mandatory service period.

As at end March 2017, the cumulative expenditure for various incentive and scholarship schemes under MATF is HK$26.47 million, with a balance of HK$73.53 million. The current fiscal position of MATF is healthy, and there is no need for funding injection at present. The Government will suitably review LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 6939

the usage of MATF, its overall development and effectiveness, as well as the need for manpower development in the maritime and aviation sectors before considering to further inject funds to MATF.

(7) The Hong Kong Shipping Register ("HKSR") ranks fourth in the world in terms of total registered gross tonnage ("GT"). As at end March 2017, 2 536 ships with a total GT of 109.2 million were registered with HKSR. Hong Kong registered ships are among the best performers in the world. Hong Kong registered vessels has a detention rate of 0.84%, which is much lower than the world's average of 3.57%. Through its Customer Relations Group comprising representatives from ship owners, ship managers, maritime law and marine insurance practitioners, etc., MD has from time to time reviewed and enhanced the services of HKSR to put forward and implement a number of effective measures, with a view to keeping abreast of the latest development of the international shipping industry.

In line with the characteristics of the global operation of the shipping industry, MD provides 24-hour, all-year-round emergency support services for ships registered in Hong Kong and their management companies, including provision of technical support for registered ships, answering enquires with regard to the requirements of respective international conventions and flag States, assisting the ship owners to handle technical problems arising from port State control inspection and ship detention, identifying practical alternatives for damaged ship structures or malfunctioned electrical and mechanical equipment and navigation equipment which are difficult to repair within short period of time, and issuance of exemption certificates or dispensation for a ship without compromising the ship's seaworthiness and the safety of crew. In general, upon receipt of an emergency request from ship master or shipping company, MD will arrange issuance of the exemption certificate as soon as practicable to facilitate the timely departure of the ship to avoid delay of schedule.

Given that the nature and complexity of each and every case seeking emergency support services from MD vary, and that the issues concerning respective cases may involve foreign port authorities, it 6940 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

is difficult for us to formulate performance indicators to monitor the provision of emergency support services. In fact, other flag States also do not have performance pledges or relevant efficiency data on the provision of emergency support services.

(8) As mentioned above, the ship registration services of MD operate around the clock every day. Services provided include registration of ship's title documents, ship mortgage and inspection of records of the ships on the shipping register, etc. MD also provides one-stop shop service in a single office to handle all registration-related matters (such as application for maritime radio communication station licence, issuance of minimum safe manning certificate, etc.).

To ensure a more efficient and wider coverage of service area for registered vessels, ship registration services will also be provided by the Marine Adviser of MD based in the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office ("ETO") of the HKSAR Government in London to ship owners in Europe. MD is exploring the use of some overseas ETOs of the HKSAR Government to issue Certificate of Registry ("CoR") for new vessels registered with HKSR in order to facilitate their immediate operation. As to whether we should make reference to the practice of other flag States to open up overseas registration offices, having regard to the rather complicated issues involving resources, regulation, legal matters, etc., more comprehensive and in-depth assessment and analysis are required. We therefore do not have any plan to set up overseas ship registration office for the time being.

MD has been providing instant online authentication services to validate the "Certificates of Competency", the "Certificate of Insurance or Other Financial Security in respect of Civil Liability for Oil Pollution Damage" and the "Certificate of Insurance or Other Financial Security in respect of Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage" issued by the Department. To further enhance the provision of ship registration services, MD will extend the instant online authentication services to cover CoR, which is expected to be implemented in the first quarter of 2018.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 6941

Annex

Brief Description, Number of Beneficiaries and Funding of the Schemes under the Maritime and Aviation Training Fund (position as at end March 2017)

Funding Number of Schemes under MATF Details ($ million) Beneficiaries (a) Professional The Scheme aims to 3.132 1 518 Training and enhance the Examination professionalism and Refund Scheme competency of practitioners in the maritime and aviation sectors and encourage them to acquire relevant professional qualification(s). The approved courses include maritime- or aviation-related courses and professional examinations provided by various education institutions, professional organizations and trade bodies.

Eligible applicants are refunded with 80% of the fees after completing approved courses or passing examinations, subject to a cap of $18,000. (b) Maritime and The Scheme offers summer 8.723 914 Aviation intern places in maritime- Internship Scheme and aviation-related companies for students of tertiary institutions through tripartite cooperation among the Government, the industry and academia.

6942 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

Funding Number of Schemes under MATF Details ($ million) Beneficiaries MATF will cover up to 75% of the intern's monthly honorarium, or $6,000 (whichever is lower), for an internship period of up to three months. (c) Local Vessel The Scheme provides a 1.02 71 Trade Training monthly allowance of up to Incentive Scheme $30,000 for eligible deck or engine room ratings newly employed by the local vessel trade. (d) Sea-going The Scheme offers a 13.139* 159 Training Incentive monthly subsidy of $6,000 Scheme to deck or engine room cadets on ocean-going vessels for a maximum period of 18 months. (e) Ship Repair The Scheme offers a 1.135* 19 Training Incentive monthly subsidy of $1,500 Scheme to eligible graduates of the Vocational Training Council ("VTC") who have enrolled for apprenticeship in the ship repair industry for a maximum period of 36 months. (f) Hong Kong Scholarship for selected 5.44 32 Maritime and students of the Master of Logistics Science in International Scholarship Shipping and Transport Scheme Logistics of The Hong Kong Polytechnic University ("PolyU"). LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 6943

Funding Number of Schemes under MATF Details ($ million) Beneficiaries (g) The University of The Scheme consists of two 2.454* 165 Hong Kong parts― ("HKU")―Dalian (1) provides scholarship Maritime to selected students University of DMU to undertake ("DMU") the Master of Academic Common Law course Collaboration at HKU; and Scheme (2) supports HKU students and in-service practitioners to undertake summer courses and professional seminars. (h) Hong Kong Scholarship for selected 1.596* 15 Maritime Law students of the Master of Scholarship Laws (Maritime and Scheme Transportation Law) programme of the City University of Hong Kong ("CityU HK"). (i) Overseas The Scheme provides 0.93 31 Exchange financial support ($30,000 Sponsorship to $50,000) to Scheme undergraduates or postgraduates of selected maritime-related disciplines in PolyU, CityU HK, The Chinese University of Hong Kong and The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology ("HKUST") to attend maritime-related overseas exchange courses. 6944 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

Funding Number of Schemes under MATF Details ($ million) Beneficiaries (j) Partial Tuition Eligible applicants 1.706 146 Refund Scheme undertaking the Higher for the Specialized Diploma in Aircraft Aircraft Maintenance Engineering Maintenance or Diploma in Vocational Programme Education (Aircraft Maintenance) offered by VTC and joining the aircraft maintenance industry after graduation are refunded with 50% of the total tuition fee, subject to a cap of $30,000. (k) Hong Kong Scholarship for selected 1.011 11 Aviation students of aviation-related Scholarship bachelor or master degree Scheme programmes of PolyU or HKUST. 40.286* 3 081

Note:

* Schemes which have been launched before the establishment of the Fund. In addition to the funding under MATF, these schemes are also supported by other funding sources. The total amount of funding involved by all the schemes accounts for HK$40.28 million, of which HK$26.47 million is funded by MATF.

Promoting organ donation

5. MR KENNETH LAU (in Chinese): President, the Department of Health launched the Centralised Organ Donation Register ("CODR") in November 2008 for members of the public to register their wishes to donate organs after death so that, upon their death, the relevant medical personnel can learn of such wishes from CODR. However, members of the public may continue to express such wishes by signing and carrying an organ donation card. On the other hand, the recent successive calls for organ donation from members of the public whose family members are in urgent need of organ transplants have aroused public concern about the current situation of organ donation in Hong Kong. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 6945

(1) whether it has estimated the current number of members of the public who have signed and carry an organ donation card; given that there are inadequacies by means of using organ donation cards to express the wish to donate organs (e.g. it is easy for members of the public to lose or forget to carry their organ donation cards), why the authorities have retained this arrangement after establishing CODR; whether they have urged members of the public who have signed an organ donation card to register with CODR so that medical personnel can learn of the wish of such persons upon their death;

(2) of the respective numbers of registrations and deregistrations with CODR last year; whether the authorities have regularly reviewed CODR so as to remove the registrations of those who have passed away or permanently left Hong Kong; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;

(3) whether it knows (i) the respective numbers of patients who passed away last year while waiting for a liver, heart and lung transplant, and (ii) the number of the following cases in each of the past five years: it had been confirmed that the organ(s) of the deceased who had registered with CODR/carried an organ donation card was/were suitable for transplant, but the relevant transplant operations could not proceed due to objection from the deceased's family members;

(4) given that the Hospital Authority ("HA") increased the establishment of Organ Donation Coordinators from seven to nine in the 2015-2016 financial year, whether the Government knows (i) the main duties of such personnel, (ii) the effectiveness in promoting organ donation with the increased manpower, and (iii) whether HA will further increase the manpower to step up its efforts in promoting organ donation;

(5) as the Government has indicated earlier that it is seeking public views on the establishment of an opt-out system for organ donation, of the progress of that work; whether it has explored other feasible measures to promote organ donation; and

6946 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

(6) whether, among the organs of the deceased, only organs of brain-dead persons are suitable for transplant; of (i) the number of brain-dead persons, (ii) the number of those, among them, whose family members were willing to donate their organs and (iii) the number of patients who received transplant of those organs, in each of the past five years?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Chinese): President, to impress upon the general public the importance of organ donation and to gradually inculcate a culture that is receptive to and appreciative of organ donation, the Department of Health ("DH") has been making promotional efforts on different fronts in collaboration with the Hospital Authority ("HA") and community partners.

(1) DH established the Centralised Organ Donation Register ("CODR") in 2008 to provide members of the public with a convenient channel to register their wish to donate organs after death. CODR also provides a reliable and effective means for Organ Donation Coordinators to ascertain, upon patients' death, their previously expressed wish to donate organs, so that they may approach the patients' families as soon as possible to seek their consent for donation of the deceased's organs to save patients in urgent need of organ transplant.

As an alternative, members of the public may sign an organ donation card. In fact, some people prefer carrying signed organ donation cards to registering with CODR. However, DH still encourages people who have signed an organ donation card to register with CODR, so that Organ Donation Coordinators of HA can identify their wish to donate organs more effectively and make arrangements as appropriate.

Since members of the public who have signed the organ donation cards do not need to report to DH, we do not have the number of people who have signed the cards.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 6947

In support of the large-scale territory-wide organ donation promotion campaign coordinated by the Food and Health Bureau, HA has been implementing the "Scan me to support organ donation!" campaign in all public hospitals and the community since June 2016 to disseminate three key messages, namely "Sign-up" ("愛登記"), "Register" ("再登記") and "Spread-out" ("廣傳訊息"). The second message, "Register", seeks to encourage those who have signed the organ donation cards to register with CODR.

(2) There were 52 550 new registrations and 859 deregistrations with CODR in 2016. Under the existing system, Organ Donation Coordinators are allowed to check the wishes of organ donation of deceased patients where necessary. Under the established mode of operation, the Government would not review regularly whether the registrants on CODR have passed away or permanently left Hong Kong.

(3) The breakdown of the number of patients who passed away last year while waiting for a liver, heart or lung transplant is as follows:

Number of patients who passed away in 2016 Organ while waiting for a transplant Liver 20 Heart 6 Lung 1

The following table sets out the number of cases in each of the past five years where the organ(s) of the deceased who had registered with CODR/carried an organ donation card was/were confirmed to be suitable for transplant, but the transplant operation(s) could not proceed due to objection from the family members of the deceased:

Donation failing to Signed an organ donation card/ proceed due to objection Year registered online from family members (number of cases) (number of cases) 2012 3 0 2013 4 1 2014 1 0 6948 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

Donation failing to Signed an organ donation card/ proceed due to objection Year registered online from family members (number of cases) (number of cases) 2015 3 0 2016 7 1

(4) The duties of Organ Donation Coordinators of HA include the following three main areas:

1. Approach families of brain stem dead patients who may be potential donors and explain to them the details of organ donation in the hope that they will give consent to donate organs of their family members.

2. Promote organ donation among health care staff so as to raise their awareness of it.

3. Provide support and coordination for external organ donation promotional activities.

At present, HA has nine Organ Donation Coordinators (the number of Organ Donation Coordinators increased from seven to nine in 2015-2016). Regarding the work of approaching families of brain stem dead patients and promoting organ donation among health care staff mentioned in items (1) and (2) above, effective contacts have generally been made and promotional efforts have been strengthened.

As for item (3), given that the work of external promotion of organ donation virtually requires collaboration among various professional community partners (including DH and other interested community and professional groups), Organ Donation Coordinators play a supportive and coordinating role. HA will review the manpower of Organ Donation Coordinators as appropriate.

(5) The adoption of a legislative approach, such as drawing on overseas experience to introduce mechanisms like the opt-out system that is very different from the existing organ donation regime. Regarding LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 6949

the establishment of a new mechanism, we should ensure that the relevant proposals are acceptable to the public, and a fair, transparent and widely acceptable mechanism will be developed, so that wishes of members of the public will be respected.

The Government is assessing the latest development regarding the public understanding and acceptance of organ donation, including the establishment of an opt-out system, via the Census and Statistics Department's Thematic Household Survey. A report on the subject is expected to be published in early 2018. We will assess the situation based on the survey findings and duly consult the public before making any substantial changes.

The Government will meet with the medical professionals and patients' group in June to gauge their views on the several topics related to organ donation.

(6) Deceased organs for transplant purpose currently come from donations from persons who have been medically certified brain-dead. The breakdown is as follows:

Consent given by family members Patients receiving Brain-dead persons Year for donating organ transplant (number of cases) deceased organs (number of persons) (number of cases) 2012 126 56 149 2013 91 50 123 2014 96 43 112 2015 110 43 129 2016 123 51 118

Handling of yard waste by government departments

6. MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Chinese): President, regarding the handling of yard waste generated by vegetation under the purview of various government departments, will the Government inform this Council:

6950 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

(1) of the respective means by which various government departments currently handle withered or broken tree branches, trunks and leaves collected by them;

(2) of the respective weights of yard waste (i) collected and (ii) disposed of at landfills by various government departments in each of the past three years (with a tabulated breakdown by type of waste);

(3) of the public response to the latest round of the campaigns launched by the Environmental Protection Department to recycle Christmas trees and peach blossom trees; given that the Peach Blossom Tree Recycling Campaign has been launched since 2014, how the effectiveness of this year's recycling campaign compares with that in the past few years, and whether there is a trend of gradual improvement;

(4) of the effectiveness of the trial yard waste recycling scheme launched by the Housing Department in 2014 at Lam Tin Estate; whether it will consider launching the trial scheme in other public housing estates; if so, of the details; and

(5) whether the authorities will consider formulating a long-term policy on recycling of yard waste; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Chinese): President, our response to Mr HUI Chi-fung's questions is as follows:

(1) Government departments have been following the "Guidelines on Yard Waste Reduction and Treatment" ("the Guidelines") promulgated by the Greening, Landscape and Tree Management Section of the Development Bureau to implement various measures to reduce yard waste (including withered and broken tree branches and leaves) as much as practicable according to the principles of reduction, reuse and recycling, with a view to reducing disposal at landfills. With the exception of plants infested by pests, diseases or invasive species, yard waste would be treated according to its nature LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 6951

by appropriate means, including natural degradation, composting, mulching, fuel production and reusing as recreational facilities or decoration. The Guidelines can be downloaded at the following website: .

(2) The quantities of yard waste (i) collected and (ii) disposed of at landfills by various government departments in the past three years are at Annex.

(3) In order to reduce yard waste disposal at landfills, the Government has stepped up the promotion of Christmas trees and peach blossom trees ("PBTs") recycling in recent years. Our efforts have met with positive feedback from the community.

As regards our latest efforts to promote the recycling of Christmas trees, the Environmental Protection Department ("EPD") hired a contractor to receive the trees from members of the public, commercial and industrial organizations, property management companies, and other institutions at the central collection point in Tai Po managed by the contractor from 6 to 8 January 2017. In respect of PBTs, EPD hired a contractor to provide recycling services during 11 to 14 February 2017 under which the public could deliver PBTs to 37 public refuse collection points spread across the 18 districts, six Outlying Island Transfer Facilities and the central collection point in Tai Po managed by the contractor. Commercial and industrial organizations, property management companies, and other institutions could deliver their PBTs to the central collection point in Tai Po managed by the contractor. In addition, the contractor collected PBTs direct from the Lunar New Year Fairs at the Victoria Park and the Fa Hui Park in Mong Kok.

The collected Christmas trees and PBTs were recycled into wood pellets as a renewable fuel, as well as mulch, bulking agent and compost for gardening uses, which have been be given to public organizations, tertiary institutions, schools, green groups and non-profit organizations for free.

6952 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

EPD collaborated with the Hong Kong Environmental Protection Association to organize the PBTs recycling programme in 2014, 2015 and 2016 during which 2 211, 2 520 and 7 199 PBTs had been collected respectively. Separately, a total of 3 199 PBTs were collected through hire of services provided by EPD in 2017. It is worth noting that the recycling rate fluctuates from year to year and is subject to various factors including the harvest and sale of PBTs.

(4) The Housing Department ("HD") has launched a pilot scheme on yard waste recycling in Lam Tin Estate since 2014 with satisfactory results. Under the scheme, yard waste, such as fallen leaves and grass clippings, would be collected and put into composting bins for recycling into compost. The compost would be added to plant bed as soil conditioner which enhances plant growth. HD will consider implementing the scheme in other public rental housing estates with due regard to the individual conditions, including ventilation in the area where the composting bins are installed, the sufficiency of sunlight and the avoidance of nuisance to the residents nearby.

(5) In February 2014, the Environment Bureau promulgated "A Food Waste and Yard Waste Plan for Hong Kong 2014-2022" ("the Plan"), which sets out the Government's strategies to deal with organic waste. The strategies cover collecting data collection, promoting waste reduction at source, encouraging separation and collection as well as exploring the most suitable means to treat the unavoidable waste. An interdepartmental working group chaired by the Environment Bureau has been set up to coordinate the work of the government departments in implementing the Plan, including enhancing data collection and promoting best practices.

Various government bureaux and departments have rendered support to the Plan. For example, the Development Bureau published the Guidelines in July 2014, which provides general reference for government departments relating to measures on yard waste reduction at various stages from landscape design to maintenance. The Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department has adopted the best practice available to treat yard waste on site as far as possible, including stockpiling on site to provide niches for wildlife and release nutrients to nature when they decompose. Tree LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 6953

logs suitable for reuse would be used for making furniture or decorative materials for the recreational facilities in country parks, such as animated features, waymarks, and benches, etc. Yard waste from Leisure and Culture Services Department ("LCSD") would be delivered to the Animal Waste Composting Plant in Ngau Tam Mei and the Kowloon Bay Waste Recycling Centre for composting. Since 2014, LCSD has started to produce compost on-site from yard waste using garden composters at suitable venues. LCSD will gradually replace the planting of annuals by shrubs or perennials with colourful foliage, with a view to reducing yard waste at source. In the longer term, LCSD will specify in the Schedule of Accommodation of suitable new venues the requirement for installation of on-site composting facilities. Civil Engineering and Development Department's greening works relating to infrastructural development, works of slope stabilization and greening master plan would focus on planting of perennials suitable for local environment, with the right vegetation in the right place and choose native perennials to encourage local ecological growth and reduce plant replacement.

The Government will continue to implement the Plan and appeal to the various stakeholders for support to reduce yard waste on multiple fronts, including reducing the use of decorative plants during festive events, replanting, promoting better landscape design and pursuing suitable policies to promote natural degradation, composting, anaerobic digestion, reuse and recycling, etc.

Annex

Weight of yard waste Weight of yard waste disposed of at landfills Department(1) collected (tonne) (tonne) 2016 2015 2014 2016 2015 2014 Agriculture, Fisheries 72 80 80 40 0 0 and Conservation Department Architectural Services 1 757 -(2) -(2) 1 689 -(2) -(2) Department 6954 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

Weight of yard waste Weight of yard waste disposed of at landfills Department(1) collected (tonne) (tonne) 2016 2015 2014 2016 2015 2014 Civil Engineering and 2 100 -(2) -(2) 2 100 -(2) -(2) Development Department Drainage Services 450 480 460 430 460 440 Department Highways Department -(3) 4 770 2 370 -(3) 4 710 2 370 Leisure and Cultural 3 600 3 600 3 600 3 440 3 453 3 439 Services Department Water Supplies 4 3 10 2 1 4 Department Total 7 983 8 933 6 520 7 701 8 624 6 253

Notes:

(1) Government departments with relevant records of yard waste.

(2) Relevant data has not been recorded.

(3) Relevant data is being processed.

Fire resistant electricity cables installed in public housing estates

7. MR WILSON OR (in Chinese): President, it has been reported that a media organization collected from the On Tat Estate in Kwun Tong, which was completed last year, four samples of fire resistant electricity cables used in fire service installations, and sent these samples to an accredited laboratory in the Netherlands for testing. The test result showed that two of the samples had failed to meet the international standard, i.e. failing to maintain a three-hour continuous supply of electricity under the specified high temperature of 950°C, and one of the samples even stopped supplying electricity after 26 minutes into testing. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the current standards adopted in Hong Kong for fire resistant electricity cables to be used in fire service installations;

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 6955

(2) how the Housing Department, when it procured fire resistant electricity cables for the On Tat Estate, conducted tests on that batch of cables to ascertain if such cables met the relevant standards; and

(3) given that apart from the aforesaid problem of substandard fire resistant electricity cables, there was another incident in 2015 in which non-compliant soldering materials had been used in the plumbing systems of 11 public housing estates resulting in the drinking water samples taken from such estates being found to have a lead content exceeding the provisional guideline value set by the World Health Organization, how the authorities will strengthen their monitoring of materials used in public housing estates, including whether they will step up efforts in conducting sampling tests?

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Chinese): President, having consolidated input from the Security Bureau and Fire Services Department ("FSD"), I set out below my reply to various parts of the question raised by Mr Wilson OR:

(1) and (2)

All fire service installations and equipment ("FSIs") shall comply with the "Code of Practice for Minimum Fire Service Installations and Equipment" issued by FSD and the international standards and requirements as specified in the relevant FSD Circular Letters. As for fire resisting cables ("FRC") used in FSIs (such as fire alarm systems and sprinkler systems), they shall generally meet the British Standard BS6387―"Test method for resistance to fire of cables required to maintain circuit integrity under fire conditions", i.e. such cables should be able to maintain the circuit integrity and signal transmission for a specified period of time under high temperature, water spray and mechanical shock. Registered FSI contractors must adopt FRC which meet the aforementioned international standards and requirements for FSIs to pass FSD's acceptance inspections.

6956 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

Regarding the case of On Tat Estate, the Hong Kong Housing Authority ("HA") has required the registered FSI contractors to submit valid test reports and certificates issued by accredited laboratories in accordance with the aforesaid international standards and requirements when purchasing the necessary FSIs and equipment, to ensure that FRC adopted in the relevant FSIs have obtained approval from the product certification bodies. Furthermore, in accordance with the established procedures, HA has reviewed the relevant certificates and markings on FRC at different stages of construction to ensure that all FRC installed comply with the international standards and requirements as stipulated by FSD.

HA also conducted a functional testing of the fire services system in On Tat Estate under the observation of FSD on 27 April 2017 to verify the fail-safe design of FRC in the signalling circuitry of the fire services system. The test results indicate that the fire services system operates normally, including that if FRC is damaged in fire or for other reasons, the fire services system can trigger warning signal or cause the fire services equipment such as fire services pump and standby-by generator to be uninterrupted as required under the relevant circumstances.

(3) HA has all along been attaching great importance to the quality management and monitoring of building materials. Since the "excess-lead-in-water" incident, HA has further enhanced its risk identification mechanism for building materials. In this connection, we have reported the latest developments to the Legislative Council Panel on Housing in December 2016 and March 2017.

In gist, HA has strictly implemented various applicable quality control procedures and measures at different stages of the construction process of building contracts, including the submission and approval of building materials, as well as their purchasing, delivery, storage and installation. These control measures include sampling check of test certificates, supplier's invoices, records of delivery and storage, as well as quality and standards of in-process materials and installations, etc. to ensure that all building construction materials used in public housing estates, including FRC, are in compliance with the material specifications and relevant statutory requirements. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 6957

Since the "excess-lead-in-water" incident, HA completed a risk assessment of about 2 300 building materials (including FRC) in December 2016 in order to enhance HA's quality assurance mechanism. In accordance with the international standard ISO 31000 principles, HA identified the risk level of building materials and grouped them into categories according to the risk level. After completing the risk assessment of building materials, HA has evaluated the risk assessment results and developed corresponding risk treatment measures based on the present known risk levels. These risk treatment measures will be implemented in phases with priority based on the degree of impact of the relevant materials on construction quality. The first batch of risk treatment or enhancement measures was rolled out in January 2017. Major risk treatment measures for all materials will be rolled out in the third quarter of 2017 for every works project.

The proposed risk treatment measures will be applied to the five construction work stages of HA's building contracts, namely, "Sample Submission", "Purchasing", "Delivery", "Storage Control" and "Use (Installation)", to ensure that effective control measures are in place for every stage. Such measures include increasing the number of materials for verification checks at delivery stage, the frequency of sampling test, the number of times of inspection during installation and adding the requirements on random checking of materials at storage areas.

HA will continue to cooperate with relevant stakeholders and experts, and improve the quality control systems regularly to check and monitor whether the materials comply with the specifications, with a view to maintaining and improving the effectiveness of the system.

Art studios in industrial buildings

8. MR JEREMY TAM (in Chinese): President, since 2015, the authorities have amended the Outline Zoning Plans of a number of districts to include "Art Studio (excluding those involving direct provision of services or goods)" as an always permitted use in industrial-office buildings in "Industrial", "Other 6958 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

Specified Uses" annotated "Business" and "Residential (Group E)" zones ("relaxation measure"). In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the definition of "Art Studio" adopted by the authorities and the considerations involved;

(2) whether it has assessed the effectiveness of the relaxation measure in respect of assisting art workers in successfully renting industrial building units; if so, of the details and the quantitative indicators concerned;

(3) whether those studios which are mainly used for rehearsal or creative work (such as painting studios and studios for theatre companies and dance troupes) will be regarded, on the ground that such studios are occasionally used for conducting teaching activities, as "involving direct provision of services" and therefore cannot benefit from the relaxation measure; if so, whether the authorities will consider including such art studios in the use to which the relaxation measure is applicable; if they will not, of the reasons for that; and

(4) given that the Lands Department ("LandsD") has, since August 2016, commenced risk-based enforcement actions against lease breaches involving the change of uses in industrial buildings, of the respective numbers of lease-breaching cases to date in respect of which LandsD has issued warning letters, conducted investigations and handled in a stringent manner (such as re-entering the relevant units), as well as the number of such cases in which the owners concerned have made rectifications; among such cases, the number of those involving art studios?

SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Chinese): President, having consulted the Home Affairs Bureau and the Security Bureau, my reply to the four parts of the question is as follows:

(1) In view of the demand for arts space by local artists, the Home Affairs Bureau has examined with the relevant departments on how to further assist the sector in the use of industrial buildings and other LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 6959

space for arts creation and related activities, including the feasibility of allowing artists to carry out arts creation work in industrial buildings. After discussions, the relevant departments have agreed to include "Art Studio" (excluding those involving direct provision of services or goods) as an always permitted use in industrial-office buildings in "Industrial" ("I"), "Other Specified Uses" annotated "Business" ("OU(B)") and "Residential (Group E)" ("R(E)") zones.

The uses allowed under "Art Studio" (excluding those involving direct provision of services and goods) refer to any art studios that would not normally attract visiting members of the general public by providing direct services or goods to them. For instance, hobby classes, seminars and sales of goods are excluded. According to the Definition of Terms used by the Town Planning Board ("TPB") to interpret planning terms used in Statutory Plans, "Art Studio" means any premises purely used as a working place for the creation of paintings, sculptures, pottery and other pictures or objects which are the subject of art and as a venue for rehearsal for art performance. It excludes any premises to be used for teaching art subjects which will be regarded as a type of school use, or for domestic purposes. The above definition of "Art Studio" has made reference to the general mode of operation of premises for such purpose, building safety, fire safety risks of relevant activities, and the degree of potential nuisance to be caused to other users.

(2) As at end April 2017, the TPB has amended a total of 14 Outline Zoning Plans ("OZPs") according to the recommendation in part (1) above. Similar amendments to other OZPs would be made in a timely manner.

The expansion of always permitted uses in industrial-office buildings in "I", "OU(B)" and "R(E)" zones aims to relax the relevant statutory planning restrictions on such uses in the relevant buildings. The actual uses in industrial buildings depend on commercial operation and market forces. The Government does not compile statistics on the use of industrial buildings by art workers.

(3) Art studios which are mainly used for creative work such as painting studios would be regarded as "involving direct provision of services" if they are occasionally used for conducting teaching activities. 6960 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

Premises which provide rehearsal venues for various theatre companies and dance troupes would also be regarded as "involving direct provision of services". These uses are not allowed in industrial buildings.

In considering ways to optimize the use of land resources in Hong Kong, including the relaxation of non-industrial uses in industrial buildings, one of the important considerations is whether the proposed measures would constitute significant fire risk. Industrial activities, which carry a much higher risk of fire and other accidents than commercial and other activities, take place in many industrial buildings. In addition, industrial activities often involve the loading and unloading, storage and use of dangerous goods, further increasing the fire risk. If activities attracting members of the public take place in industrial buildings, as the participants in such activities may not be aware of the potential risks involved in industrial buildings and may not know how to evacuate from industrial buildings, they could face severe threats in case of fire and other emergencies in industrial buildings. It is therefore unacceptable from the fire safety point of view for activities involving direct provision of services or goods, including educational activities, to take place in industrial buildings.

With due regard to public safety, the Government will continue to examine how to further optimize the use of existing industrial buildings for various activities and to provide more spaces for arts, cultural and sports activity purposes.

(4) As at end April 2017, District Lands Offices of the Lands Department ("LandsD") had identified 94 premises (scattered across 15 industrial buildings) which were cases targeted for the first round of risk-based enforcement actions. Among these 94 cases, the concerned owners had rectified the breach of use in 66 cases prior to the issue of warning letter. As for the remaining 28 cases, relevant District Lands Offices had issued warning letter to the owner of the relevant industrial building units, requiring owners to rectify the breach of use within 14 days. For the 28 cases with warning letter issued, 25 cases had rectified the breach before expiry of the warning LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 6961

period, and the other 3 cases had proved to LandsD the rectification of the breach before the completion of the re-entry procedures by LandsD, and as a result, there was no need for the department to continue its re-entry action. The above mentioned confirmed breach cases involved uses including learning centres, places of entertainment/recreation, shops and religious gathering places. In respect of art studio use which is of concern to Mr TAM, if it is a breach of use according to the relevant land lease but does not attract members of the public, such as self-occupied cultural/creative workshops, they are not currently targeted for stringent enforcement action by LandsD.

Applications for setting up street booths along the route of the July 1 procession

9. MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Chinese): President, under the current mechanism, individual organizations wishing to raise funds by selling goods in public places are required to apply to the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department ("FEHD") for Temporary Hawker Licences ("THLs"). Upon receipt of such applications, FEHD will consult relevant departments. A THL will be issued provided the relevant departments do not object. Over the years, there have been quite a number of organizations which set up fundraising booths along the route of the procession held on 1 July of each year ("July 1 procession"). It is learnt that since 2015, FEHD has turned down a certain number of such applications each year on the ground that the relevant departments did not give support to those applications. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) as FEHD indicated in 2015 that nine applications in that year for setting up street booths had been refused on the ground that a relevant department held the view that the proposed locations for setting up booths were situated at the relatively narrow road sections along the route of the procession and thus setting up booths there would cause obstruction to the participants of the procession, of the specific criteria adopted by FEHD for assessing whether a particular location is situated at a relatively narrow road section;

6962 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

(2) whether the authorities will provide a list of locations suitable for setting up street booths along the route of last year's July 1 procession for reference by organizations planning to apply for setting up street booths along the route of this year's July 1 procession; if not, of the reasons for that;

(3) of the details of the division of labour among, and the respective responsibilities of, FEHD, Lands Department and the Police in respect of the vetting and approval of applications for setting up street booths;

(4) as the Police have indicated that they will, after considering whether the setting up of street booths at the proposed locations will cause obstruction to the procession of the participants or obstruction to public spaces, decide on whether they will support the applications, (i) of the criteria adopted by the Police for making such decisions, (ii) the ranks of the police officers who are responsible for making such decisions and the relevant procedure, and (iii) whether FEHD has the power to approve an application despite the Police's objection;

(5) whether FEHD turned down, during the period from 2003 to 2014, any of the applications for setting up street booths at locations along the routes of the July 1 processions, on the ground that the locations under application were narrow road sections; if so, of the number of such applications; if not, the reasons for FEHD turning down certain applications on such ground from 2015 onwards, and whether any change in policy was involved;

(6) whether a mechanism is in place for organizations to lodge appeals against refusals of their applications for setting up street booths; and

(7) as FEHD requires that organizations applying for setting up street booths must submit their latest annual returns, and yet quite a number of organizations are unable to provide such a document, of the authorities' justifications for setting that requirement, and whether they will consider abolishing it?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 6963

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Chinese): President, the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance ("PHMSO") (Cap. 132) provides for regulatory regimes covering public health and municipal services of different portfolios. The Hawker Regulation (Cap. 132, subsidiary legislation AI) empowers the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department ("FEHD") to issue temporary hawker licence ("THL"), for the main purpose of regulating the sale of commodities in public places requiring compliance with requirements on environmental hygiene and ensuring that the hawking activities will not cause nuisances such as obstruction to public places.

Under the existing policy, on the sale of commodities in public places for raising funds, FEHD will only consider applications from non-profit-making organizations(1) but not applications for commercial or profit-making purposes. Upon receipt of an application, FEHD will consult relevant departments having regard to the nature of the activity (details to be set out in Part (3)). In exercising its power to approve an application, FEHD will consider all relevant factors (including but not limited to the advice of the relevant departments) and make a reasonable and proportionate decision.

As stated in the Points to Note for Application for THL, the Government strives to provide a friendly environment with administrative procedures kept to a minimum to facilitate organizations to mobilize community resources for their fund-raising activities. Nevertheless, the community is concerned if these activities are properly arranged and the donations are properly used. Hence, fund-raising activities involve public interest. The community expects the Government to exercise adequate control over such activities.

In Chapter 2 ("Monitoring of Charitable Fund-raising Activities") of the Audit Report No. 68 released by the Director of Audit on 26 April 2017, the Audit Commission recommended FEHD to actively look into incorporating additional measures into the licence conditions and/or administrative measures for THLs, with a view to enhancing the transparency and accountability of fund-raising activities involving on-street sale of commodities.

(1) (a) Charitable institutions which are exempted from tax under section 88 of the Inland Revenue Ordinance (Cap. 112); or

(b) Non-profit-making organizations, societies or trade unions registered or enrolled under the Companies Ordinance (Cap. 622) or the former Companies Ordinance (Cap. 32), the Societies Ordinance (Cap. 151) or the Trade Unions Ordinance (Cap. 332). 6964 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

My reply to the various parts of the question raised by Mr KWONG Chun-yu is as follows:

(1), (2) and (4)

For the public procession held on 1 July 2015 on Hong Kong Island, the Wan Chai District Environmental Hygiene Office of FEHD received a total of 47 THL applications for on-street sale of commodities for fund-raising purpose. The advice of the Police regarding nine of the applications indicated that according to past experience, the locations concerned were situated at narrow road sections along the procession route. When a large number of participants gathered and waited to join the procession at these road sections, the setting up of temporary stalls at those locations would cause serious obstruction to procession participants and other road users, and hence those locations were considered undesirable. The Police suggested that those stalls be set up at other locations which would ensure smooth movement of the procession and which would not cause unreasonable obstruction or dangers to other road users. FEHD notified the applicants in writing of the suggestion made by the Police. Among these applicants, more than half of them had taken follow-up actions and were subsequently granted THLs, while the remaining applicants either decided not to proceed with their applications or was not granted THL due to time constraint.

If organizers would like to set up street stations during public processions and apply to FEHD for THL, upon receiving FEHD's requests to provide comments, the Police will make considerations in accordance with the actual circumstances along the procession routes. In general, street stations during public processions would attract participants to stay there for a while, thus causing different degrees of obstruction as well as constituting safety concern in a congested environment. The Police will make assessment on each application. The main considerations include whether the proposed locations of temporary stalls would cause unreasonable obstruction to the movement of processions and constitute danger to participants or other road users. While providing comments on the above applications, the Police seek to strike a balance between various aspects, including respecting the freedom and rights of expression of the public, minimizing the impact on members of the public and road users, as well as ensuring public safety and public order etc.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 6965

FEHD will only issue a THL provided that the relevant departments make no objection (for example, no objection to the location, time and arrangements under application, or no objection after amendments have been made to the details or after additional licensing conditions have been imposed on the applicant). This practice is considered not unreasonable.

The approval of a THL application will take into account the specific circumstances of individual cases, including the proposed procession route, estimated number of participants and actual circumstances of each proposed location. Therefore, each application will be dealt with on its own merits under the current system. Details of the activity under THL and its proposed location should be stated clearly by the applicant in the application form so that FEHD can process and consider the application after consulting the relevant departments. The Government does not keep any list of predetermined locations along the route of the 1 July procession for THL applications.

(3) Upon receipt of a THL application, FEHD will consult the Police, Lands Department ("LandsD"), Home Affairs Department (if applicable) and Social Welfare Department ("SWD") (if applicable). Only after considering their comments and other relevant factors will FEHD make a final decision.

In general, the Police will consider factors such as public safety and public order, while LandsD will verify whether the location concerned is situated on unleased government land and if that is the case, whether an approval letter for temporary occupation of government land has been granted to another organization.

FEHD will verify the documents submitted by an applicant to determine whether the organizing body is a charitable institution of a public character or a registered non-profit-making body, and whether the sale or fund-raising activity is non-commercial or non-profit-making in nature, and confirm that the applicant has been officially authorized to conduct the activity concerned.

6966 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

After verifying the above information, FEHD will notify SWD of the application if the applicant is a charitable institution conducting charitable sale activities. If the applicant is neither a charitable institution nor a non-profit-making organization conducting non-charitable sale activities, FEHD will check with HAD to find out whether the applicant has also applied for a Public Fund-raising Permit for Non-charitable Purposes.

(5) According to its records, from 2004 to 2014, FEHD did not receive any objection to any THL applications from relevant departments on the ground that the locations under application were situated at narrow road sections. In 2015, FEHD received comments from the Police on nine applications that the locations under application were undesirable as they were situated at narrow road sections along the public procession route (please refer to Parts (1), (2) and (4) above). FEHD has all along adopted the above policies and procedures in handling THL applications involving on-street sale of commodities for raising funds. This has been the practice for many years.

(6) If anyone is dissatisfied with FEHD's decision in refusing a licence application, he/she may appeal to Licensing Appeal Boards ("LIAB") under section 125(9) of the PHMSO (Cap. 132).

If the appellant is dissatisfied with the LIAB's decision, he/she may appeal to the Municipal Services Appeals Board under section 125B(4) of the PHMSO (Cap. 132).

(7) In processing a THL application, FEHD will verify if the applicant is authorized by the organizing body to make the application. The applicant is required to submit a copy of the memorandum of association of the board of directors of the registered company, or the membership list of the trade union or the list of office-bearers of the registered society.

The aim of the measures taken by FEHD is to enhance the transparency and accountability of fund-raising activities, safeguarding and ensuring the proper use of donations received through on-street sale activities, preventing abuse of THLs and ensuring a fair allocation of public resources among fund-raising organizations. There are voices in the community in support of the measures.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 6967

Management of and tapping for fresh water resources

10. MR LAU KWOK-FAN (in Chinese): President, there are views that there are factors destabilizing the supply of Dongjiang water, which is the main source of fresh water for Hong Kong, including global climate changes which lead to decreased rainfall and the increasing demand for fresh water resources from a number of places on the Mainland. As such, the Government should properly manage and actively tap for fresh water resources to ensure an adequate fresh water supply in Hong Kong. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of (i) the number of households and (ii) population which currently use fresh water for toilet flushing, and (iii) the annual quantity of fresh water so used, with a breakdown by District Council district; the current production cost per cubic metre of fresh water;

(2) given that the authorities will, by taking the opportunity of the planned expansion of the Shek Wu Hui Sewage Treatment Works ("SWH STW") and upgrading of its sewage treatment technology, further process the tertiary treated effluent of SWH STW to make it meet the water quality standards for reclaimed water for use by residents of the North East New Territories for non-potable purposes (such as toilet flushing), of the progress and expected completion date of the relevant work; upon the comprehensive upgrading of the sewage treatment technology, (i) the quantity of fresh water used originally for toilet flushing that can be saved each year, and (ii) the production cost per cubic metre of the further processed effluent, as estimated by the authorities;

(3) of the production cost per cubic metre of fresh water in the first year upon the commissioning of the Tseung Kwan O Desalination Plant, as anticipated by the authorities based on the price indexes for 2017;

(4) of the details of the facilities currently used in Hong Kong for reusing grey water (i.e. water collected from bathrooms, wash basins and kitchen sinks, etc.) and harvesting of rainwater (set out such information by District Council district); whether the authorities will conduct a study on treatment of harvested rainwater for potable uses;

6968 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

(5) given that reservoir overflow occurred in the past, resulting in the discharge of fresh water into the sea, and the authorities are reviewing the Inter-reservoirs Transfer Scheme, of the details and the latest progress of the relevant work; and

(6) given that bursts of underground fresh water mains have occurred frequently (e.g. seven bursts of fresh water mains occurred in Kwai Tsing District in the seven months from March to October last year), whether the authorities have compiled statistics on the quantity of fresh water wasted in the past five years due to bursts of underground fresh water mains; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Chinese): President, the Government promulgated the Total Water Management Strategy in 2008 to address the challenges brought by climate changes. The strategy advocates containing the growth of water demand by promoting water conservation and effective water mains leakage management. It also seeks to create a new water supply framework by developing new water resources that are not susceptible to climate changes. The new framework comprises the primary water sources of local rainfall, Dongjiang water and seawater for flushing as well as various ancillary water sources, including desalination, reclaimed water, grey water reuse and rainwater harvesting. In this connection, the Water Supplies Department ("WSD") commenced a consultancy study at the end of 2014 to evaluate the effectiveness of the current measures and project the long-term supply and demand of water up to 2040, with a view to making appropriate adjustments and enhancements to the current measures and formulating new policies and plans for water resources management.

My reply to the six parts of Mr LAU Kwok-fan's question is as follows:

(1) As the data on quantity of fresh water used for toilet flushing for the whole year of 2016 is still not available, we can only provide the quantity of fresh water used for toilet flushing in the territory for the most recent year, i.e. 2015, which is about 77 million cu m (mcm). Up to March 2017, there are about 35 500 customer accounts using fresh water for flushing in the territory. We do not have the associated data of household number and population nor statistics on LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 6969

the quantity of fresh water used for toilet flushing by District Council district. We are therefore unable to provide this information.

Nowadays, the urban areas and most of the new towns in Hong Kong, covering around 85% of the total population in the territory, are provided with seawater for toilet flushing. At the end of 2016, all consumers in Tin Shui Wai had switched to seawater flushing, which translates into an annual saving of about 10 mcm of fresh water. In the meantime, we are actively arranging for the residents of Yuen Long area to switch to seawater flushing to further reduce the annual quantity of fresh water used in toilet flushing. At present, the major remaining areas that still use fresh water for flushing are the Peak, Southern District, Sai Kung, outlying islands and North District. In particular, the North District will switch to using reclaimed water for flushing in future.

The average production cost of fresh water, as calculated at the price level of 2015-2016, is around $8.7 per cu m.

(2) As regards the plan to supply reclaimed water produced by further processing the tertiary treated effluent of Shek Wu Hui Sewage Treatment Works, we will take forward the infrastructure works for supplying reclaimed water to Sheung Shui and Fanling for non-potable purposes by stages. The infrastructure works for the relevant service reservoir and trunk water mains commenced in April this year. The design and preparatory works for the construction of the remaining infrastructure projects (including chlorination facilities, pumping system and distribution mains) are also underway. Currently, we are developing an appropriate financial and legal framework for the supply of reclaimed water in Hong Kong. According to our initial estimate, the comprehensive use of reclaimed water for non-potable purposes in Sheung Shui, Fanling and the North East New Territories New Development Areas will translate into a saving of around 21 mcm of fresh water each year. We will continue to review the situation and, subject to technical feasibility and cost-effectiveness, extend the reclaimed water supply system to the areas not yet served with seawater supply so as to further reduce the use of fresh water for toilet flushing.

6970 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

The production cost of reclaimed water varies with the treatment levels of sewage treatment works and the water quality of effluent. On top of the cost for sewage treatment, the additional production cost of reclaimed water to be supplied to Sheung Shui and Fanling is estimated to be around $5 to $6 per cu m at 2015-2016 price level.

(3) The fresh water output of the proposed first stage of Tseung Kwan O desalination plant may reach 135 000 cu m per day or 50 mcm per year. Its unit water production cost (including the costs of the capital, energy, treatment, distribution and customer service) is estimated to be about $12 to $13 per cu m at 2016 price level.

(4) To conserve precious fresh water resources, we have been advocating the adoption of grey water reuse system or rainwater harvesting system for non-potable uses, such as toilet flushing and irrigation, in new government works projects. As at the end of 2016, the Architectural Services Department and Drainage Services Department ("DSD") have installed grey water reuse systems or rainwater harvesting systems at schools and government facilities in over 70 works projects in the territory.

Regarding private buildings, bonus credits are awarded to buildings with grey water reuse system or rainwater harvesting system under the Building Environmental Assessment Method ("BEAM") Plus for Existing Buildings Version 2.0 launched in March 2016 to encourage developers to provide these facilities in lieu of using fresh water for non-potable uses. The WSD also supports the Hong Kong Green Building Council in conducting similar review on BEAM Plus for New Buildings. As the provision of grey water reuse system or rainwater harvesting system in private sector is voluntary, we do not have information on the private development projects that have adopted these technologies and the distribution of such systems by districts in Hong Kong.

At present, we do not have any plan to use recycled water from grey water reuse system or rainwater harvesting system for potable uses.

(5) The overflow from impounding reservoirs has been put under effective control with the adoption of the "package deal lump sum" approach in the agreements for supply of Dongjiang water since 2006. The overflow from local impounding reservoirs was LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 6971

significantly reduced by some 71%, from an annual average of 94 mcm between 1996 and 2005 to around 27 mcm in recent years (from 2006 to 2016).

When the Lai Chi Kok Transfer Scheme was formulated for reducing the flood risks in the West Kowloon region, we took advantage of the opportunity it presented to take forward the Inter-Reservoirs Transfer Scheme ("IRTS") concurrently. Under the IRTS, a tunnel connecting the Kowloon Byewash Reservoir and the Lower Shing Mun Reservoir will be built to transfer the overflow from the Kowloon Group of Reservoirs to Lower Shing Mun Reservoir to achieve the dual objectives of reducing the run-off flowing into the Lai Chi Kok drainage system and converting the overflow into potable water resources. Currently, the DSD is reviewing the detailed design, method statements and related environmental impact assessments of the IRTS in order to enhance its cost-effectiveness and prepare the implementation schedule. The review is making satisfactory progress and the initial conclusions are positive. In line with the proposals of the review, the DSD is refining the detailed design and method statements of the IRTS.

(6) The WSD has substantially completed the Replacement and Rehabilitation Programme of Water Mains at the end of 2015. The number of water main burst cases per year has decreased from about 2 500 in 2000 to 116 in 2016 while the water main leakage rate has also dropped from the peak of over 25% to 15.2% in 2016. The WSD is progressively taking forward the establishment of Water Intelligent Network ("WIN") with the installation of monitoring and sensing equipment in water distribution network and application of advanced technology to continuously monitor the general condition of water distribution network. The WIN project will divide the water distribution network into some 2 000 discrete District Metering Areas ("DMAs") of manageable size, with high-technology monitoring and sensing equipment installed in the distribution network of each DMA. The WSD is also working to provide an intelligent network management computer system to analyse the tremendous amount of data collected from the monitoring and sensing equipment to enable timely determination of the most effective network management measures and the associated priorities for the DMAs.

6972 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

The quantity of fresh water discharged as a result of fresh water main bursts in the past five years averaged less than 0.01% of the total annual supply quantity.

Financial technology development in Hong Kong

11. MR CHAN KIN-POR (in Chinese): President, regarding the financial technology development in Hong Kong, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of (i) the amount of funds allocated, by the Hong Kong Applied Science and Technology Research Institute ("ASTRI") to research and development projects in financial technologies ("Fintech"), and (ii) the number of Fintech projects successfully developed by ASTRI in collaboration with financial institutions, in each of the past five years;

(2) of the number of successfully developed Fintech solutions launched in each of the past five years by ASTRI for use by financial institutions; the number of those widely used by the industry;

(3) as the Hong Kong Monetary Authority has since September last year launched a Fintech Supervisory Sandbox ("FSS") as a ground for conducting pilot trials of new Fintech solutions, of the number of banks to date which have used FSS to conduct pilot trials of their new Fintech solutions and the number of new Fintech solutions involved; how the authorities will assess the effectiveness of FSS for conducting pilot trials of new Fintech solutions; and

(4) whether it will follow the practice of countries or regions such as the United Kingdom, Singapore and Taiwan and allow financial institutions other than banks (e.g. insurance companies, securities dealers and fund houses) as well as start-ups using FSS to conduct pilot trials of their new Fintech solutions, so as to promote financial innovations?

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Chinese): President,

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 6973

(1) The Hong Kong Applied Science and Technology Research Institute ("ASTRI") has been conducting research and development ("R&D") work on financial technologies ("Fintech") since late 2013. The relevant technology and application areas include blockchain technology, behavioural recognition technology, electronic payment technology, big data analytics, cyber security, etc. The R&D projects commenced in the past few years and those conducted in collaboration with financial institutions are tabulated below:

Total funds (including Number of projects funding support of which are Number from the conducted in Year of new Innovation and collaboration with projects Technology Fund financial and the industry) institutions (in $ million) 2013 1 13.2 0 2014 2 3.4 0 2015 15 30.6 2 2016 19 78.0 8 2017 11 20.3 5 (up to end-April)

(2) With regard to ASTRI's R&D work on Fintech, projects with R&D deliverables available for use by the industry (including financial institutions) as well as those which are widely used by the industry are tabulated below:

Number of projects with R&D Number of projects of Year deliverables which are widely useNote available for by the industry industry use 2015 5 4 2016 19 10 6974 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

Number of projects with R&D Number of projects of Year deliverables which are widely useNote available for by the industry industry use 2017 8 2 (up to end-April)

Note:

(Including those used by various organizations and their customers)

ASTRI will continue to work closely with the industry to promote the application of R&D deliverables on Fintech.

(3) The Fintech Supervisory Sandbox ("FSS") launched by the Hong Kong Monetary Authority ("HKMA") is a flexible supervisory arrangement to allow banks and their partnering Fintech firms to conduct live tests of their new technology initiatives at an early stage under a controlled environment, without the need to achieve full compliance with HKMA's usual supervisory requirements during the trial period. This will enable the banks and Fintech firms to gather data and user feedback so that they can make refinements to the technology initiatives beforehand, thereby expediting the launch of new technology products, and reducing the development cost.

As at end of April 2017, 15 cases of pilot trials of Fintech products involving six banks have made use of FSS. Out of these cases, nine pilot trials had been completed, followed by the full launch of the Fintech products progressively. So far, the usage of FSS has been smooth. The banking industry considers that FSS is useful in reducing the lead time for launching their Fintech products (e.g. by two to three months for a biometric authentication service) and collecting useful customers' feedback at an earlier stage.

(4) As the statutory function of HKMA is to supervise banks in Hong Kong, FSS is only applicable to banks so as to simplify the supervisory process for banks to launch new technology initiatives. In actual practice, a number of Fintech firms have collaborated with LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 6975

banks to explore new products and made use of FSS to conduct testing. As at end-April 2017, there were 8 out of the 15 use cases of FSS where banks have collaborated with Fintech firms to conduct pilot trials of their Fintech initiatives.

In addition, HKMA collaborated with ASTRI to launch the Fintech Innovation Hub in November 2016. It provides a neutral ground for banks and Fintech firms (including start-ups) to brainstorm innovative ideas, try out and evaluate new Fintech solutions, and conduct proof-of-concept trials.

At present, the Office of the Commissioner of Insurance ("OCI") adopts an approach of explaining to the individual insurers or start-ups the relevant regulatory requirements and directly helping them to implement their Fintech initiatives. OCI and the independent Insurance Authority, which will take over the statutory functions of OCI shortly, will continue to keep an open-mind and actively consider regulatory framework that will facilitate the development of Fintech.

In securities regulation, brokers and asset managers are normally free to adopt new technology without special permission. Nevertheless, the Securities and Futures Commission ("SFC") is actively exploring how Regtech and Fintech can further support SFC and licensed corporations in achieving positive outcomes for markets in accordance with the relevant rules and standards.

Disbursement of a living subsidy to the "N have-nots households"

12. DR LAU SIU-LAI (in Chinese): President, the Community Care Fund ("CCF") implemented the One-off Living Subsidy for Low-income Households Not Living in Public Housing and Not Receiving Comprehensive Social Security Assistance Programme thrice in 2013, 2015 and 2016 respectively to alleviate the financial pressure on such low-income households (commonly known as the "N have-nots households") by disbursing a Living Subsidy to them. CCF has not implemented the Programme again this year. Some households which were previously disbursed the Living Subsidy have relayed to me that the Living Subsidy helped reduce the financial pressure faced by them arising from the 6976 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 incessant rise in commodity prices and rents in recent years, thereby improving their standard of living. On the other hand, the Government launched in May last year the Low-income Working Family Allowance Scheme to alleviate the financial burden on working poor families by disbursing a Family Allowance to them. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of (i) the number of households previously disbursed the Living Subsidy, (ii) the total amount of subsidy disbursed, (iii) the median monthly rent paid by such households, and (iv) the median ratio of the monthly rent paid by such households to their income, broken down by year and household size;

(2) of the median monthly rent paid by the households which were disbursed the Living Subsidy in the relevant years, broken down by year, type of accommodations (e.g. private building and temporary housing) and household size;

(3) given that the authorities have pointed out that the Family Allowance, when compared to the Living Subsidy, can alleviate the financial pressure faced by the N have-nots households in a more sustainable and effective manner, but there are views that the application threshold for the Family Allowance is higher and unemployed households and one-person households cannot benefit from it, whether the authorities have plans to launch a new subsidy programme that may substitute the functions of the Living Subsidy or resume its disbursement, so as to improve the financial situation of the N have-nots households ; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and

(4) as the number of persons who were disbursed the Living Subsidy each year rose continuously during the three-year disbursement period, and the livelihood pressure on the N have-nots households (particularly the expenditure on rents) is getting greater, whether the authorities will consider implementing rent control afresh or building more interim housing for those N have-nots households which have been waiting for public housing to reside temporarily, so as to alleviate their financial burden; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 6977

SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Chinese): President, the One-off Living Subsidy for Low-income Households Not Living in Public Housing and Not Receiving Comprehensive Social Security Assistance ("CSSA") Programme (the "Programme"), launched by the Community Care Fund ("CCF") in the light of the short-term relief measures introduced by the Budget released in the financial year of the launch, provides one-off cash subsidy to the "N have-nots households" who cannot benefit from such measures. CCF first launched the Programme in December 2013 ("First Launch"), with its second launch in January 2015 ("Second Launch") and third launch in January 2016 ("Third Launch") respectively so that eligible "N have-nots households" may also receive short-term relief.

The various parts of the question involve different bureaux and departments. The Government's response is as follows:

(1) The number of beneficiary households and the total amount of subsidy disbursed under the Programme as categorized by household size are set out below:

First Launch Second Launch Third Launch Total Total Total Household Number of Number of Number of amount amount amount size beneficiary beneficiary beneficiary of subsidy of subsidy of subsidy households households households ($ M) ($ M) ($ M) 1 person 14 982 52.44 17 889 71.56 18 362 73.45 2 persons 13 020 91.13 15 494 123.95 16 621 132.97 3 persons 13 754 137.54 15 611 171.71 16 552 182.07 4 persons 8 293 82.93 10 233 133.03 11 456 148.93 5 persons 1 678 16.78 1 967 25.57 2 378 33.29 6 persons 371 3.71 428 5.56 522 7.31 or above Total: 52 098 384.53 61 622 531.38 65 891 578.02

The median monthly rent(1) ("MMR") paid by beneficiary households under the Programme and the median rent-to-income ratio(2) of such households as categorized by household size are set out below:

6978 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

First Launch Second Launch Third Launch Median Median Median Household MMR rent- MMR rent- MMR rent- size ($) to-income ($) to-income ($) to-income ratio ratio ratio 1 person 2,600 40.22% 2,900 40.86% 3,000 41.67% 2 persons 3,300 36.73% 3,600 37.50% 4,000 38.10% 3 persons 4,000 34.28% 4,500 35.22% 4,811 36.23% 4 persons 4,400 31.28% 5,000 33.33% 5,500 34.40% 5 persons 5,000 31.93% 6,000 33.33% 6,300 35.19% 6 persons 5,800 32.20% 6,360 34.22% 7,200 36.78% or above

Notes:

(1) Since only households residing in private buildings, industrial buildings and commercial buildings are required to report monthly rent payment when submitting applications under the Programme, beneficiary households living in other types of accommodation (such as temporary housing and vessel) are not included in the MMR calculation.

(2) Since the rent-to-income ratio is not applicable to non-earning households, such households are not included in the calculation.

(2) MMR of beneficiary households under the Programme as categorized by household size and type of accommodation is set out below:

MMR in MMR in MMR in First Launch Second Launch Third Launch ($) ($) ($) Household

size Private Private Private building building building building building building building building building Industrial Industrial Industrial Industrial Industrial Industrial Commercial Commercial Commercial 1 person 2,600 2,300 2,800 2,900 2,600 3,200 3,000 2,700 3,000 2 persons 3,300 2,800 3,233 3,600 3,400 4,000 4,000 3,800 4,000 3 persons 4,000 3,500 4,600 4,500 3,800 5,500 4,816 4,000 6,200 4 persons 4,400 4,300 4,500 5,000 4,800 6,800 5,500 4,933 5,750 5 persons 5,000 4,580 7,000 6,000 5,250 8,000 6,300 5,000 7,400 6 persons 5,800 * * 6,330 * * 7,200 * * or above

Note:

* As the numbers of relevant households are too small, the relevant figures are not published so as to protect privacy of such households. In addition, as the numbers of relevant households are so small, the relevant figures may not be suitable for comparison with other figures. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 6979

(3) Recurrent cash-based programmes, such as the Work Incentive Transport Subsidy launched in October 2011 and the Low-income Working Family Allowance launched in May 2016, aim to alleviate, on a continuing basis, the financial pressure faced by low-income working persons and their families. The Programme, however, was launched in the light of the short-term relief measures introduced by the Budget released in the financial year of the launch to provide one-off cash subsidy to the "N have-nots households" who cannot benefit from such measures. As fewer short-term relief measures were announced in the Budget in recent years, for example, the Government is no longer paying rent for public rental housing ("PRH") tenants, there is insufficient justification for CCF to re-launch the Programme to provide cash subsidy to low-income "N have-nots households" not living in public housing and not receiving CSSA. CCF will continue to collect views of the public and stakeholders in considering the launch of other programmes to assist the underprivileged and grass-roots families.

(4) The Government has conducted detailed study on the issue of tenancy control (including rent control). Empirical findings, both local and overseas, suggest that tenancy control measures often lead to an array of unintended consequences, including those detrimental to the tenants whom the measures seek to assist. Weighing the pros and cons, the Government considers it not in the interest of the inadequately housed households ("IHHs") and the general public to introduce tenancy control under the situation of tight housing supply. To address the problem of rent increase attributed to imbalance in demand and supply, the fundamental solution remains to be a continued increase in housing supply. No quick fix is available.

It is the objective of the Government and the Hong Kong Housing Authority ("HA") to provide PRH to low-income families who cannot afford private rental accommodation as a fundamental solution to their housing needs. The Government and HA have no plan to build new interim housing. In fact, when formulating the Long Term Housing Strategy in 2014, the Government had also looked into suggestions to provide transitional housing on sites which do not have other immediate uses to accommodate IHHs, but found these suggestions not practicable. First, given the lack of land, suitable sites for housing should be reserved for PRH units as far as possible, which will ultimately benefit those IHHs who are 6980 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

PRH applicants. Furthermore, even if sites which do not have other immediate uses can be identified for transitional housing, they will still require additional infrastructural works, which take time to complete, before housing construction can take place. In any case, the size and number of such temporary sites are bound to be very limited. They may not be able to provide short term relief for a large number of IHHs.

Provision of barrier-free facilities in rural areas

13. MR CHAN HAN-PAN (in Chinese): President, it is the Government's long-standing policy objective to provide barrier-free access and facilities for people in need (including persons with disabilities) so that they can freely access premises and make use of community facilities and services. However, over the years the Government has neither formulated policy nor provided financial resources to improve the barrier-free environment of quite a number of indigenous villages that have been relocated to rural areas by the authorities, thus causing persons with disabilities and the elderly in these villages huge inconvenience in terms of access and delaying emergency rescue services. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of (i) the number of requests for the provision or enhancement of barrier-free facilities in rural areas received and (ii) the number of related projects completed, in each of the past five years, together with the number of projects in progress currently and their expected completion dates (broken down by District Council district and type of facilities);

(2) whether it has formulated guidelines on the provision of barrier-free facilities in rural areas; if so, of the details of the guidelines, as well as the dates on which such guidelines were last reviewed and revised; if not, whether it will consider formulating such guidelines; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and

(3) whether it has any plan to conduct a comprehensive survey on barrier-free environment in rural areas and to strengthen the role of District Access Officers of District Offices in improving the barrier-free environment in rural areas; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 6981

SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Chinese): President, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities ("the Convention") has been applicable to Hong Kong since 31 August 2008. Under Article 9 of the Convention, all government departments should take appropriate measures to eliminate obstacles and barriers to accessibility, so as to ensure that barrier-free access to premises, transportation, and facilities and services open or provided to the public in both urban and rural areas, is available to persons with disabilities, on an equal basis with others.

In order to achieve the above policy objective, the Government has, on the one hand, provided barrier-free access and facilities for people in need through legislation, administrative measures and works programmes to facilitate their access to premises and their use of community facilities. On the other hand, the Government has strived to promote and implement the vision of a barrier-free society in collaboration with the rehabilitation sector, the business sector and the community. Over the years, government departments have launched various works programmes in areas under their purview to enhance barrier-free environment.

In consultation with the Home Affairs Department ("HAD") and the Development Bureau, my reply to the three parts of the question raised by Mr CHAN Han-pan is as follows:

(1) The information provided by HAD is at Annex.

(2) Regarding the existing facilities provided by various government departments in rural areas, the design work for such facilities is carried out according to the prevailing policies and guidelines established by the Development Bureau and Transport and Housing Bureau, such as the "Transport Planning and Design Manual" promulgated by the Transport Department ("TD").

Regarding the design of road infrastructure and public transport facilities, TD meets with organizations of persons with disabilities regularly to collect their opinions, exchange views on the problems they encounter in the daily use of such facilities, and updates the "Transport Planning and Design Manual" where necessary to ensure that barrier-free road infrastructure and public transport facilities are 6982 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

designed to meet the needs of persons with disabilities. The "Transportation Planning and Design Manual" was last updated in 2015.

(3) Since December 2010, individual government bureaux and departments have appointed Access Co-ordinators and Access Officers to coordinate and manage accessibility issues for the premises and facilities (including premises and facilities in rural areas) under their management, with a view to facilitating access to the premises and use of the services and facilities by people in need. Access Officers are also responsible for regular inspections of the barrier-free facilities and installations on the premises, and taking follow-up action when necessary to ensure that suitable barrier-free facilities are provided at these venues.

Rural residents, Rural Committees or District Council members concerned may propose to the government departments as appropriate for improvement to the barrier-free facilities of rural areas. The relevant government departments will consider whether these works may be carried out, having regard to factors such as the feasibility of the works, resource allocation and views of local community.

Annex

Improvement works to the barrier-free environment and facilities in rural areas under the minor works programmes of HAD from the financial years 2012-2013 to 2016-2017

Date of Whether the receiving the Expected Summary of works proposal Current project works District Project title completion date project scope was accepted status proposal (month/year) and endorsed(1) (month/year) 1/2013 Kwai Tsing Not applicable To construct a No Not applicable Not applicable 6/2013 barrier-free access leading from Tsing King Road, Tsing Yi to the fishermen village LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 6983

Date of Whether the receiving the Expected Summary of works proposal Current project works District Project title completion date project scope was accepted status proposal (month/year) and endorsed(1) (month/year) 4/2014 Tsuen Wan Provision of a To construct a Yes Site Under ramp near no. 7, ramp of investigation in investigation, Ma Wan approximately progress the expected Fishermen 27m long completion date Block, Tsuen connecting the is not yet Wan platforms of the available village, with the aim of facilitating access of villagers and transportation of goods 5/2014 Sha Tin Construction of To construct a Yes Preparation of 1/2018 a ramp near ramp of the design house nos. 21 to approximately drawings and 33 in Tai Wai 45m long in Tai documents in New Village, Wai New progress Sha Tin Village 9/2014 Islands Not applicable Proposed to No Not applicable Not applicable construct a barrier-free access on Po Toi Island leading from Wan Chai pier to Tai Wan beach 3/2015 Sha Tin Construction of To construct Proposal under Not applicable Not applicable a barrier-free two barrier-free study access route in access routes Sha Tin Wai with Village, Sha approximate Tin lengths of 10m and 20m respectively in Sha Tin Wai Village 4/2015 Sai Kung Provision of a To provide a Yes Construction in 5/2017 ramp path near pedestrian ramp progress lamp post to replace the no. VA7904 at existing steep Kwun Mun slope Fishermen Village, Tui Min Hoi, Sai Kung 6984 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

Date of Whether the receiving the Expected Summary of works proposal Current project works District Project title completion date project scope was accepted status proposal (month/year) and endorsed(1) (month/year) 1/2016 Tai Po Not applicable To construct a No Not applicable Not applicable barrier-free access at the footpatch and steps leading uphills at Pak Ngau Shek Sheung Tsuen, near the bus stop of no. 64K (opposite to the entrance of Kadoorie Farm and Botanic Garden) 5/2016 Sha Tin Construction of To construct a Proposal under Consultation Not applicable a ramp near ramp of study with relevant house nos. 9A approximately department(s) and 54 in Fo 15m long in Fo in progress Tan Village, Tan Village Sha Tin 5/2016 Tsuen Wan Not applicable To construct No Not applicable Not applicable three ramps at Yau Kom Tau (Tsuen Wan Sam Tsuen), each of approximately 30m long, connecting the platforms of the village, with the aim of facilitating access of villagers and transportation of goods 5/2016 Tsuen Wan Not applicable To provide No Not applicable Not applicable barrier-free access in Kwan Mun Hau Tsuen, connecting the platforms of the village, with the aim to facilitate access of the elderly LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 6985

Date of Whether the receiving the Expected Summary of works proposal Current project works District Project title completion date project scope was accepted status proposal (month/year) and endorsed(1) (month/year) 5/2016 Tsuen Wan Not applicable To construct a No Not applicable Not applicable 4/2017 ramp along the existing staircases at Ting Kau Village connecting Ting Kau Beach and Castle Peak Road 6/2016 Islands Construction of Islands District Yes Site 2/2018 a ramp near Office plans to investigation in 14A Hill Side construct a progress Road, Cheung ramp of Chau approximately 30m long in response to a request for barrier-free facilities on Hill Side Road, Cheung Chau 9/2016 Sai Kung Not applicable To provide a No Not applicable Not applicable barrier-free footpath connecting Tai Long/Ham Tin, Sai Kung and Pak Tam Au, Tai Po 11/2016 Islands Not applicable To reconstruct No Not applicable Not applicable the staircase in front of the house no. 13A of Nam Wan, Peng Chau into a ramp so as to facilitate access 11/2016 Sha Tin Construction of To construct a Referred to Not applicable Not applicable a barrier-free barrier-free other relevant access route in access route of department(s) To Shek Village approximately for follow-up Expansion 12m long in To actions Area, Sha Tin Shek Village Expansion Area 6986 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

Date of Whether the receiving the Expected Summary of works proposal Current project works District Project title completion date project scope was accepted status proposal (month/year) and endorsed(1) (month/year) 12/2016 Sha Tin Improvements To improve a Proposal under Consultation Not applicable to the existing ramp of study with relevant ramp near lamp approximately department(s) post no. V8106 12m long in Tai in progress in Tai Shui Shui Hang Hang Village, Village Sha Tin

Note:

(1) The works proposals were not accepted mainly because they were technically infeasible/there were objections from the stakeholders.

Regulation of debt collection agencies

14. MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Chinese): President, I have recently learnt that there is a worsening trend of debtors being harassed by debt collection activities, and it is still very common for banks, finance companies, telecommunications service companies, beauty service companies and tutorial teachers to hire debt collection agencies ("DCAs") to recover the debts owed by their customers. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the number of reports received, between 1 April 2016 and 31 March 2017, by the Police from members of the public about the harassment caused by DCAs' debt collection practices;

(2) whether it will consider afresh accepting the recommendations in the report of the Law Reform Commission of Hong Kong on "The Regulation of Debt Collection Practices" published in 2002 that a criminal offence of harassment of debtors and others should be created, and that a statutory licensing system to regulate DCAs should be established; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and

(3) whether it will consider introducing new law enforcement measures to curb the DCAs' adopting harassing practices for recovering debts; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 6987

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Chinese): President, the Government has always been concerned about the nuisance of improper debt collection practices to the public, and has adopted a multi-pronged approach through measures like stepping up enforcement and close monitoring of debt collection practices of the sector concerned by various regulatory authorities, as a means to actively prevent and combat such practices. My reply to the three parts of Mr CHAN Chi-chuen's question, upon consultation with the Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau, is set out below:

(1) In 2016, the Police received 1 852 crime reports relating to debt collection (such as intimidation, blackmail, criminal damage, etc.). In the first three months this year, the Police received a total of 438 related reports, a rise of 7.4% compared to 408 cases in the same period last year. The majority of these cases concerns criminal damage.

Regarding non-crime harassment (such as harassment by telephone calls, harassment by visits, etc.), the Police received a total of 9 723 related reports last year. In the first three months this year, there were 2 287 such reports, a drop of 2.4% compared to 2 344 cases in the same period last year.

(2) In September 2005, the Security Bureau, upon thorough consideration, gave a detailed response to the Law Reform Commission's report ("the LRC's report") on "The Regulation of Debt Collection Practices" issued in 2002. With regard to the recommendation to enact a new criminal offence provision to regulate such practices, the Government considers that there are various prevailing legal provisions (including the Crimes Ordinance (Cap. 200), Theft Ordinance (Cap. 210), Offences Against the Person Ordinance (Cap. 212), Summary Offences Ordinance (Cap. 228), Societies Ordinance (Cap. 151) and Post Office Ordinance (Cap. 98)) to specifically guard against different kinds of illegal debt collection practices (such as splashing paint, jamming of door locks with glue, mailing of letters with threatening statements or "paper money for the dead", threatening by visits, etc.). The Government is of the view that there is no need to introduce new criminal offence provisions with respect to the operation of debt collection agencies ("DCAs").

6988 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

Meanwhile, the LRC's report also recommended a licensing scheme to regulate the debt collection industry. Based on the operational experience of the law enforcement agencies, we consider that delinquent debt collection operators, in particular those run by triads, are unlikely to come forward for licensing in the first instance. The system would likely only cover prudent and ethical market operators, who would not engage in abusive activities even in the absence of a licensing regime. In this regard, introducing a licensing scheme will fall short to prevent undesirable elements from engaging in debt collection.

The Police will continue to enforce the law in a stringent manner, and will launch investigations into and press charges against any crime-related debt collection practices. As for other non-crime but improper debt collection cases, the Police will, depending on the industry involved, continue to coordinate their efforts with relevant regulatory authorities (e.g. if the case concerned involves banks, the Police will handle the case in coordination with the Hong Kong Monetary Authority).

(3) The Police attach great importance to combating illegal debt collection activities, and continuously adopt pro-active measures to enhance the effectiveness of their enforcement actions. Apart from setting up a dedicated team to closely monitor the trend of improper debt collection practices in various districts, and formulating comprehensive preventive and operational strategies in the light of specific circumstances, the Police will continue to step up patrol and cooperate with property management companies in respective districts through distribution of leaflets at residential buildings and request for assistance from management companies of public housing estates and private residential estates, in a bid to prevent loansharking syndicates from launching promotion or displaying advertisements in housing estates or within the building areas, so as to thwart DCAs' illegal or improper debt collection activities therein. Meanwhile, the Police will continue to disseminate messages against improper debt collection practices through the media and publicize successful enforcement and prosecution actions as deterrence.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 6989

In handling individual cases, the Police will refer cases involving criminal elements (such as criminal damage or intimidation) to dedicated criminal investigation teams for investigation. By doing so, the Police can pool together experience and expertise for investigation and evidence gathering, as well as institute criminal prosecution in accordance with the law.

In dealing with reports not involving criminal offences at the moment, the Police will, having regard to the circumstances of individual cases, assess whether there is any possibility that such debt collection practices may turn into criminal offences, and will then classify such cases as "high threat" or "low threat" cases. Every "high threat" case will be referred to the criminal investigation teams for follow-up. For "low threat" cases, the Police will monitor their developments. If there are signs that the seriousness of the case has heightened, the criminal investigation teams will take over the investigation.

If a DCA employed by an institution is suspected to have used improper or illegal means in its debt collection, the Police will coordinate their efforts with the relevant regulatory authorities. Such authorities shall then keep watch on the institution that employs DCA in a bid to pursue the matter and take appropriate follow-up actions.

In addition to law enforcement, the Police will actively publicize successful enforcement operations and prosecution actions to deter improper debt collectors or DCAs from engaging in illegal debt collection practices. Furthermore, the Police advise members of the public that they should, when applying for a loan, choose licensed money lenders or institutions, and, at the same time, take into consideration their repayment ability in a prudent manner, so as to reduce the chance of nuisances from improper debt collection practices in the future.

6990 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

Implementation of the "Hong Kong Property for Hong Kong People" measure

15. DR YIU CHUNG-YIM (in Chinese): President, in their reply on the 12th of last month to a question raised by a Member of this Council, the authorities pointed out that, under the "Hong Kong Property for Hong Kong People" ("HKP-HKP") measure, the relevant land leases contained the Special Condition No. (16)(a) which restricted alienation of any residential units by buyers (i.e. the developer and each subsequent owner) before the expiry of a period of 30 years from the date of the land leases except with the prior written consent ("consent") of the Director of Lands ("the Director"). One of the restrictions in the consent is that the residential units concerned must be sold to holders of a valid Hong Kong Permanent Identity Card. On the other hand, according to the information on the website of the Lands Department, the Director has the right to agree with or refuse the granting of the consent, and impose any additional terms and conditions for the consent, if granted. Moreover, the Director has the right to revise from time to time the relevant forms for making the required statutory declarations by buyers about their Hong Kong Permanent Resident ("HKPR") status. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the legal provisions and mechanisms based on which the authorities draw up the contents of the aforesaid consent and forms;

(2) of the mechanisms and justifications based on which the Director will impose additional terms and conditions for the consent and revise the forms from time to time;

(3) given that under special circumstances, there may be genuine needs for residential units subject to the HKP-HKP measure to be held by non-HKPR(s), and the Director will consider, according to the individual circumstances of each application, the granting of a special consent to permit the relevant residential unit to be held by non-HKPR(s), whether the Director has so far granted any special consent to the buyers of the first HKP-HKP project in Kai Tak; if so, of the number of such consents granted; and

(4) whether it has assessed where the owner of a residential unit subject to the HKP-HKP measure has alienated the unit to a non-HKPR buyer without obtaining prior consent from the Director, if the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 6991

relevant Sale and Purchase Agreement may be enforced under section 41 of the Conveyancing and Property Ordinance (Cap. 219), and of the legal provisions and procedure based on which the Government may terminate the alienation and deal with the ownership of the property in question?

SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Chinese): President, the policy objective of the "Hong Kong Property for Hong Kong People" measure ("HKPHKP measure") is to accord priority to Hong Kong permanent residents ("HKPRs") in making use of our scarce residential land resources in the midst of a tight demand-supply situation in the property market. When announcing the implementation details of the HKPHKP measure in March 2013, the Government made clear that the restriction on sale to HKPRs only would be applied to individual suitable sites through land lease conditions.

I reply to four parts of the question as follows:

(1) Special Condition No. (16)(a) of the lease that is subject to the HKPHKP measure restricts alienation of any residential unit by the Purchaser (i.e. the developer and each subsequent owner) before the expiry of a period of 30 years from the date of the lease except with the prior written consent of the Director of Lands and compliance with any conditions imposed by him. The contents of the Consent Letter and the statutory declaration in the prescribed forms are formulated to ensure that residential units are sold to HKPRs.

(2) The main requirements under the HKPHKP measure are set out on the Lands Department's website on the HKPHKP measure . Conditions to be imposed under the Consent Letter depend on the type of consent being applied for and the situation of each individual case. The requirement of making a statutory declaration in the prescribed forms attached to the Consent Letter is stipulated under the Consent Letter. The prescribed forms already attached to the Consent Letter will not be revised; however, the Director of Lands may from time to time revise the prescribed forms of statutory declaration for future applications for consent.

6992 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

(3) The relevant residential development is still at the pre-sale stage. The Director of Lands has not received any application for Special Consent.

(4) The Consent Letter is issued in accordance with the lease conditions. Hence, a breach of the conditions of the Consent Letter means that a valid consent has not been obtained in accordance with the lease conditions. The Lands Department will consider taking appropriate lease enforcement actions, including vesting the interest in the relevant residential units in The Financial Secretary Incorporated in accordance with the Government Rights (Re-entry and Vesting Remedies) Ordinance.

Disposal of clinical waste

16. PROF JOSEPH LEE (in Chinese): President, as clinical waste may contain infectious materials and sharps, the authorities have implemented the Clinical Waste Control Scheme to safeguard public health. It has been reported that a large number of used syringes were found discarded on the street last month, and most of such syringes had not been put into plastic bags or containers, which may cause germs to spread and injure cleaning workers. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council, in the past three years:

(1) of the amount of clinical waste being disposed of by each of the following categories of major clinical waste producers each year and the ways of disposal (set out in a table):

(i) public hospitals, clinics and medical institutions managed by the Hospital Authority,

(ii) private hospitals and maternity homes defined under the Hospitals, Nursing Homes and Maternity Homes Registration Ordinance (Cap. 165),

(iii) The Prince Philip Dental Hospital, and

(iv) government clinics and medical laboratories managed by the Department of Health or other government departments;

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 6993

(2) of the amount of clinical waste being disposed of by each of the following categories of small clinical waste producers each year and the ways of disposal (set out in a table):

(i) private medical clinics/practices,

(ii) private dental clinics/practices,

(iii) private dental, medical, veterinary or pathological laboratories,

(iv) private Chinese medicine clinics/practices,

(v) residential care homes for the elderly,

(vi) universities with medical teaching or research (including Chinese medicine),

(vii) pharmaceutical companies engaged in medical research,

(viii) private veterinary clinics/practices,

(ix) nursing homes,

(x) health and beauty centres where medical practices are conducted, and

(xi) other relevant organizations;

(3) of the number of convictions for contravening the Waste Disposal (Clinical Waste) (General) Regulation (Cap. 354 sub.leg. O), and the details of such convictions; and

(4) of the details of the inspections conducted by the Environmental Protection Department to combat illegal disposal of clinical waste?

6994 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Chinese): President,

(1) The quantities of clinical waste disposed of by Major Clinical Waste Producers in the past three years are summarized in Table 1. All clinical wastes are incinerated at the Chemical Waste Treatment Centre.

Table 1―Quantities of clinical waste disposed of by Major Clinical Waste Producers Annual Disposal Major Clinical Waste Producer Quantity (tonnes) 2014 2015 2016 (i) Public hospitals managed by the 1 423 1 468 1 563 Hospital Authority (ii) Private hospitals/maternity homes 365 360 387 (iii) The Prince Philip Dental Hospital 5 5 5 (iv) Public clinics/dental clinics/medical laboratories managed by the Hospital 53 51 51 Authority and Department of Health (v) Public mortuaries 24 26 24 Total 1 870 1 910 2 030

(2) For Small Clinical Waste Producers, the quantities of clinical waste disposed of in the past three years are summarized in Table 2. All clinical wastes are incinerated at the Chemical Waste Treatment Centre.

Table 2―Quantities of clinical waste disposed of by Small Clinical Waste Producers Annual Disposal Small Clinical Waste Producer(1) Quantity (tonnes) 2014 2015 2016 (i) Private medical clinics/practices 66 68 69 (ii) Private dental clinics/practices 11 10 10 (iii) Private dental, medical, veterinary or 86 88 97 pathological laboratories (iv) Private Chinese medicine 3 3 3 clinics/practices LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 6995

Annual Disposal Small Clinical Waste Producer(1) Quantity (tonnes) 2014 2015 2016 (v) Residential care homes for the elderly 20 21 20 and nursing homes (vi) Pharmacological/medical research (including universities and 82 85 86 pharmaceutical companies) (vii) Private veterinary clinics/practices 28 31 28 (viii) Health and beauty centres where 3 3 4 medical practices are conducted (ix) Other relevant organizations (e.g. haemodialysis centres, school 54 47 41 immunization teams, Red Cross's blood transfusion services, etc.) Total 353 356 358

Note:

(1) The above waste producers are classified according to their nature of business.

(3) Details of convicted cases under the Waste Disposal (Clinical Waste) (General) Regulation are summarized in Table 3.

Table 3―Details of convicted cases under the Waste Disposal (Clinical Waste) (General) Regulation Offence Date Details of Offence Sentence Improper packaging of clinical waste by a private medical clinic, causing A fine of 1. October 2012 injury to waste collection worker. $20,000 (contravening of section 7 of the Regulation) Improper packaging of clinical waste by a private medical clinic, causing A fine of 2. August 2013 injury to waste collection worker. $10,000 (contravening of section 7 of the Regulation) 6996 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

Offence Date Details of Offence Sentence Disposal of clinical waste with general refuse by a private medical clinic. A fine of 3. August 2016 (contravening of section 3 of the $10,000 Regulation) Disposal of clinical waste with general refuse by a private medical clinic. A fine of 4. October 2016 (contravening of section 3 of the $50,000 Regulation)

(4) Under the Waste Disposal (Clinical Waste) (General) Regulation, clinical waste must be collected by licensed clinical waste collectors or self-delivered by health care professionals to the Chemical Waste Treatment Centre for disposal. Apart from publicizing to the clinical waste producers and management offices of medical buildings, Environmental Protection Department ("EPD") also conducts unannounced inspections at their venues in different districts including medical buildings, Chinese and western medicine clinics, veterinary clinics, medical laboratories and nursing homes. Prosecution actions will be initiated where improper disposal of clinical waste is found with sufficient evidence. In 2016, 580 inspections were conducted and two non-compliance cases were successfully convicted. EPD has also set up a hotline for the public and the building management offices to report any suspected illegal disposal of clinical waste.

Assisting Hong Kong residents in places outside Hong Kong on whom criminal compulsory measures have been imposed

17. MR JAMES TO (in Chinese): President, regarding the provision of assistance to Hong Kong permanent residents ("Hong Kong residents") in places outside Hong Kong on whom criminal compulsory measures (including detention or imprisonment) have been imposed ("other places"), will the Government inform this Council:

(1) whether it knows if the relevant authorities in the Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand and Vietnam ("the relevant countries") currently notify the local Chinese embassies of the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 6997

respective numbers of Hong Kong residents in those countries (i) on whom criminal compulsory measures have been imposed, (ii) who died during the period when criminal compulsory measures were imposed on them, and (iii) who have been sentenced to death (if there is death penalty); if the relevant authorities give such notifications, of the respective numbers in the past five years, broken down by year and name of the country;

(2) whether it knows (i) the number of Hong Kong residents in the relevant countries, on whom criminal compulsory measures have been imposed, visited by the local Chinese embassies in each of the past five years, and the number of such visits, and (ii) if such embassies have made arrangements for paying regular visits to those Hong Kong residents;

(3) of the number of requests for assistance received from Hong Kong residents in other places by the Assistance to Hong Kong Residents Unit of the Immigration Department in each of the past five years; the respective numbers of Hong Kong residents in other places involved in such cases (i) on whom criminal compulsory measures had been imposed, (ii) who had been sentenced to death, (iii) who had sought assistance of the HKSAR Government in asking for a pardon by the foreign governments concerned, and (iv) who had obtained the HKSAR Government's support for their pardon pleas, with a breakdown by age group to which such Hong Kong residents belonged;

(4) whether it will propose to the Central Government for the Chinese embassies abroad to provide the following to the Hong Kong residents in other places on whom criminal compulsory measures have been imposed: (i) Cantonese translation services to facilitate their receipt of appropriate services and assistance in those places, (ii) an arrangement for them to have telephone communications with their families in Hong Kong within a specific time on a regular basis, and (iii) fingerprinting service to facilitate such Hong Kong residents in applying for such documents as Certificates of No Criminal Conviction issued by the HKSAR Government;

6998 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

(5) whether it will make reference to the practices of certain overseas countries and provide overseas legal aid services to Hong Kong residents in other places against whom criminal prosecutions have been instituted, so as to help them receive a fair trial and protection of their personal safety;

(6) of the respective numbers of applications from Hong Kong residents serving sentences in the relevant countries for transfer to Hong Kong to serve their remaining sentences that the Government is handling at present; whether the Government will publish such figures on a regular basis;

(7) since the Transfer of Sentenced Persons Ordinance (Cap. 513) came into operation in 1997, of the number of applications from Hong Kong residents serving sentences in other places for transfer to Hong Kong to serve their remaining sentences; the average processing time (from submission of application to granting of approval) for the approved cases, the number of persons whose applications were approved (set out such numbers by the age group to which the applicant belonged and name of the country in a table); whether the Government has sought assistance from the Office of the Commissioner of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in the HKSAR when it encountered difficulties in handling such applications; if so, of the outcome; if not, the reasons for that;

(8) whether it has discussed the signing of agreements on the transfer of sentenced persons with the governments of Indonesia, Malaysia and Vietnam; if so, of the latest progress and the difficulties encountered; if not, whether it will start discussions expeditiously;

(9) whether it will consider issuing Outbound Travel Alerts to remind Hong Kong residents of the countries where convicted drug traffickers are usually sentenced to death; and

(10) whether it will implement public education initiatives to remind Hong Kong residents that they should refrain from casually carrying goods or luggage for others to other places, particularly to countries where heavy penalties are usually imposed on convicted drug traffickers?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 6999

SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Chinese): President, in consultation with relevant bureaux and departments, my reply to Mr James TO's question is as follows:

(1), (2) and (4)

The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("HKSAR") is committed to providing assistance to Hong Kong residents in distress outside Hong Kong. In general, upon receipt of requests for assistance from Hong Kong residents who are detained or imprisoned overseas, or when the Chinese Diplomatic and Consular Missions ("CDCMs") inform the Assistance to Hong Kong Residents Unit ("AHU") of the Immigration Department of Hong Kong residents being detained or imprisoned overseas, AHU will, having regard to the nature and circumstances of individual cases as well as the requests of the assistance seekers, liaise with the Office of the Commissioner of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People's Republic of China in the HKSAR ("OCMFA"), CDCMs and the relevant government departments to provide practicable and appropriate assistance. Such assistance includes visiting the subjects by CDCMs or providing information on local lawyers and translators; informing the subjects' families in Hong Kong of their detention according to the wishes of the subjects, so that their families can make relevant arrangements; approaching the local authorities concerned through CDCMs to reflect the wishes of the subjects and to make enquiries on case progress, or arrangements for communication with and visits by their families. The HKSAR Government and CDCMs must respect and abide by the local judicial systems when following up with requests for assistance.

The issuance of Certificate of No Criminal Conviction is a chargeable service provided by the Hong Kong Police Force ("HKPF"). In the course of handling an application for an immigration visa or for the adoption of a child, if a recognized body (such as a consulate, immigration authority or government authority) requires confirmation of no criminal conviction in respect of the applicant, it may issue a letter of request to the applicant, who may then submit this letter to HKPF for checking. If there is no criminal conviction data recorded on the applicant, the checking result will be sent directly to the corresponding recognized body by registered mail and will not be sent to the applicant.

7000 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

The HKSAR Government does not keep the relevant statistics specified in the question.

(3) The number of requests for assistance received by AHU and, among which, the requests for assistance from Hong Kong residents imprisoned or detained outside Hong Kong over the past five years (2012-2016) is tabulated as follows:

Total number of Number of requests for assistance Year requests for involving Hong Kong residents assistance imprisoned or detained outside Hong Kong 2012 1 791 126 2013 1 981 88 2014 2 068 99 2015 2 529 113 2016 2 808 135

Over the past five years, the HKSAR Government received a total of three requests for assistance in appealing to the relevant foreign government for clemency. The HKSAR Government expressed its support to these three subjects' plea for clemency to the governments concerned respectively.

The HKSAR Government does not keep other detailed breakdown specified in the question for the cases.

(5) Legal aid services form an integral part of the legal system in Hong Kong. The policy objective of legal aid is to ensure that all those who comply with the requirements of the Legal Aid Ordinance (Cap. 91) and have reasonable grounds for pursuing or defending a legal action in the courts of Hong Kong will not be denied access to justice due to a lack of means. Extending the scope of legal aid services to jurisdictions outside Hong Kong involves merits tests on overseas litigation cases, which will give rise to a number of problems in actual practice. According to the Legal Aid Department's understanding, all European Union Member States and other common law jurisdictions have not extended legal aid services to criminal litigation matters involving their nationals outside their territories. The HKSAR Government has no plan to extend the legal aid system to cover Hong Kong residents facing criminal prosecution overseas. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7001

(6) The HKSAR Government is now processing seven and four applications from Hong Kong residents sentenced in the Philippines and Thailand respectively for transfer to Hong Kong to serve their remaining sentences. No such applications have been received from Hong Kong residents sentenced in Indonesia, Malaysia or Vietnam.

(7) In general, a major criterion to be met in every transfer application is the tripartite consent from the HKSAR Government, the government of the jurisdiction concerned, and the sentenced person himself/herself. Where necessary, the HKSAR Government will make enquiries about the progress of transfer of sentenced persons ("TSP") applications to the governments of the jurisdictions concerned through their Consulates in Hong Kong. It may also contact the governments of the jurisdictions concerned through OCMFA and/or CDCMs to obtain the required documents of the relevant transfer applications and confirm the consent of the local governments, so as to proceed with the transfer procedure.

Since the Transfer of Sentenced Persons Ordinance ("the Ordinance") (Cap. 513) came into effect in June 1997, the HKSAR Government has received a total of 252 applications from Hong Kong residents sentenced in other jurisdictions for transfer to Hong Kong to serve their remaining sentences. By April 2017, a total of 93 sentenced persons have been transferred to Hong Kong to serve their remaining sentences, including 2 sentenced in Australia, 29 in Thailand, 3 in the United States and 59 in the Macao Special Administrative Region. As the circumstances of each application vary and are dependent on a number of factors (see the preceding paragraph), the time taken to process each application also varies. The HKSAR Government has neither kept the average processing time of the approved cases nor the statistics on the age of the approved applicants.

(8) At present, the HKSAR Government has signed TSP agreements with 16 jurisdictions, namely Australia, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, India, Italy, the Republic of Korea, Mongolia, the Philippines, Portugal, Spain, Sri Lanka, Thailand, the United Kingdom, the United States and Macao Special Administrative 7002 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

Region. The HKSAR Government will continue to seek negotiation and conclusion of TSP agreements with other jurisdictions. Even in the absence of a TSP agreement signed by the HKSAR Government and a certain jurisdiction, the HKSAR Government may still, in accordance with the Ordinance, process applications by Hong Kong residents sentenced in that jurisdiction for transfer to Hong Kong, or applications by non-local residents of that jurisdiction sentenced in Hong Kong for transfer to their places of origin to serve their remaining sentences.

(9) The Outbound Travel Alert ("OTA") system set up by the HKSAR Government aims to facilitate Hong Kong residents to better understand possible risks to their personal safety when travelling overseas and make corresponding arrangements. When an incident that may affect the personal safety of Hong Kong residents occurs in countries/territories covered by the OTA system, the Security Bureau will assess the threat in terms of its nature (e.g. whether it is targeted at travellers), level, duration, etc. and consider the need to issue an OTA. The OTA system is not a platform for overseas legal information.

(10) The Police from time to time disseminate crime prevention information through the television programme "Police Magazine" and other channels to urge members of the public, youngsters in particular, not to deliver or carry articles or drugs overseas for other people in order to make quick money. To combat cross boundary drug trafficking, the Police launch publicity at control points during long holidays, such as Easter, Christmas and summer holiday, reminding outbound passengers to maintain vigilance and avoid being involved in any illegal activities no matter where they are.

A Hong Kong resident shall be subject to legal sanction for breaking the law, whether in Hong Kong or any jurisdictions outside Hong Kong. In the latter case, such a person will be sanctioned under the legal system of the jurisdiction concerned in accordance with its laws. As such, any person, wherever he/she travels, should abide by local rules so as to avoid contravening the laws inadvertently.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7003

Lift modernization programme for public housing estates

18. MR WU CHI-WAI (in Chinese): President, the Hong Kong Housing Authority is currently implementing a lift modernization programme, under which the condition of the lifts in public rental housing ("PRH") estates which have been in service for over 25 years is reviewed, and the lifts are replaced according to the priorities set. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the respective names of the PRH estates in which lift (i) inspection and (ii) replacement works were undertaken in each of the financial years from 2010-2011 to 2016-2017; the dates on which such works were undertaken and the costs involved, in respect of each PRH estate (set out such information in a table);

(2) of the names of the PRH estates aged over 25 years in Kwun Tong and Wong Tai Sin districts, and set out in a table the following information in respect of each estate:

(i) whether lift inspection works have been undertaken, and the dates on which such works were undertaken/are expected to be undertaken; and

(ii) whether lift replacement works have been undertaken, and the dates on which such works were undertaken/are expected to be undertaken;

(3) as I have learnt that the specifications of the lift wells in certain aged PRH estates are different from the prevailing ones, which result in longer time taken for lift replacement works, of the differences between the specifications of the lift wells in PRH estates aged over 25 years in Kwun Tong and Wong Tai Sin districts and the prevailing ones, as well as the respective timetables for replacing such lifts by the authorities; and

(4) given that for some aged PRH estates, each floor is served by only one lift, of the measures the authorities have in place to ensure that the access of residents of those PRH estates (particularly elderly persons and wheelchair users) will not be affected during the period of lift replacement?

7004 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Chinese): President, all lifts in public rental housing ("PRH") buildings under the Hong Kong Housing Authority ("HA"), irrespective of their servicing age, are maintained in a timely manner in accordance with the Lifts and Escalators Ordinance (Cap. 618) as well as the requirements in the Maintenance Contract to ensure that the operating conditions are safe. HA has also been implementing the Lift Modernization Programme ("LMP") to improve the living environment for PRH tenants in older PRH estates. Under LMP, annual condition assessment and checking are conducted by HA for all lifts that have been operated for 25 years or more. Taking into account factors including the overall operating conditions of lifts, deployment of resources, etc., HA will formulate the timetable for renewing the lifts concerned.

My reply to the various parts of the question raised by Mr WU Chi-wai is as follows:

(1) Under LMP, contracts of lift modernization for 607 lifts in 27 PRH estates have been awarded during the period from 2010 to 2017. The scope of works covers the replacement of lift system together with necessary building structure alteration for compliance with the prevailing statutory requirements. The total cost for the said works is about $830 million. Details are at Annex 1.

(2) Up to the first quarter of 2017, there are 19 PRH estates with buildings aged over 25 years in Kwun Tong and Wong Tai Sin districts, among which the lift modernization works of 8 estates have already been completed; while the works for 4 estates are being carried out in stages and the modernization works of some of the lifts have already been completed. For the remaining PRH estates, HA conducts an annual condition assessment for lifts that have been operated for 25 years or more under LMP. HA will conduct necessary study and proceed with the modernization works. Details of the above lift modernization works are at Annex 2.

(3) When modernization works are found necessary in PRH buildings, irrespective of their design and age, HA will install new lifts with necessary building structure alteration works in compliance with the prevailing statutory requirements. Lifts of different servicing ages in PRH buildings were completed in accordance with the different statutory requirements at their respective times. Hence, the designs LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7005

of lift machine rooms, lift wells and lift pits (such as structural specifications, dimension and shape) differ from one to another. Moreover, the actual usage conditions of individual lifts vary. Therefore, the installation time required for the works under LMP may also vary for individual buildings. HA project teams, having conducted detailed site investigations, will assess the complexity of the work and determine the time required. In general, the replacement of a lift takes around 8 to 11 months.

(4) In the course of conducting the LMP works, services of some lifts will have to be suspended. HA understands that such works will affect PRH tenants, especially the elderly or wheelchair users. In view of this, during the design stage of the works, project teams will brief local District Council members and Estate Management Advisory Committee members regarding the design and the work process and seek their views.

Prior to commencing the works, project teams will post up notices to inform tenants of the details of the works, such as commencement dates, estimated completion dates, affected areas, etc. Electrical staircase climber will be arranged for use by tenants in need, such as the elderly and wheelchair users, throughout the installation period. If tenants have special reasons (such as health or livelihood issues) which rendering them unable to continue to live in their PRH units, they may consider applying for a flat transfer. HA will endeavour to assist and arrange them to transfer to units on a floor with lift service.

Annex 1

Public Rental Housing Estates with Lift Modernization Contracts Awarded from 2010 to 2017

Contract Commencement Completion Estate Name Sum Date Date ($ million) Shun Lee Estate (Stage 2 Works) 8/2010 2/2015 11.5 Ping Shek Estate 12/2010 2/2015 21.5 7006 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

Contract Commencement Completion Estate Name Sum Date Date ($ million) Cheung Hong Estate (Stage 1 Works) 2/2011 11/2014 18.1 Tai Yuen Estate 3/2011 6/2016 37.1 Lower Wong Tai Sin (II) Estate 4/2011 12/2014 10.3 (Stage 1 Works) Yau Oi Estate 5/2011 3/2015 30.4 Shek Wai Kok Estate (Stage 1 7/2011 9/2015 26.4 Works) Sun Tin Wai Estate 11/2011 2/2016 24.5 Shui Pin Wai Estate 12/2011 2/2015 12.9 Choi Yuen Estate 3/2012 1/2016 30.3 12/2017 Kwong Fuk Estate 6/2012 42.6 (Estimated) Lai Kok Estate 7/2012 9/2016 17.3 10/2018 Mei Lam Estate 1/2013 31.7 (Estimated) Tai Wo Hau Estate 7/2013 5/2016 17.0 9/2017 Ap Lei Chau Estate 7/2013 47.4 (Estimated) Wan Tsui Estate 8/2013 6/2016 9.7 Sun Chui Estate 10/2013 12/2016 28.7 10/2017 On Ting Estate 2/2014 49.0 (Estimated) Shek Wai Kok Estate (Stage 2 1/2018 7/2014 28.5 Works) (Estimated) Shek Kip Mei Estate 7/2014 4/2016 10.5 8/2019 Lung Hang Estate 8/2014 54.0 (Estimated) 5/2020 Shun Tin Estate (Stage 1 Works) 10/2014 61.9 (Estimated) Wang Tau Hom Estate (Stage 1 10/2017 10/2014 12.3 Works) (Estimated) 10/2018 Wu King Estate (Stage 1 Works) 1/2015 23.3 (Estimated) 5/2018 Chun Shek Estate 10/2015 24.5 (Estimated) LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7007

Contract Commencement Completion Estate Name Sum Date Date ($ million) Lok Wah (South) Estate (Stage 1 2/2019 10/2015 22.0 Works) (Estimated) Shek Wai Kok Estate (Stage 3 10/2020 7/2016 12.9 Works) (Estimated) 6/2019 Cheung Hong Estate (Stage 2 Works) 7/2016 17.8 (Estimated) 11/2020 Wu King Estate (Stage 2 Works) 1/2017 27.7 (Estimated) 9/2020 Lok Wah (North) Estate 4/2017 44.8 (Estimated) 6/2017 2/2020 30.0 Tai Hang Tung Estate (Estimated) (Estimated) (Estimated) Total 836.6

Annex 2

Status of Lift Modernization Programme in Public Rental Housing Estates with Buildings Aged 25 Years or Above in Kwun Tong District and Wong Tai Sin District

Estate name Commencement Date Status Mei Tung Estate 7/1995 Completed Kai Yip Estate 7/2007 Completed Choi Wan (II) Estate 4/2007 Completed Shun Lee Estate (Stage 1 Works) 8/2008 Completed Shun On Estate 6/2009 Completed Choi Wan (I) Estate 9/2009 Completed Shun Lee Estate (Stage 2 Works) 8/2010 Completed Ping Shek Estate 12/2010 Completed Lower Wong Tai Sin (II) Estate (Stage 1 4/2011 Completed Works) Shun Tin Estate (Stage 1 Works) 10/2014 In progress Wang Tau Hom Estate (Stage 1 Works) 10/2014 In progress Lok Wah (South) Estate (Stage 1 Works) 10/2015 In progress 7008 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

Estate name Commencement Date Status Lok Wah (North) Estate 4/2017 In progress Fu Shan Estate 2018-2019 (Estimated) Studying Lower Wong Tai Sin (II) Estate (Stage 2) 2018-2019 (Estimated) Studying Lok Wah (South) Estate (Stage 2 Works) 2019-2020 (Estimated) Planning Chuk Yuen (South) Estate 2020-2021 (Estimated) Planning Wo Lok Estate 2020-2021 (Estimated) Planning Sau Mau Ping Estate 2020-2021 (Estimated) Planning Shun Tin Estate (Stage 2 Works) 2020-2021 (Estimated) Planning Choi Hung Estate 2022-2023 (Estimated) Planning Tsui Ping (South) Estate 2022-2023 (Estimated) Planning Wang Tau Hom Estate (Stage 2 Works) 2022-2023 (Estimated) Planning Lok Fu Estate 2022-2023 (Estimated) Planning

Food safety of vegetables distributed directly to retail outlets for sale immediately after being imported from the Mainland

19. DR KWOK KA-KI (in Chinese): President, currently, vegetables imported to Hong Kong from the Mainland must come from registered vegetables farms or collection stations on the Mainland. When the vegetables reach Man Kam To, the Food Control Office established there by the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department will inspect documents and collect samples for testing of pesticide residues. Most of the vegetables will subsequently be transported to the Cheung Sha Wan Wholesale Vegetable Market of the Vegetable Marketing Organization ("VMO") for centralized wholesaling. However, it has been reported that recently some merchants have distributed vegetables directly to retail outlets for sale immediately after importing them from the Mainland (such vegetables are commonly known as "directly distributed vegetables"). Although the selling prices of directly distributed vegetables are substantially lower than those of ordinary vegetables, some members of the public are worried about their suitability for consumption. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the respective numbers and percentages, in each of the past five years, of vegetable importers, wholesalers and retailers who were engaged in the trading of directly distributed vegetables;

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7009

(2) of the respective quantities and percentages of directly distributed vegetables among the various kinds of vegetables imported to Hong Kong (including winter vegetables, summer vegetables, leafy, gourd, fruit, root and rhizome, bean, herbs, mushroom and others) in each of the past five years;

(3) in each of the past five years, of (i) the number of vegetable samples taken by the authorities for inspection and testing, (ii) the number of samples found to be unsatisfactory (as well as the reasons for the unsatisfactory result), and (iii) the number of cases of poisoning due to consumption of vegetables with excessive pesticide residues; among such numbers, the respective numbers related to directly distributed vegetables and their percentages in the relevant totals;

(4) whether it has assessed if directly distributed vegetables are suitable for consumption; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; of the measures in place to address the public concerns about the consumption safety of directly distributed vegetables; and

(5) whether it has studied if the prevalence of directly distributed vegetables in the market reveals that there are loopholes in the Food Surveillance Programme ("the Programme"); if it has studied and the outcome is in the affirmative, whether the authorities will take measures to include directly distributed vegetables in the Programme, e.g. requiring that all vegetables supplied by the Mainland to Hong Kong must be distributed through VMO; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Chinese): President, Hong Kong is a free market. All along, imported vegetables may either be distributed through wholesale markets (including the wholesale markets operated by the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department ("AFCD"), the Cheung Sha Wan Vegetable Marketing Organization ("VMO") or other private wholesalers) or sold directly at retail outlets ("direct sale"). According to the information from the Census and Statistics Department, there were about 850 000 tonnes of imported vegetables in 2016. According to the information from AFCD, about 340 000 tonnes of vegetables were transacted through the wholesale markets operated by AFCD and the VMO in 2016.

7010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

Whether vegetables are distributed through wholesalers is not relevant to safeguarding food safety. Wholesale markets primarily provide a trading platform for importers and retailers to facilitate business. All vegetables sold in Hong Kong for human consumption, regardless of whether the vegetables are distributed through the wholesale markets operated by AFCD or VMO, are subject to the local food safety regulatory mechanism. The details are as follows.

The Mainland is the major source of imported vegetables to Hong Kong. From the perspective of controlling at source, the Government and the regulatory authorities in the Mainland have established administrative arrangements. Vegetables supplied to Hong Kong from the Mainland must come from registered vegetable farms and production and processing establishments under the supervision of the respective Entry-Exit Inspection and Quarantine Bureau, must be accompanied with supporting documents to ensure food safety, and must be affixed with labels which show the information on their origins on the packaging during transport. All fresh vegetables entering Hong Kong via the land route must be imported through Man Kam To Border Control Point as designated. The Mainland inspection and quarantine authorities conduct random inspection on the seal and documents of the vegetables to be supplied to Hong Kong, and conduct testing on vegetable samples. Only consignments which come with intact seals and satisfy the inspection requirements are allowed to enter Hong Kong. The Centre for Food Safety ("CFS") staff inspect registered farms on the Mainland every year to ensure that the agricultural products supplied to Hong Kong are wholesome and safe at source.

CFS staff inspect the vehicles which carry the vegetables when the latter arrive at the Man Kam To Food Control Office. They check if the seal on the vehicle remains intact and whether the consignment tallies with the accompanying documents, inspect the vegetables, and adopt a risk-based approach in taking vegetable samples for quick tests for pesticide residues and comprehensive chemical analysis. CFS maintains close communication and cooperation with the Mainland authorities and exchanges intelligence with them.

Apart from controlling at source and the import arrangements, CFS adopts a risk-based principle in taking food samples at the import, wholesale and retail levels for relevant tests under the regular Food Surveillance Programme to ensure that the foods comply with the legal requirements and are fit for human LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7011 consumption. The regular Food Surveillance Programme covers vegetables, regardless of whether the vegetables are distributed through wholesalers or are for direct sale.

CFS takes follow-up actions on unsatisfactory samples, including destroying the vegetables, tracing the source, recording the information of the farm and inform the relevant Mainland authorities for follow-up. CFS staff will detain the next vegetable consignment from the farm concerned and will release the consignment only when the testing results are satisfactory.

The Government is mindful that vegetables are brought, in the name of self-consumption, into Hong Kong by travellers via the Lo Wu Control Point for sale in the market. In fact, CFS maintains close liaison with the Customs and Excise Department ("C&ED") and exchanges intelligence on activities of importing vegetables through control points other than the Man Kam To Food Control Office. To intercept such activities, C&ED and CFS conduct joint operations from time to time. If travellers are found to have brought into Hong Kong a substantial amount of vegetables which are suspected not to be of self-consumption, C&ED will refer the cases to CFS for follow-up action. From January 2015 to December 2016, C&ED referred 26 cases of travellers carrying a substantial amount of vegetables into Hong Kong via the Lo Wu Control Point to CFS. After intelligence gathering and investigation, it was evident that in 3 cases the vegetables were brought into Hong Kong for sale. CFS had initiated prosecutions against the persons concerned for not registering as food importers under the Food Safety Ordinance (Cap. 612). As for the other 23 cases, no sufficient evidence of sale could be found. Nonetheless, the travellers concerned voluntarily surrendered the vegetables to CFS for disposal. CFS destroyed about 0.7 tonnes of the vegetables.

In the past five years (i.e. 2012 to 2016), the number of vegetables and related products tested for pesticide residues under the Food Surveillance Programme of CFS and the number of unsatisfactory samples are tabulated below:

Number of vegetables and related Number of Year products tested for pesticide residues unsatisfactory samples 2012 18 255 2 2013 18 858 2 7012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

Number of vegetables and related Number of Year products tested for pesticide residues unsatisfactory samples 2014 18 344 35 2015 19 028 78 2016 19 529 42 Total 94 014 159#

Note:

# The samples exceeded the maximum residue limits/extraneous maximum residue limits(1) stipulated in the Pesticide Residues Regulation (Cap. 132CM) or were regarded as unsatisfactory after risk assessment.

The Centre for Health Protection of the Department of Health has not recorded any food poisoning cases caused by consuming foods with excessive pesticide residues in the past five years (i.e. 2012 to 2016).

(1) According to the Pesticide Residues in Food Regulation (Cap. 132CM) ("the Regulation"), any person who imports, manufactures or sells any food not in compliance with the requirements of the Regulation concerning pesticide residues commits an offence and is liable to a maximum fine of $50,000 and to imprisonment for six months.

Boosting the growth of Hong Kong into a financial technologies hub

20. MR KENNETH LEUNG: President, the Government has implemented a number of initiatives to promote the development of financial technologies ("Fintech") in Hong Kong to boost its growth into a Fintech hub. Fintech have brought new applications, processes, products or business models to the financial services industry, e.g. peer-to-peer payments, virtual currencies based on blockchain technologies, digital wallets, crowd-funding and microloans. While the Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing (Financial Institutions) Ordinance (Cap. 615) stipulates that the Customs and Excise Department ("C&ED") is the relevant authority for regulating money service operators ("MSOs"), it has not entrusted C&ED with the role to boost the growth of Hong Kong into a Fintech hub. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the details (including the offences involved) of the law enforcement actions taken in the past three years by C&ED in relation to the operation of a money service with Fintech by licensed and unlicensed MSOs;

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7013

(2) whether C&ED has studied (i) how the development of Fintech will impact on the effective performance of its regulatory functions under Cap. 615, and (ii) if the Department has the relevant expertise and the right tools to perform its functions to regulate MSOs operating money services with Fintech; if so, of the outcome; if not, the reasons for that; and

(3) whether C&ED has actively liaised with other local regulatory bodies regarding the promotion and development of Fintech in Hong Kong?

SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY: President,

(1) The Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorist Financing (Financial Institutions) Ordinance was enacted in April 2012 to impose requirements relating to customer due diligence ("CDD") and record-keeping on specified financial institutions including money service operators ("MSOs").

Under the Ordinance, any person who operates a money service must obtain a licence from the Customs and Excise Department ("C&ED"). Licensed MSOs are required to comply with the statutory obligations on CDD, record-keeping and other licensing requirements. From 2014 to 2016, C&ED had taken prosecution actions against 24 unlicensed money service operators ("UMSOs") and 11 licensed MSOs for failing to comply with CDD, record-keeping and licensing requirements. Having consulted the Department of Justice, C&ED also issued written warnings to 83 non-compliant MSOs and 2 UMSOs, and initiated civil sanction proceedings against 5 non-compliant MSOs. None of the foregoing cases involved the application of novel financial technologies.

(2) To ensure effective regulation of the MSO industry, C&ED strives to develop a pool of skilled officers with professional knowledge in criminal and financial investigation. From time to time, technical experts from other regulatory bodies, law enforcement agencies and the private sector are invited to deliver seminars and thematic talks 7014 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

and share experience with C&ED officers. Relevant officers are sponsored to attend courses relating to anti-money laundering and counter-terrorist financing compliance issues, which provide them with financial investigation and Fintech-related training. On a regular basis, C&ED also sends representatives to attend international meetings on anti-money laundering organized by international organizations such as the Financial Action Task Force, so as to keep in view the latest trend, typology and development in the regulatory landscape of MSOs.

(3) C&ED has been working closely with other statutory regulators of financial institutions (namely the Hong Kong Monetary Authority, the Securities and Futures Commission and the Office of the Commissioner of Insurance) in the supervision of the MSO sector. Regular meetings and seminars are convened to exchange information and share experience on enforcement strategies and regulatory issues, including challenges posed by emerging Fintech for financial regulators.

C&ED will continue to deploy resources flexibly to meet challenges brought about by technological advancement and the ever-changing regulatory landscape, with a view to ensuring effective supervision of MSOs.

Safety of escalators

21. DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Chinese): President, on 25 March of this year, an upward moving escalator with a vertical rise of 21 metres ("m") in the shopping mall at Langham Place in Mong Kok suddenly reversed direction, causing injuries to 18 people. The Electrical and Mechanical Services Department ("EMSD") subsequently indicated that it would conduct an in-depth investigation into the reasons why the drive chain of the escalator involved had broken and its auxiliary brake had not been triggered. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:

(1) of the latest progress of the follow-up actions taken by EMSD on the aforesaid incident;

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7015

(2) among the reports of escalator incidents received by EMSD in each of the past five years, of the respective numbers of cases involving escalators with (i) a vertical rise of 15 m or above, (ii) more than 10 years of service, and (iii) design defects;

(3) of the number of escalator inspections conducted by EMSD staff in each of the past five years; among such inspections, the respective numbers of those conducted for the following reasons: (i) complaints had been received, (ii) accidents had occurred to the escalators recently, (iii) escalators had been in service for more than 10 years, and (iv) performance of the maintenance contractors concerned had been unsatisfactory; the respective numbers of cases in the past five years in which escalator maintenance contractors or their staff were penalized by EMSD for contravening the Code of Practice, and those in which they were convicted by the court for breaking the law, together with the details of such cases; and

(4) whether EMSD will step up the monitoring of the maintenance of escalators (in particular escalators with a vertical rise of 15 m or above) undertaken by contractors to safeguard public safety; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?

SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Chinese): President, the Electrical and Mechanical Services Department ("EMSD") attaches great importance to the safety of lifts and escalators. It has been strived to enforce the Lifts and Escalators Ordinance (Cap. 618) ("the Ordinance") to ensure the provision of safe lift/escalator services to the public. The Ordinance, which replaced the repealed Lifts and Escalators (Safety) Ordinance (Cap. 327) ("the repealed Ordinance"), has come into full operation since 17 December 2012 and introduced a series of new and enhanced control measures. They include setting out the duties of responsible persons (i.e. owners of lifts/escalators and any other person who has the management or control of the lifts/escalators), registered contractors, registered engineers and registered workers.

My reply to the question of Dr CHIANG Lai-wan is as follows:

(1) EMSD is very concerned about the escalator incident at the Langham Place and is conducting an in-depth investigation into the incident. The investigation will seek to ascertain, inter alia, 7016 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

whether the incident is related to the maintenance work for the escalator. In case there is evidence indicating that the contractor or concerned parties has/have contravened the Ordinance, EMSD will take prosecution action. A detailed investigation report will be completed by the end of May 2017.

After the incident, EMSD has implemented the following measures to safeguard escalator safety:

- Registered escalator contractors ("RECs") were required to conduct special inspections for all the 64 escalators with vertical rise of 15 m or above in Hong Kong. These inspections were completed by 31 March 2017. All escalators were confirmed to be in safe working conditions. No anomaly was found during these inspections;

- The manufacturer of the escalator involved in the incident, i.e. OTIS Elevator Company (H.K.) Limited, was required on 3 April 2017 to inspect all its escalators in Hong Kong within one month. On completion of these inspections by 29 April 2017, the drive chain of one escalator was found elongated and slightly exceeding the manufacturer's recommended replacement criterion. The subject escalator resumed normal operation after replacing the drive chain;

- A circular letter was issued to all the RECs and registered escalator engineers in Hong Kong, urging them to follow the manufacturers' instructions in respect of inspection, adjustment and tests of drive chains and broken drive chain safety devices of escalators during their periodic maintenance and examination of escalators to ensure that these devices are in good working condition; and

- Spot checks on the maintenance works of RECs in Hong Kong were stepped up.

(2) As the incident involved mechanical failure, the following reply also focuses on the relevant areas.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7017

In the past five years, there was no escalator incident that was caused by equipment failure of escalators with vertical rise of 15 m or above. Neither was there any escalator incident that involved equipment failure caused by defective design. The cases of equipment failure in escalators of over 10 years old or above accounted for less than 0.5% of the total number of escalator incidents. The other causes involved passenger behaviour and external factors, such as tiny metallic objects being wedged into the space between the step and combplate, thereby triggering safety devices that stopped the escalator.

The numbers of escalator incidents reported to EMSD in the past five years are set out below:

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 Total number of escalator 1 538 1 416 1 639 1 590 1 624 incidents Number Escalators with of vertical rise of 0 0 0 0 0 incidents 15 m or above involving Escalators of 10 6 2 0 7 3 equipment years or above failure Escalators with 0 0 0 0 0 defective designs

(3) In the past five years, EMSD has followed a risk-based approach and considered various factors in conducting about 1 300 to 1 500 spot checks on escalators each year. About 900 to 1 200 of these inspections were conducted on escalators that were under complaints, involved in incidents, in service for longer years and/or under the maintenance of RECs with poor track record.

During the said period, EMSD has issued eight summonses to RECs and registered persons under the repealed Ordinance and the Ordinance. Among them, six summonses involved a REC who failed to ensure that the safety equipment of the escalators was in working order and interfered with their operation as well as a registered escalator engineer who failed to report the examination results timely to the Director of Electrical and Mechanical Services and made a false statement on the Safety Certificate. They were convicted and fined by the Court. 7018 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

The Disciplinary Board has not held any hearing for RECs or registered persons in the past five years.

(4) According to the Ordinance, RECs shall conduct periodic maintenance for escalators at an interval not exceeding one month. Besides, registered escalator engineers shall carry out periodic examination for escalators at an interval not exceeding six months to prepare for renewal of the use permits issued by EMSD.

EMSD has also published a Code of Practice for Lift Works and Escalator Works ("Works Code") to provide guidelines on lift works and escalator works, including examination, maintenance and repair of lifts/escalators. The Works Code specifies, in particular, the items to be inspected and made good during periodic maintenance and in accordance to the schedule recommended by the lift/escalator manufacturers. The Works Code also specifies the items that require regular and thorough examination by registered lift/escalator engineer in order to ascertain that the lifts/escalators are in safe working order.

Following the escalator incident at Langham Place, EMSD will issue maintenance guidelines for escalators with vertical rise of 15 m or above to the corresponding responsible persons and RECs. Given their high carrying capacities and, hence, higher risk of serious incidents, EMSD will step up inspections of these escalators.

Recently, the public has expressed grave concerns about the manpower in the lift/escalator trade as well as the reasonable time required for and quality of maintenance works. To address the public concerns and to step up control, EMSD issued a circular again in April 2017 to urge registered lift/escalator contractors to allow sufficient time for their workers to carry out maintenance works properly and to keep records on the day-to-day work undertaken by their staff properly as well. The circular also requires the registered lift/escalator contractors to report in the specified form with justifications weekly to EMSD, when a working team (assuming a team of two persons) is assigned to undertake maintenance works for over six lifts/escalators in one day, on instances of multiple assignments. The reporting requirement on "maintenance of over LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7019

six lifts/escalators in one day" is established by EMSD with a view to setting a reference benchmark for the trade. The registered lift/escalator contractor would be required to furnish further information when EMSD conducts investigations in cases of complaints or incidents.

Review of the application thresholds for legal aid and leave for judicial review

22. MR PAUL TSE (in Chinese): President, it has been reported that a number of judicial reviews ("JRs") on subjects of political arguments have been lodged over the past decade, and nearly all of the legal aid applications made by the plaintiffs of those cases have been approved by the Legal Aid Department ("LAD"). In recent years, a Cheung Chau resident has been granted legal aid for lodging over 30 JRs one after another, and is therefore referred to as "King of Judicial Reviews from Cheung Chau" by the media. There are views that the fee of $1,045 charged for application for leave for JR is on the low side and the approval rate of the relevant legal aid applications stands high, and such situation is tantamount to encouraging some members of the public to repeatedly abuse the JR system. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council of:

(1) (i) the number of JR cases on subjects of political arguments in each of the past five financial years in which the plaintiffs were granted legal aid, (ii) LAD's total expenditure on these cases so far, and (iii) the total time taken by the court to hear such cases so far;

(2) LAD's total expenditure on the JR cases lodged by the King of Judicial Reviews from Cheung Chau so far, and the total time taken by the court to hear such cases so far; the respective numbers of such cases ruled in favour of and against the said plaintiff, and the respective numbers of such cases being heard or listed for hearings; and

(3) the criteria based on which LAD approved consecutively the 30-odd legal aid applications made by the King of Judicial Reviews from Cheung Chau; whether LAD has, in the light of the situation that an individual may be granted legal aid to lodge a number of JRs and 7020 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

the rate of such cases ruled in favour of the plaintiff, analyzed if the threshold for application for leave for JR is too low and the vetting and approval criteria for legal aid applications are too lax?

SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Chinese): President, legal aid services form an integral part of the legal system in Hong Kong. The policy objective of legal aid is to ensure that all those who comply with the regulations of the Legal Aid Ordinance (Cap. 91) ("LAO") and have reasonable grounds for pursuing or defending a legal action in the courts of Hong Kong will not be denied access to justice due to a lack of means. To qualify for legal aid, a person is required to satisfy both the means test and merits test as provided by LAO. To ensure that only cases with reasonable grounds are granted legal aid, all legal aid applications are processed by Legal Aid Counsel serving in the Legal Aid Department ("LAD").

Regarding various parts of Mr Paul TSE's question, having consulted relevant departments and organization, we provide a consolidated reply as follows:

(1) The statistics maintained by LAD does not distinguish whether legal aid applications involve political arguments.

The number of legal aid applications involving judicial review ("JR") received by LAD and the number of legal aid certificates granted in the past five years are tabulated below:

Number of legal aid Number of legal aid Year applications involving JR certificates granted for cases received involving JR 2012 506 92 2013 432 119 2014 266 74 2015 500 107 2016 437 27

Note:

Legal aid certificates may not be granted in the same year as the applications were received.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7021

The total legal expenditure on legally-aided cases involving JR in the past five financial years are tabulated below:

Total legal expenditure on Financial Percentage of total legal cases involving JR year aid costs of the year ($ million) 2012-2013 21.9 4.27% 2013-2014 33.9 5.95% 2014-2015 22.7 4.00% 2015-2016 29.4 5.17% 2016-2017 36.3 5.02%

Note:

The total legal expenditure on cases involving JR was the total expenditure for legally-aided cases involving JR in the year, including the expenditure for cases where the legal aid certificates were granted not within that year.

The Judiciary does not maintain statistics on the processing time on cases filed with at least one of the parties being legally aided as at filing of applications.(1)

(2) Owing to the provisions in the Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance (Cap. 486) and LAO, LAD is prohibited from disclosing information on individual legal aid applications or cases unless with the consent of the persons concerned. The Judiciary does not have the breakdown of statistics by applicant.

The success rates of legally-aided cases involving JR concluded in the past three years are as follows:

Judgments in favour of the Rate of obtaining Year Total legally-aided person# in-favour judgment 2014 41 68 60%

(1) The Judiciary only maintains statistics on the average processing time on leave applications processed by the Court of First Instance (from date of filing of leave application to date of decision). Statistics on the average processing time for leave applications filed in 2014, 2015 and 2016 captured the position as at 15 February 2017 are 112 days, 188 days and 105 days respectively. Such statistics only take into account the number of leave applications with leave granted or leave refused as at report generation date, but exclude those withdrawn or outstanding leave applications. Such statistics may vary at different report generation dates and time since they are live data subject to changes upon conclusion of the outstanding leave applications. 7022 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

Judgments in favour of the Rate of obtaining Year Total legally-aided person# in-favour judgment 2015 46 89 52% 2016 111 154 72%

Notes:

# The figures include cases in which:

(1) judgment was in favour of the aided person;

(2) precedent was set by the court subsequent to the grant of legal aid, thus favourable to the case of the aided person;

(3) relief was given to the aided person by the opponent (government department/organization) before conclusion of the legal proceedings; and

(4) policy amendment was made by the opponent (government department/organization) so that relief could be obtained by the aided person who therefore did not have to continue with the legal proceedings.

(3) Currently, LAD already has in place a stringent mechanism to process legal aid applications. The criteria for conducting the merits test for legal aid applications involving JR are the same as those for other civil legal aid applications. That is, according to section 10(3) of LAO, legal aid would only be granted to applicants who can show that their cases have reasonable grounds for conducting JR proceedings. In conducting the merits test, LAD will consider the background, evidence available and legal principles applicable to the case so as to determine whether legal aid should be granted. Before issuing a legal aid certificate, LAD must, in assessing the merits, be satisfied that there are reasonable grounds or points of law involved for which it is desirable to grant legal aid to enable the matter to be submitted to the court for decision or judgment. If complicated legal issues are involved in the application, LAD may seek independent legal opinion from counsel in private practice on the merits of the application under section 9(d) of LAO. However, the number of cases where legal aid has already been granted to the applicant and the success rate of his or her previous legally-aided cases are not among the factors to be considered under section 10(3) of LAO.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7023

The relevant mechanisms and penalties against abuse of legal aid are provided by LAO and its subsidiary legislation. It is stipulated under section 23 of LAO that any person seeking or receiving legal aid who knowingly makes any false statement in furnishing information shall be guilty of an offence and liable on conviction to a fine at level 3 (i.e. $10,000) and to imprisonment for six months. Anyone who believes that an applicant or aided person has furnished false information on the merits or means may provide relevant details to LAD. If the case is substantiated upon investigation, LAD shall cease the provision of legal aid concerned and refer the case to the Police for follow-up actions.

Furthermore, pursuant to Regulation 11 of the Legal Aid Regulations (Cap. 91A), if anyone has repeatedly applied for legal aid after being refused, the Director of Legal Aid may order that no consideration shall be given to any future application by that person for a period of three years if it appears to the Director that his or her conduct has amounted to an abuse of the services provided by LAO.

As for the threshold for application for leave for JR as mentioned in the question, currently, the JR system in Hong Kong adopts a two-stage approach. Before the court hears a JR application substantively, an applicant first has to apply for leave to bring JR from the Court of First Instance on an ex parte basis. The threshold for granting leave to apply for JR is determined and reviewed by the court on the basis of the relevant law and public interest. In fact, in a case(2) in 2007, the Court of Final Appeal raised the threshold for granting leave to apply for JR from cases with potential arguability to those with reasonable arguability, i.e. whether the case is one which enjoys realistic prospects of success. Under the current legal system, the Government takes the view that it is appropriate for the independent Judiciary to determine the relevant threshold.

(2) Chan Po Fun Peter v Cheung CW Winnie and Anor [2007] 10 HKCFAR 676. 7024 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

GOVERNMENT BILLS

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Government Bill.

Council went into committee.

Committee Stage

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Committee stage. Council is now in committee to continue the consideration of the Schedule to the Appropriation Bill 2017.

Stand over items: Government Bill on "Appropriation Bill 2017" (since the meeting of 26 April 2017)

APPROPRIATION BILL 2017

CLERK (in Cantonese): Heads 22, 49, 139, 140, 141 and 170.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): The committee now proceeds to the third debate. The themes are "Poverty Alleviation, Welfare and Medical Services, Elderly Care, Public Health and Population Policy". The policy areas covered by the relevant heads are: Poverty Alleviation; Retirement Protection; Welfare Services; Support for Ethnic Minorities and the Disadvantaged; Elderly Care; Health Services; Food Safety and Environmental Hygiene; and Population Policy.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Six Members, namely Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Ms Claudia MO, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Dr LAU Siu-lai and Mr SHIU Ka-chun have respectively given notice to move a total of 16 amendments to reduce the various sums for six heads read out by the Clerk just now. Details of the amendments are set out in Appendix 1B to the Script.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7025

Members may now proceed to a joint debate on the amendments to the six heads. Members have been informed that there are about five hours for the committee to conduct this debate.

I will first call upon Mr CHU Hoi-dick to speak and move Amendment No. 18 set out in Appendix 1B to the Script, to be followed by other amendment proposers in sequence; but they may not move amendments at this stage.

MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I move Amendment No. 18 as set out in Appendix 1B to the Script, which reads "Resolved that head 22 be reduced by $22,700,000 in respect of subhead 000." The amount of reduction is approximately equivalent to the manpower expenditure on catching stray animals in 2016-2017.

Deputy Chairman, the main purpose of this amendment is to point out the fundamental error on the part of the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department's ("AFCD") overall animal policy―the perception of some animals as stray animals which must be caught throughout the community, by violent means if necessary. These animals are then trapped somewhere, eventually euthanized after some time. It is completely wrong that AFCD has this idea about animals in the community. Therefore, I fundamentally reject spending this $22.7 million on catching stray animals.

In my opinion, we should not see community animals as stray animals any more. Animals living in the community should be called community animals. As regards community animals, I share the views of some legislators that these animals should not be removed or killed. If the Government is to provide any funding in this area, I hope it can use the money on comprehensively implementing the "Trap-Neuter-Return" scheme. I know that a three-year pilot programme is being conducted at this moment, yet according to the Government's reply to a supplementary question, AFCD only deploys very little manpower for this pilot programme. Members may not be able to imagine how little the manpower is. Over the last three years, only two staff members are deployed. While AFCD has more than 2 000 staff in total, only two were assigned to deal with the task concerning community animals, a subject of great public concern. I believe this is completely disproportionate to the concern about animals expressed by the public over the last few years.

7026 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

In relation to animals or community animals, I would like to raise an issue concerning how animals are treated under the existing land planning process. Members have not paid much attention on this before. As far as land planning or housing development is concerned, we have mostly been focusing on the size of the sites, number of units permissible, residential capacity or the industries to be introduced, and so on. We will, of course, discuss the impact on existing residents or industries too. That said, we seldom touch upon the animals concerned in the course of large-scale development, especially development projects in the New Territories. The head concerning AFCD gives no specific description in this respect neither. Members may be familiar with projects like Hung Shui Kiu, Yuen Long South, Kwu Tung, Fanling North and Ping Che, and so on, as well as the Kam Sheung Road project which has a smaller scale. With regard to the development of the above rural communities, the current practice adopted by the Government is effectively a massacre of the animals there. Indigenous villages locating in these development areas are relatively lucky as these villages are zoned for Village Type Development, and are therefore allowed to stay. Animals living there can stay, too. However, non-indigenous villages falling outside the boundary of indigenous villages are always sacrificed for large-scale development.

Deputy Chairman, the compensation package offered by the authorities to the evicted residents are poor enough. It is already a big mercy if the affected residents can be relocated to public housing units. As to residents of demolished squatter structures, they are merely entitled to compensation of not more than $600,000, yet the authorities see this as a fine offer. However, the evicted residents are faced with another big problem. Deputy Chairman, most of them keep cats and dogs at home, and enabling them to live with their animals is an essential factor in maintaining their quality of life. It will be very difficult, if not impossible, for them to stay with their animals after being evicted, and their quality of life will seriously deteriorate then.

These poor problems exist even when we are dealing with issues concerning people, so the situation for animals will grow even worse, as the Development Bureau or the Transport and Housing Bureau have never mentioned in the documents about the treatment of affected animals during the development of the areas. Deputy Chairman, assume that one or two animals are kept in each rural households, together with community animals, then simply counting the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7027

Development of North East New Territories, we can predict that the project will affect at least 2 000 animals. The team under AFCD costing us $22.7 million annually will then be responsible for catching these animals for euthanasia. Members who take notice of this subject will realize the Government's failure in fulfilling its duties in many areas, such as failing to encourage owners of open storage yards in the New Territories to neuter their guard dogs. Moreover, as residents are unable to bring their animals with them when large-scale development projects are underway, they can only hand these animals to civil societies, which will utilize their own resources to handle the animals. However, is this the right situation we should have?

As I have pointed out in the beginning of my speech, society and the people in Hong Kong are becoming more aware of the position of animals in society. They also wish the Hong Kong Government to pay more attention on animal rights in different policy areas. In communities without large-scale demolition and relocation, we do not expect the Government to deal with community cats and dogs by catching them for euthanasia. Instead, it should deploy resources and adopt an overall direction of "Trap-Neuter-Return". As regards the new development areas where the Government has exercised significant public power, we hope it can seriously take into account the welfare of animals in the affected regions as wells.

Deputy Chairman, AFCD indeed has estimated the figures under this head. The number of stray animals actually captured in 2016 was 4 289, and it is estimated that 4 200 animals will be captured in 2017. The number of captives will certainly soar with the commencement of various major projects in the next one or two years if the Government does not give any serious thought about the said problem. I want to point out that civil societies with limited power do not have the capacity to cover all the areas planned for development, namely North East New Territories, Yuen Long South, Hung Shui Kiu and Ping Che, and so on. If they are overloaded, the situation will descend into a horrible humanity disaster.

Deputy Chairman, we come across a similar problem regarding the public housing development project in Wang Chau. One main question is whether the Phase 1 development should go on as scheduled. However, in this respect, both the Government and many other stakeholders have not taken the community animals into consideration. So, I really wish to point out that the Wang Chau 7028 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 project is an opportunity before us, in which we can implement a new proposal to formulate a plan for developing the brownfield sites first, before we consider the greenbelts. And, concerning the brownfield development, we must enable in-situ relocation for the existing operators in the area. I and Dr YIU Chung-yim have introduced a "three-win" proposal, which the Government and Members in this Council have probably heard of. I wish to point out here that, if we add one more factor of consideration, it will not only be a "three-win" proposal then. Deputy Chairman, I am finishing soon.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHU Hoi-dick, please speak on the policy areas covered by the relevant head in this debate.

MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Cantonese): I am exactly speaking on issues related to animals, which is a factor omitted by the Government in urban development. There is the Wang Chau project before us, an imminent massacre of animals. Therefore, I propose that the Government must take the animals into account during development planning. The Wang Chau project gives us a chance to do so. Deputy Chairman, we can take the chance and formulate an alternative proposal to create a "three-win" situation, in which the brownfield operators will benefit, residents in greenbelt sites do not have to be removed, and housing development can proceed at the same time. But, on top of this, we wish to achieve the fourth win, that is, we will bear in mind the welfare of animals living in the community for the first time in Hong Kong's history while we contemplate development, and deploy all methods and resources to treat animals in rural areas with respect, so that these animals and rural residents living with them can lead a respectable life with due quality.

I so submit.

Mr CHU Hoi-dick moved the following motion:

"RESOLVED that head 22 be reduced by $22,700,000 in respect of subhead 000."

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7029

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I have moved a total of four amendments in this session targeting the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department, the Food and Health Bureau as well as the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department ("AFCD") respectively.

First of all, I wish to speak on the amendments relating to AFCD. I also wish to thank Mr CHU Hoi-dick and Ms Claudia MO for proposing the deduction of the expenditures in relation to the catching of stray animals and for proposing the deduction of the expenditures in relation to the euthanasia of animals. Actually, besides human rights, each year Members will propose similar amendments in the hope of awaking public awareness of animal rights and interests during the debate of the budget in the Legislative Council. The purpose of my amendment―the Amendment No. 19―is to cut the remunerations of the Director of AFCD. My forthcoming speech will also focus on the Director of AFCD as well as the inadequacies of AFCD's animal policy.

(THE CHAIRMAN resumed the Chair)

First, I will speak on euthanasia. At present, the Government adopts euthanasia to deal with stray animals. Last year, 1 814 dogs and 449 cats were euthanized by AFCD. Essentially, it sends stray dogs and cats directly to its Animal Management Centres, commonly known as "kennels", after catching them on the street. They will stay there from a minimum of 4 days to a maximum of 20 days. The figures show that after these animals―which I should not call "stray animals", and just now Mr CHU Hoi-dick called them "community's animals", or Members may call them "neighbourhood dogs and cats"―are sent to "kennels", their fate is doomed.

AFCD officials have stated in the meeting of the Legislative Council's Subcommittee to Study Issues Relating to Animal Rights that other countries also adopt the "euthanasia" approach to handle stray animals. They say that the approach shows the respect for dogs and cats and they consider that dogs and cats should be respected throughout their lives. They also say that it is not appropriate for them to wander in the wilderness, and therefore euthanasia is an appropriate approach.

7030 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

First of all, I wish to point out that this is absolutely human-centred, as they consider human being the overlord of everything on planet earth. We can find that the term "pet" is less commonly used in recent years. Then why we decline to use the term "pet" and switch to use the term "animal"? We think the term "pet" means that only those animals we treat affectionately as pets will have the value for survival. If they are not treated affectionately as pets by human beings, they do not have the right to exist. These kind of sayings or mindsets are incorrect.

AFCD will put animals captured or received by the department at AFCD's Animal Management Centres for four days to wait for rehoming. During their stay, Government veterinarians will assess their health status, including their emotion state. If they are implanted with microchips, AFCD will try to locate the owners. If their owners are reluctant to take them back and the animals are considered healthy and have a gentle temperament, they will be transferred to animal welfare groups in cooperation with the Government for rehoming. Otherwise, they will be subject to euthanasia.

Over the years, many animal welfare groups have been criticizing the assessment mechanism of AFCD for its lack of transparency in identifying the suitability of rehoming of animals. Such questions include, "What is the meaning of gentle temperament and healthy?" "What criteria do they adopt in the course of making the decision?" The public know nothing about that. As to the so-called humanitarian way of treating animals―euthanasia, they ask, "What kind of technology do they use and how the entire process takes place?" I remember the Secretary replies in writing that AFCD has developed guidelines on euthanasia of animals for the relevant staff and veterinary officers to follow. As to the process, euthanasia of animals would be performed in the presence of at least one Field Officer and one Veterinary Officer. They would use injection of general anaesthetics to euthanize animals and the parts of the animal's body where the injection is administered would normally be performed in the muscle (on the thigh or buttock) first and then in the heart. Nevertheless, many voluntary animal workers have pointed out that among the several ways of euthanasia commonly adopted by AFCD, some are actually not humanitarian at all.

The first way is commonly known as "lethal injection", in which an overdose of anesthesia is injected into the animal. This approach is the most costly. The second is the injection of air, which is commonly known as the "empty syringe". That is, to inject air into the vein of the animals so they will LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7031 die slowly and painfully. This method involves the least cost, but the animals will suffer great pains and they will only die after a prolonged convulsion. The third way is to lock the animals in a close gas chamber where toxic gas will kill them. They will go through disorientation, urinary, faecal incontinence and even mutual slaughter before the animals die.

Many people have a misconception that AFCD should be commended because the number of euthanasia have dropped from more than 10 000 animals in 2010 to more than 5 000 in 2012, and the situation has been improving. But is that the reality? The answer is "not necessarily". The drop in the figures of humanitarian way of treating animals or euthanasia is due to the fact that more and more people who care about animal rights and voluntary animal workers are doing their best and whatever they can to rescue these dogs and cats by adopting them from AFCD. They pay out of their own pocket and spend a lot of money and efforts to protect those so-called stray animals. They even pay for the sterilization and vaccination in order to save them from AFCD's eradication. The onus should be on the Government but now it is shouldered by the public and those known as animal welfare groups.

It has been agreed unanimously earlier by almost all members of the Subcommittee to Study Issues Relating to Animal Rights that AFCD should consider establishing animal adoption centres so that members of the public may adopt dogs and cats directly from AFCD. This will save the dogs and cats caught by AFCD from meeting their doomed fate if no animal welfare groups come forward to adopt them after they have waited for 20 days. To be exact, the life and death of these animals will not depend on the value of their lives, but on the leniency of the Government and whether it will spend money and resources. If more resources are allocated, these animals may survive for a few more days.

As to these 15 concern groups on animal rights and interests, the Government says that the rehoming should be entrusted to the dozen groups which have all along been cooperating with the Government. Alleging that these groups have been allocated the necessary resources, the Government refuses to set up animal adoption centres. As the animals shelters of these groups are often totally full, should AFCD put the onus on these civil groups? Therefore, I support the proposals of Ms Claudia MO and Mr CHU Hoi-dick, even though it is just a meagre amount of $ 1 million.

7032 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

In fact, the deduction of these unnecessary expenditures of AFCD will facilitate the establishment of a few more animal shelters run by these civil groups. Is this not a better way to help hundreds of animals survive longer or enhance their chance for rehoming? This is a more practical approach.

The next thing I wish to speak on is the "Trap-Neuter-Return" ("TNR") scheme. Actually, the success or failure of the "TNR" scheme depends on the Government's policy of rounding up stray animals and euthanasia policy. It has been 10 years since AFCD conducted consultation on the "TNR" scheme. In the 2016-2017 fiscal year, $1.5 million was earmarked for the work in this area, a $200,000 increase over the previous year. However, we think that the Government fails to promote the scheme to the public and convince them that "TNR" is a better choice to the public, community or animals as compared to euthanasia.

Even though the "TNR" scheme is a more appropriate approach to manage neighbourhood dogs and cats, AFCD is only implementing a three-year pilot scheme in two small districts. Too few animals are involved in the scheme.

The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals ("SPCA") started to identify sites for the "TNR" pilot scheme in 2012. Since Cheung Chau is far away from urban areas with relatively fewer vehicles and people, and in addition, the volunteers of SPCA on Cheung Chau have already established close relationship with the dogs on the island and thus familiar with their ecology, SPCA has therefore taken Cheung Chau into consideration for the establishment of a "TNR" trial site. After the consultation meeting held in March 2013, AFCD decided to set up two trial sites, one at Cheung Chau South and one at Tai Tong, Yuen Long. The pilot scheme started in 2015 and would last for three years. Originally, AFCD and SPCA intended to include Cheung Chau North into the "TNR" trial site, but they eventually backed out upon opposition by the residents there. The residents considered the most straight-forward approach to deal with the proliferation of neighbourhood dogs and cats was euthanasia because they thought sterilization was not effective. As the Government refused to change the euthanasia policy, some residents or people in the neighbourhood would consider euthanasia the most straight-forward way and they declined to adopt the "TNR" pilot scheme.

We have seen a lot of people who are holding this extreme belief. They consider that animals not rehomed should be euthanized instead of being allowed to return to the neighbourhood, lest such animals may cause a nuisance or scare LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7033 their children. Some other people suggest that all such animals should be sent to an uninhabited island. However, we still think that "TNR" will do all good but no harm. If they return to the community after being neutered, their number will drop naturally after they have passed away. Therefore, it is unreasonable for people to oppose to our suggestion. They oppose to it simply because they think the problem can be solved immediately after such animals are euthanized and they need not wait until the animals pass away at old age.

As such, if the Government does not put in place a "zero euthanasia" policy or make no fundamental changes to the euthanasia policy, it will fail to convince the community to support the "TNR" scheme. If the Government implements the "zero euthanasia" policy, I believe every district will implement the "TNR" scheme. They will compete for the establishment of trial sites in their districts because the "TNR" scheme will reduce the number of neighbourhood dogs and cats. But the present situation is very different because the authorities are still practising euthanasia. Once the "TNR" pilot scheme expires in three years, it will say that the "TNR" scheme has failed.

It is rather difficult for me to predict if the scheme will succeed or fail, but it is very funny if we look at the figures. According to the Government, the number of stray animals (so-called "abandoned animals") in Hong Kong is dwindling yearly, probably due to the educational campaigns or efforts of the volunteers, and even those of SPCA and AFCD. However, the figures in the trial sites are more or less the same and will sometimes rise. This is rather ironical. Perhaps people consider the "TNR" trial sites are safe and therefore they abandon animals there. Nevertheless, the not-so-ideal figures are insufficient to prove the efficiency of the "TNR" scheme. The Government will say that it is difficult to prove anything in three years, because we cannot witness their demise in merely three years. Perhaps we have to wait for 10 years before we can see the effect of the scheme on the dogs and cats.

For this reason, after implementing the pilot scheme for three years, the Government now says that it does not know what is the next step to be taken. Hence it will continue to lobby various District Councils to implement the pilot scheme or to further examine the next step. This is why I support the proposals of Ms Claudia MO and Mr CHU Hoi-dick to reduce the expenditures in euthanasia of animals. I am trying to force everyone to face the "TNR" scheme 7034 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 in a more serious fashion by adopting a different means so that community animals, neighbourhood dogs and cats will be accepted and the best way to facilitate the coexistence of people, cats and dogs will be identified.

Moreover, I also speak on the issue concerning the establishment of "animal police". Even though we have been fighting for so many years, no progress has been made in the establishment of the "animal police". Hong Kong has already put in place animal protection legislation, but incidents of cruelty to animals have never ceased as we hear news about animal cruelty every week. The Legislative Council has proposed many times that the Government should follow the practices of the Netherlands, the United States, the United Kingdom, Germany, Australia, and so on, by setting up the "animal police". Non-governmental animal welfare groups should be authorized to carry out frontline patrol and investigation work by way of legislation, so that cases can be referred to the Police for enforcement actions after evidences are collected by these groups. We also recommend that the Government should consider amending the existing laws by creating offences against the act of abandoning animals. However, the Government's responses have been rather disappointing all along.

Certainly, only a small part is relevant to the Police. In view of the shortage of resources, manpower, witnesses and evidence, and given that animals cannot give evidence, AFCD or the Police often close cases by labelling them "fights among animals", which has let those animal abusers get away unpunished and many cases end up with nothing definite. The Government also gives some replies hastily by saying that the current system has worked well all along, thus it has no plan to establish "animal police" in a perfunctory manner. I can give some recent examples. Actually, as many cases are taking place incessantly, I hope other Members will give me a hand.

As such, I wish to point out the fact to AFCD or the Police that the act of destroying fragile lives should not be tolerated. On the one hand, establishing the "animal police" and allocating more resources to handle relevant cases can help solve the cases and prevent animal abusers from taking a trust-to-luck attitude, believing that they will not be caught after committing the crime because the onus is not on them and they will not become wanted persons. We should send a message to the community that cruelty to animals is by no means a petty misdemeanour on the other. Every year, my fellow Members will quote a LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7035 famous quote of GANDHI, "The greatness of a nation and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated." You may choose not to love animals, but you may not treat them brutally at will. This bottom line is very clear. Therefore, we should establish the "animal police" without delay, and I also have to warn animal abusers that they should stop abusing animals immediately.

MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): The themes of this debate session are poverty alleviation, welfare and medical services, elderly care, public health and population policy. Some people may wonder why two Members have consecutively spoken on animal welfare and which head of expenditure covers such matters. To their surprise, the topic belongs to the policy area of public health.

It turns out that there is no place for animals in this society of Hong Kong, and discussions on the subject are repeatedly started from the perspective of public health. When it comes to animal welfare, let alone animal rights, we have to sort everything out with the Food and Health Bureau and discussions have to be conducted under the principles of food safety and environmental hygiene. This is wrong.

We should handle the issue from the perspective of the animals themselves. Just like us human beings, animals are here to share the resources of the Earth with us. Why has the human-oriented ideology mentioned by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen just now, as well as the approach based on it, arisen? It is our opinion that dogs are dirty, wild pigs are unhygienic, stray cattle cause traffic obstruction, and they should therefore all be killed. The policies adopted in Hong Kong to treat animals are worth our reconsideration indeed. How should we treat animals, particularly community animals?

First, they are not stray animals. They are members of the community sharing community resources with us. Secondly, they are not pets. The Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department ("AFCD") is still fond of using such terms as "pets" to mislead the public, fooling people into asking questions such as, "Why should we take care of cats, dogs and pets when we do not even have the necessary resources to take good care of human beings? Why should these animals be better pampered than our fellow human beings? Why 7036 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 should their beds be cosier than ours?" It seems that such attitude which poses human beings and animals in direct confrontation can exist in Hong Kong forever. Is it really impossible for us to make a change?

Mr CHU Hoi-dick has spoken on Wang Chau development and the probable massacre of animals arising from the plan. This is a battle for resources between human beings and the community they are living in, and between human beings and this planet Earth. Why do we often give the human being the highest priority in everything? I have in my hand a publication newly released by the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Hong Kong), in which Dr KO Wing-man is quoted as saying that we should care for animals. However, when asked whether actions would be taken to introduce legislative amendments or at least enact an animal welfare law, he has made no undertaking, nor has he expressed any reprimand, disappointment or regret at the absence of such in this regard.

This is in fact well within expectation. He is a medical practitioner, and matters on food safety and environmental hygiene within his portfolio are already enough to keep him busy. On top of these, however, he is also responsible for handling matters on animals. Would it be necessary for the Government of the next term to seriously consider putting matters on animal rights and animal welfare under the purview of the Environment Bureau? The Bureau's work programmes cover sustainable development and conservation, including those of various creatures and the natural ecology. Putting these matters under the Bureau's purview is than forcing medical practitioners and nurses to discuss animal rights with us here.

We always say that we should treat animals in a humane way, but this is in fact hypocritical rhetoric. What are there for us to "treat"? If we treat human beings in the same way as we treat animals, would it be alright? Fundamentally, this is tantamount to euthanasia, but it sounds seemingly better when the term "treat" is used. Nevertheless, the Government is after all using our money to perform euthanasia, and please stop doing so.

Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has mentioned just now we might as well make every effort to achieve the goal of "zero euthanasia". What is euthanasia? In order to perform euthanasia on human beings, prior consent of the person involved has to be sought. This allows no room for discussion in Hong Kong, let alone the actual performance of euthanasia. You are now openly advocating LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7037 from a human point of view that euthanasia should be performed on this dog, this cat, this rat, this cow or this pig, as if everything would be fine after doing so. This is in fact a decision made merely by human beings.

It seems perfectly fine to implement a "zero euthanasia" policy and the "Trap-Neuter-Return" programme in every district, but this is in fact not necessarily the case. This city of ours is still regarded by some people as a city of animal abuse. If a policy of "zero euthanasia" on animals is formulated, it is highly likely that many animal keepers will abandon their animals on the excuse of not knowing how to handle them. Since the performance of euthanasia on animals is not allowed, stray animals can be found everywhere on the street. It will still be necessary for the Government to catch these animal and carry out euthanasia on them, won't it? This exactly is the paradoxical situation described in the novel Catch-22? That is, a permit is required for leaving a town, but one has to leave the town in order to obtain the permit. This is totally nonsense, reflecting only a confused state of mind.

Let us take a look at this promotion leaflet distributed by AFCD through various District Offices. It informs the public about buying a dog. The word "buying" is printed in a very large font, but the phrase "You can also consider adopting a dog" added at the bottom is presented in a very small font. Hong Kong is a free society in which capitalism is practised, and officials from AFCD can thus advise animal volunteers loudly and clearly that dogs are assets of their owners, citing even the articles of the Basic Law to illustrate the point. It turns out that dogs are commodities and assets.

Hence, a new type of licence is created under the Public Health (Animals and Birds) (Animal Traders) Regulations (Cap. 139B) for persons keeping up to four female dogs for breeding purpose. It is also specified clearly in the Regulations that breeding premises shall include a licensee's normal place of residence. This is just an attempt to legalize commercial breeding activities in private residences. Why does the Government not admit this honestly? With the enactment of such provisions, the Government is in fact encouraging dog breeders to keep dogs in private places for breeding purpose, thus rendering such places small kennels. Their activities are completely legal, provided that no more than four female dogs are kept. It will be an offence to keep even one female dog more than the number specified.

7038 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

It appears to some people that there are now more abandoned animals on the street. They wonder if these animals have been abandoned because of excessive breeding activities in large-scale breeding facilities. We have no idea whether this is the case. We can only hope for the best as this legislation introduced by the Government has after all been passed. This is not necessarily a bad thing, and may probably be a good one, if it can achieve a deterrent effect. In case animals are abandoned, we can try to save them at once. However, the whole rationale of the Government's policy on animals is in a state of complete chaos. It has gone completely against the prevailing global idea of achieving the coexistence of humans and animals.

The Government considers it unnecessary to worry about the possible abandoning of animals because offenders caught red-handed by law enforcement officers are liable to fines and imprisonment, and very stringent punishment can be imposed. The maximum penalty is a fine of $10,000―but a fine of $10,000 is not really that stringent as the Government has claimed―and imprisonment for six months. Does it work? Certainly not. The relevant legislation is nothing but empty talk. Law enforcement officers are only empowered to arrest people under the Rabies Ordinance for abandoning animals. After all, how can this be proved? The suspects may argue that their animals have broken away by themselves, and will in no circumstances admit that they have abandoned their animals. How can this be proved by law enforcement officers? If an allegation cannot be made lightly on the one hand, while an offending act cannot be proved on the other, the relevant legislation is but an empty shell.

The Government may also argue that even more stringent punishment can be imposed under the existing Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance, and the maximum penalty is a fine of $200,000 and imprisonment for three years. Prosecution may be initiated under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance against animal keepers who abandoned dogs on the street and caused suffering to them, and they may be subject to more stringent punishment. However, the question remains. How can law enforcement officers meet their burden of proof? How can they prove that the dogs concerned have been cruelly treated? Animal keepers may again argue that their dogs have broken away by themselves, or their foreign domestic helpers have negligently let their dogs escape from the control of leashes, so on and so forth.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7039

As to the term "cruelty", very convincing proof is required. Although there have been successful cases in the past, a gradual approach has to be adopted to put the idea into practice. It should be noted that in deciding a case, a judge may not necessarily hand down a sentence of imprisonment for three years. As advised during past discussions with the Department of Justice, reference should be drawn from precedent cases. A sentence of imprisonment for six months to eight months at most would be handed down if there is a precedent case in which a sentence of four months' imprisonment has been handed down for the same offence. The length of the sentence might be further reduced by two months after taking the relevant mitigating factors into consideration. Although many people consider it necessary to impose heavier penalties to achieve adequate deterrent effects, judges are required to draw reference from precedent cases when handing down sentences even though the penalty level for animal abuse is raised to life imprisonment. I therefore cannot see that the Government has the sincerity to solve the problem.

As to the "Trap-Neuter-Return" programme, discussions have started as early as the last decade (that is, in roughly 2008). It has even been suggested that the feasibility of vaccinating animals at the same time be explored. However, a trial programme was only introduced a few years later in 2013 to formally pursue this initiative in the community, and there are now two trial zones under the programme. Some people wonder if such delay is caused by the objection of District Councils or elected representatives. In fact this is not the case, and we are pleased to see that the programme has the support of nine District Councils. We have therefore approached the officer in charge of the programme in the Food and Health Bureau and asked whether it is possible to extend the "Trap-Neuter-Vaccinate-Return" Trial Programme to most, if not all, districts in Hong Kong.

Nevertheless, according to the reply given to us, the programme is still in the trial stage. Further discussions will be conducted upon its completion, subject to the results obtained. Moreover, the results obtained so far are relatively vague and it is still too early to draw any conclusion. This is the reply given by Sophia CHAN, the Under Secretary for Food and Health. I do not blame her for this, since she is an expert in medical care and is accustomed to looking at the matter from the human perspective. What should we do then? These medical practitioners and nurses keep telling us that they care for animals very much and will do their best. However, they have completely based their 7040 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 rationale on human health protection. They think that animals are dirty and will create problems for human beings, and should thus be eradicated when human beings are affected.

Yet, some people say that there is nothing wrong for the Food and Health Bureau to look at the matter from the perspectives of human health and food safety. I sincerely hope that under the leadership of Carrie LAM, the Government of the next term will give due consideration to taking some actions to protect animal rights and benefits. Alternatively, consideration can be given to first legislating for the protection of animal welfare because it may take a very long time to deliberate on the issue of animal rights and benefits. Secondly, policy matters relating to animals should be put under the purview of the Environment Bureau rather than AFCD. I hope the Government will seriously consider making the change. Although such a move may have wide implications, the first step can be taken before the issue is further considered later.

There is also the issue of establishing animal police, which Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has mentioned just now. I understand that this issue has no direct relationship with the subjects under discussion, but with the establishment of animal police, more can be done to relieve the hardship faced by community animals. They will receive more help and care, and they can even be adopted directly. When animals are under the care of animal police, the $1 million odd funding allocated for the performance of euthanasia can really be saved. Thank you, Chairman.

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I will speak on Mr CHAN Chi-chuen's Amendment No. 116 concerning the Secretary for Food and Health. In a public hearing held in Conference Room 1 of the Legislative Council Complex, a lady, in her thirties, said that she was the parent of a single-parent family. She openly said that she did not want to die and hoped that the Government could help her because she was a patient with a rare disease. Unfortunately, after saying the above, she could no longer air her grievances in a public hearing of the Legislative Council. She is now dead and has gone to another world.

This example tells that at present, there are indeed some cases in Hong Kong in which the patients could not afford the drugs, which are available for purchase, and they died as a result. There are not too many patients with rare LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7041 diseases in Hong Kong and the expenditure on their medical treatment is around $300 million and less than $400 million. These patients who need to buy special drugs have to turn to the Community Care Fund or the Samaritan Fund for assistance since there is no similar mechanisms in the Government. I have no idea whether Chairman knows about this, I mean the Government helps them by way of charity.

This single mother told her story in the Legislative Council, which is supposed to serve the Hong Kong people and voice their opinions. This mother of a 12-year-old daughter has already left us. Her example, which I quoted, unfolds the plight of many patients of rare diseases under the health care system in Hong Kong. I heard Mr CHAN Chi-chuen and Ms Claudia MO talking about animal rights. The authorities are treating animals very badly, and indeed, are treating people extremely badly as well. This example of this patient of a rare disease still fails to move the Government.

On the other hand, we will spend $640 million to celebrate the anniversary of the establishment of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("HKSAR"). Bureaux Directors will distribute "fortune bags" in various districts. At present, ZHANG Dejiang is already in Macao giving out orders. The authorities very much hope that citizens of the whole territory will join the activities to celebrate the 20th anniversary of the establishment of HKSAR. However, among the appropriation items under our recent scrutiny, there was an item of expenditure for subsidizing the Walt Disney Company of the United States and we could see how avaricious that company was. Most Legislative Council Members found that this was far too much and like filling up a black hole. However, we would be reproved if we did not approve the funding application. Our request is very simple. If the Government really needs to grant a large sum of funding to the company while knowing that this is tantamount to filling up a black hole, I would ask the Government to consider what can be done to those helpless people. The Government, however, shows no sincerity. The Secretary, Dr Fernando CHEUNG and some of us held a meeting with the Hospital Authority and the related government officials yesterday, but they said that there would only be an arrangement in December. That lady came to the Legislative Council not long ago and it is still fresh in our memory. Secretary, if she came to see you now, you would be very scared, as it is basically impossible for you to find her.

7042 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

The second patient was not one who had a rare disease. A social worker and I helped the old lady in this picture ask for assistance from the Social Welfare Department ("SWD"), as her husband, a Comprehensive Social Security Assistance recipient of over 70 years of age, was suffering from prostate cancer. The hospital said that no drugs would be given to him as the drugs that he needed were not on the Drug Formulary. The targeted therapy drugs that this patient needed cost more than $30,000, and thus the hospital would not prescribe any drugs for him. Chairman, what can we do? Imagine someone told you that he was not going to give you any medical treatment. You said, "'Long Hair', my illness cannot be cured." Then I said, "It cannot be cured. You are just doomed as you simply do not have money to buy the drugs." You would feel angry upon hearing that, right? However, this is what really happened in our health care system, Honourable Members. The hospital staff said, "I am sorry. The drugs that you need are not on the Drug Formulary. You should seek assistance on your own." We of course needed to do a lot of work and exchange a lot of letters. Finally, on 24 April … Secretary, this is not related to you but to SWD. SWD reaps what you have sown. Your staff said that no subsidy would be given to those drugs that he needed as they were not on the Drug Formulary and then asked the patient to leave. Or in similar situations, the patients can continue to stay in the hospital but they will not be given any drugs till the day they die of the disease.

What did the social worker say? He said that SWD could not offer help and asked us to apply to the Samaritan Fund. Ms Carol YIP, Director of Social Welfare, in fact did not meet me on the day. Someone asked her about this and she replied that we should be able to find some assistance. Chairman, we indeed found something―a dead body. After meeting with the staff of SWD on 24 April, that old man passed away in the hospital bed on 27 April. About the drugs that you have applied for him, you can have them yourself.

This is our system. Twenty years after the handover, Hong Kong is getting better and we have very conspicuous achievements … I was upstairs when I heard Mr CHAN Chi-chuen and Ms Claudia MO talking about animal rights, and I really could not help coming downstairs to speak. Human rights are even worse, right? Secretary, I have begged you for numerous times to provide dental services to the elderly. I ask the authorities to set up a dental clinic in every district and the services should not exclude dental prosthetics and scaling when tooth extraction service can be provided. In that case, when an elderly person has a toothache, he does not need to wake up at three o'clock in the morning to go to another district in the dark, in the hope that there will be fewer LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7043 civil servants to receive dental services in that district. I think those who are watching live broadcast of this meeting do not understand why going to another district can be better. It is because our dental clinics offer priority to civil servants. If some civil servants do not want to receive cross-district dental services, the clinic will have extra time-slots for these elderly people to receive urgent dental services. But they still need to go early to queue up for the service and this may just for extracting one tooth. I make the same request every year.

Chairman, you cut, or rather tailor, the filibuster this year. The Budget debate will come to an end very soon, and the public officers will suffer less. In fact, there is a limit to the suffering of public officers. Later on, pro-establishment Members will press the "yes" button and speak highly of them, and we can regard this as break even. At present, the lazy ones are superior, and they have nothing to worry about when the filibuster is tailored.

Chairman, we have been talking about these systems year after year. Secretary, since you may not be in that position again in the next term, it will only be wasting my time criticizing you. I am not going to criticize you. Has the Government reserved any area when developing the community? You always say, "'Long Hair', it is not the case that we do not want to do it or reserve some areas." However, have you ever asked the Secretary for Development or the Permanent Secretary of the Development Bureau, who is also the Chairman of the Town Planning Board, "We must have a dental clinic in each district. Please identify some sites for me, otherwise certain areas from the Government Office Complexes will be taken for this purpose." Have you ever said that? The Government plans to build a mega Court and new Government Offices in West Kowloon. The backup storage of the public libraries alone occupies six floors. Have you ever proposed that some areas be reserved for building dental clinics? The answer is in the negative.

These two lives could have been saved. You and your colleagues only keep saying, "They can be saved. Mr LEUNG, they can definitely be saved." They could be saved if you could find them. But they cannot be found now. Secretary, you may go and find them tonight. You would be lucky if they did not look for you tonight. You just go to find them and save their lives. Medical practitioners should be kind-hearted but the authorities did not say anything fair to them, and Ms Carol YIP did not even shed a tear. Secretary, have you ever shed a tear for them? Or did you go to attend the celebratory activity of Chiu Chow Natives Association with Matthew CHEUNG? Public 7044 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 officers like to say that they have official business when they are supposed to attend public hearings. However, they are reluctant to tell us the details when we ask them. Back then, the Secretary said that he would be too busy with his official business. When I asked him where he was going, he just equivocated. In fact he went to attend the handover celebratory activity of Chiu Chow Natives Association with Matthew CHEUNG in order to lick his boots.

Chairman, this is how the Secretary treat us. I will later speak on universal retirement protection. Nonetheless, these two genuine examples deserve response from the Secretary later. How many more lives will be claimed in Hong Kong? The number of rare disease cases can be enumerated and the Government can help such patients live longer. Paul CHAN says that he will reserve $18 billion for education purpose. I do not mean that education should not be developed, but a small fraction, perhaps a hundred-and-eightieth of that $18 billion will be enough for maintaining the lives of two patients, right? If I do not reprove him, how can it be fair to the deceased? If the Government takes out $5 billion from the surplus of $18 billion, the dental clinics can be built or subsidies can be provided to the elderly for them to receive private dental services.

Chairman, I feel very angry when it comes to this subject, and I believe that Dr Fernando CHEUNG will also speak on it later. I am infuriated when it comes to animal rights, and even more infuriated when it comes to human rights. About drugs for rare diseases, Hong Kong allocates less expenditure on this item when compared with Singapore or Australia. However, our economy is better than theirs and our surplus from taxation is more than theirs. Why has it turned out like this? Leaving other requests aside, I just ask the Government to relieve the pain of the retired elderly, but the Government always says that it does not have enough money and is unable to do that. The Government replies similarly when I ask it to help them live in this world a bit longer. Then what does the Government want? We asked the Government to treat the students from Primary 1 to 3 better and spare them from taking the Territory-wide System Assessment ("TSA"), but the Government introduced the Basic Competency Assessment ("BCA") afterwards. Is it not standing against people? Although under the present tailoring of the filibuster in the Legislative Council, we do not have the chance to reprove the Government, public officers should have a sense of shame, frankly speaking. They are still boasting about their role of the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7045 so-called super-connector, while LEUNG Chun-ying even talks about bringing people to visit the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Bay Area. I will ask him to properly carry out his own duties first, as the property prices are still on the rise.

Chairman, I very much hope that Secretary Dr KO Wing-man will answer the question I just raised, and that is, whether he will ask the Government to allocate some funding to save those lives that can be saved. I am not going to mention other issues, but will discuss the question of universal retirement protection during the second debate session.

DR LAU SIU-LAI (in Cantonese): Chairman, I speak on subhead 000 under head 141, asking to cut the estimated expenditure by an amount equivalent to one-month personal emolument of the Secretary for Labour and Welfare.

The Secretary for Labour and Welfare is responsible for the formulation of laws and measures in the areas of poverty alleviation, labour, manpower, and welfare policies, including the elderly care services. Of course, the Secretary for Labour and Welfare has neglected his duties in many policy areas he is responsible for. He has not done any good jobs in poverty alleviation, labour, and manpower. Yet, I will focus my speech on the elderly care services as my prime concern is still the welfare of the elderly, which is also the most important reason for my political engagement.

Not only Hong Kong but also the international community, I think, are aware of the fact that life is not easy for the elderly people in Hong Kong. In everyday life, we can simply see many of them not properly dressed and fed. We can also see in our daily life that many elderly people have to scavenge cardboard for a living. Recently, a number of magazine interviews have also revealed that the elderly people really eat poorly while some even cannot bath with hot water as they have no money to settle the electricity bill. These elderly have to get some hot water from the convenience stores downstairs as they sneak around and live without dignity.

Even if we leave aside these subjective observations and simply look into some valid statistics, we can still notice how poorly we are treating the elderly in Hong Kong. Before citing the statistical figures, I am keen to explain why I am particularly concerned about the elderly problem. On the surface, the elderly are 7046 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 one of the social groups; in reality, ageing is one of our life stages that everyone will experience. Even if you are still young now, you will age some day. When we look at how the elderly live at present, neither I nor many young people see any hope.

Today's elderly are those who have contributed the better part of their lives to help Hong Kong develop from a small fishing port to a financial cosmopolis. It is through their hard work that the Treasury can build up its fiscal reserves and the capitalists accumulate their wealth. Therefore, it is just natural for this society to take care of the elderly, allowing them to enjoy life in their twilight years. When they were young, this city was very poor and their wages were utterly low. They gave birth to their children and reared them, living from hand to mouth, and giving everything to society and their children. Hardly could they make a saving for themselves. Now, when their children have grown up and society has developed prosperously and stably, the high inflation rate and soaring property prices force them to eke out a living with their small savings in this affluent society which they had once helped build up. Many elderly people do not have their own properties and thus live in public rental housing units. Many others, who are property owners though, are living in their cheap and dilapidated tenement buildings with poor facilities. As such, today's elderly are badly in need of care services. Unfortunately, instead of providing concrete assistance to the elderly, our Government is merely engaged in empty talk casually. This explains why many elderly people are leading such miserable lives.

I would like to talk about the monetary assistance provided to the elderly. When the Old Age Living Allowance ("OALA") was launched in 2012, the Government said the assets test was part and parcel of OALA, which was a poverty alleviation measure introduced at the time, and it was running out of money amid the ageing population. With the anticipated reduction of local workforce and a rising elderly population by 2020, a prudent means test was required to limit the Government's spending on OALA. Let us listen to this explanation for the time being and assume that the objective of this policy is to alleviate poverty. What will be the results of OALA five years after its implementation? Following the Government's intervention in a form of monetary assistance, which includes the payment of Comprehensive Social Security Assistance, the "fruit grant", OALA, and the disability allowance, among the original 400 000 elderly people living in poverty, some 300 000 people―296 000 elderly in 2012―are still living in poverty. Indeed, no LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7047 improvement has been made. The amounts of allowance and monetary assistance provided to them are so insignificant that basically they are still living in poverty without dignity.

Let us forget the first year of the policy implementation now and go on with the situation after five years. For example, what are the relatively more recent figures, such as those of 2015? There were still 300 000 elderly living in poverty after the policy intervention. What does this figure tell us? This serves to prove that the relevant policies are really stingy, so that even with policy intervention, the elderly are still living in poverty and have to scavenge cardboard and soft drink cans to earn just several dollars. I often repeat this remark in the hope that government officials can heed my advice. Nowadays, we will need to collect 150 soft drink cans to buy a pineapple bun. Actually, the elderly can hardly pay for their daily meals. If they can work to earn several dollars, they will do so; if they can skip a meal to save money, they will also do so. Witnessing the meager gain from their toil and the hard life the elderly people are living, how can the young people have hope in the future? I see no hope ahead, and neither do my assistants. That is why the young generation have initiated a campaign in support of retirement protection. They are very concerned about the elderly affairs because while they themselves also earn meager income, they still have to take care of the elderly in their family. This is all because the Government does not shoulder this responsibly properly.

In its review of the policy implementation after five years, instead of examining the applicability of the means test, the Government introduced perfunctorily the so-called Higher OALA to shirk its responsibility. I really do not understand why the Government can be so inconsistence. When OALA was launched five years ago, the Government stated clearly that OALA in its existing form was introduced lest the Government might not be able to bear the financial responsibility. However, why has the Government not reviewed its financial affordability when it introduces this Higher OALA five years later? Even the Secretary for Labour and Welfare has stated that there will be cost overrun sooner or later, which will inevitably result in tax increase as this Higher OALA is funded solely by the Government. However, the Secretary has not given any details about the taxes to be increased. This Higher OALA is introduced despite the fact that some local scholars have already put forward "the 2064 Proposal" (formerly known as "the Scholar Proposal") for the implementation of the universal retirement protection. The Proposal has clearly explained how such a scheme should be funded to support the long-term retirement life of the elderly. 7048 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

It is suggested that a mode of tripartite contribution be adopted, a start-up fund be established, and a minimum amount of allowance be set to enable the elderly to live with dignity, as well as a bottom line to secure the sustainability and affordability of the scheme. Why have government officials turned a blind eye to the Proposal? Ignoring a proposal that is sustainable, the Government haphazardly turns to the scheme which is bound to face cost overrun. Is it the Government's plan to scrap its proposal later or does it plan to increase taxes, such as introducing the sales tax, to make the grass roots pay more but enable the rich to pay less? The Government has been silent about all these issues, proving that it is escaping from its responsibility and dare not request the businessmen, as the employers, to shoulder the responsibility of the retirement protection of their employees. The Government, which is no longer serious in taking forward the universal retirement protection, takes a strange step to introduce a slack scheme, the Higher OALA.

Elderly services are indeed a heavy and serious responsibility. Let us leave monetary assistance aside first. In addition to financial support, the elderly are more in need of daily care. Indeed, many people need residential care services whey they reach their twilight years. Unfortunately, some 5 000 to 6 000 elderly people who were on the waiting list for residential services died in each of the past five year. They died in the course of waiting for places of residential care homes for the elderly ("RCHEs") due to our Government's slack attitude in providing support services. How can a government with a sense of commitment act like this? We ought to have proper planning, a good grasp of the demographics, and a clear idea of the elderly population for the years ahead. Proper planning should be made in relation to the ratio of RCHE place provision. But why were there still so many elderly people who died while waiting for RCHE places in all these past years? Where on earth are our planning standards? Is there any estimation and commitment? I can see none in our Government.

Given that some elderly people have passed away while waiting for RCHE places, I wonder if community care services are provided to the elderly living in their homes. The answer is definitely no. The Government has been paying lip service to the idea of ageing in place. While it has said time and again that more resources would be allocated to community care services, after all, only 14 places will be provided for every 1 000 elderly people. Resources allocated to this service area are negligible, with the number of social workers serving the elderly across the territory being kept at 60 teams for many years. Funding provided to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7049 these community organizations are so limited that in the face of the resource constraint, they can only deliver meals to the elderly every other day, or no meal delivery service will be provided on weekends and public holidays when the volunteers and/or staff are off duty. As a result, those elderly people relying on meal delivery service will have to scrimp on food or wait for the meal delivery service provided by "Brother Ming" and other charities on Saturdays and Sundays. When we call for enhancement of residential services, the Government says that there are community care services to facilitate ageing in place. When we request community services for ageing in place, the Government just pays lip service, saying casually that such services have been implemented. The result is that most elderly people are not aware of these services. Even if they have applied for the services, they have to wait for as long as several years. Even if the elderly people can receive the care services, such services are provided in a slack and perfunctory manner, depriving them of dignity. I would like to point out that in developed regions worldwide, the ratio of community care services to residential care services is 70% to 30%. Perversely, it is a reverse of such a ratio in Hong Kong, with 70% of the elderly living in RCHEs without dignity and 30% of them residing in their homes to receive perfunctory care services.

Has our Government been regulating the residential services in a proper and responsible manner after sending so many elderly people into RCHEs? For 20 years, no amendment has been made to the Residential Care Homes (Elderly Persons) Ordinance, for which only very lax requirements are provided. The manpower ratio in RCHEs is unsatisfactory while the monitoring is ineffective. To the elderly residents, living in RCHEs is like falling into a hell on the earth. Incidents of abuse in institution for the elderly have occurred one after another. Only after repeated cases of abuse that the Government has come out to express a superficial concern and respond casually that the service quality of RCHEs would be enhanced, saying that a lot of them will reach the level of EA1 homes in due course. The level of EA1 homes are just words of niceties. Because of the unsatisfactory manpower ratio of RCHEs, the residents there do not have enough exercise and do not have any social life at all. Are such hospice services and elderly services what we want? We can all witness how the elderly are harshly treated by the Government in terms of the provision of residential care services, community care services, as well as monetary assistance. We do not see any hope in society. Not only do the elderly feel hopeless. In the face of the pressure from maintaining their parents, the middle-aged and the young people do not see any hope either.

7050 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

Therefore, I very much hope that the Government can understand that the daily and residential care services for the elderly as well as universal retirement protection are the most important elements which make Hong Kong people see hope and help mend the rifts in society. However, despite its ample fiscal reserves, the Government has done nothing except letting the elderly continue to suffer. How can this convince Hong Kong people? In their eyes, they can only see a group of senior Government officials living in their la la land and letting the elderly suffer and society become hopeless. With the Government having ample reserves, these officials either keep them in the Treasury or invest them in meaningless "white elephant" infrastructures. Some $30 billion has been invested in the Kai Tak Sports Park and more than $100 billion spent on the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge. How can we continue to live in such a mean society which prefers investing in infrastructure works to paying for the welfare of the elderly. How can we not think that it is justifiable for the Secretary for Labour and Welfare to have a salary cut? After all, it is not excessive to recoup his salary paid over these years. But then, why do I just propose a one-month salary reduction? It is just nominal and value-for-money reduction, through which I hope he can understand that even taking out one-month salary of his can already help 155 elderly people who are waiting for community care services (The buzzer sounded) … The figure is astounding.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr LAU, please stop speaking immediately.

MR SHIU KA-CHUN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I propose to move an amendment to the Appropriation Bill 2017 to reduce the operational expenses of the Social Welfare Department ("SWD") amounting to $3.7 million. The objective is to reduce the estimated expenditure for employing in contract terms eight retired disciplined service officers to assist the inspections at residential care homes for the elderly and residential care homes for persons with disabilities.

On the surface, the amendment appears to be a bit odd because in my capacity as a Member representing the social welfare sector, I should desire for a substantial increase in Hong Kong's social welfare expenses under most circumstances. In that respect, I consider that the expenditures of SWD, the executive arm in charge of Hong Kong's social welfare, should be increased to improve and enhance Hong Kong's social welfare benefits. Unfortunately, under the constraint of Article 73 of the Basic Law, Members can only "examine LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7051 and approve budgets introduced by the government". In the present circumstance, instead of proposing an increase, Members can only propose a reduction in the allocation of the Appropriation Bill.

Although amendments proposed by Members are under the constraint of the Basic Law, surely it does not mean that Members should vote to have everything passed. Since Members from the pro-establishment camp can scrutinize Government motions independently, I find it a bit strange why they do not make good use of the mere power of the legislature and seize the opportunity to propose amendments, so as to make the Appropriation Bill more compatible with programmes promoted or advocated by Members at normal times. I sincerely beg Members, in particular pro-establishment Members, to listen carefully to the reason why I propose the amendment and hopefully they will support my amendment.

Incidents that took place at residential care homes, including the elderly abuse case at Cambridge Nursing Home in 2015 and the suspected case of sexual assault at Bridge of Rehabilitation Company in 2016, have aroused great public concerns over the qualities of residential care homes. I have witnessed personally that Ms Carol YIP, Director of Social Welfare, shed tears in a closed meeting for the tragedies that happened in low quality residential care homes, such as that of the Bridge of Rehabilitation Company. At that time, the public presented their views on two issues. First, concerning the administration of law and justice, people considered that there were loopholes in the laws to protect "mentally incapacitated persons". Since this is not the focus of today's discussion, I will leave it here. Second, there were many concerns about the qualities of these residential care homes. Such concerns included the operations and management of private residential care homes, SWD's licensing system, the monitoring system, the manpower ratio set out in the Code of Practice, as well as the serious shortage in the places of subsidized residential care homes.

In fact, we should focus on the ways to improve the qualities of residential care homes so that elderly people who have to be institutionalized eventually, people with disabilities, as well as people who have different needs, may live a dignified life with their basic needs secured. Please note that I am talking about "life", which is somewhat different from "existence". Life refers to secured provision of the basic needs, which is something more than existence. We should discuss how to build a dignified residence for the most vulnerable people 7052 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 in society and how we can cater for the needs of life for those who have been institutionalized. For them to live a dignified life, residents of residential care homes should be provided with privacy and the freedom of choice. They should be allowed to choose what they prefer, develop their own hobbies and demonstrate their capabilities. To live a life is more than living within four walls. It includes safety, social communication and interactions with the neighbourhood or community. Their needs, namely clothing, food, accommodation and transport, as well as medical, social and recreational needs, should be catered for. They should be free from worries about meals or residence. All these are the basic needs of a person, which should be faced squarely and discussed in the context of welfare policies or residential care homes system. These issues should be incorporated into system considerations.

Nevertheless, after the incident of the Bridge of Rehabilitation Company, it seems that SWD has heightened its concern about the dignity and living of elderly residents and the disabled in these residential care homes. However, what actual improvements have been made to the system? Such improvements cover the manpower ratio of residential care homes, the licensing criteria for private residential care homes, amendments to the Code of Practice, supporting services and rehabilitation programmes for residents of residential care homes, as well as eradicating residential care homes of poor quality. Unfortunately, the Government has still failed to achieve anything.

Perhaps the Secretary pays more attention than we do to SWD's previous proposal to create the post of an Assistant Director of Social Welfare tasked to monitor residential care homes. The proposal was endorsed by the Panel on Welfare Services, the Establishment Subcommittee and the Finance Committee. I hope the Secretary will initiate the legislative amendments to residential care homes as quickly as possible. Dr Fernando CHEUNG and I will be more than happy to join the Bills Committee and to participate in amending the legislation with the Secretary and other colleagues.

I concern about improving the well-being and quality of living of the elderly and people with disabilities. Therefore, I have to consider what arrangement can help enhance their quality of living. The hardware and facilities of residential care homes are only part of the consideration. The supporting software also requires our urgent concern. However, SWD's response to the incident focused on the regulatory power as it hoped that those LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7053 people's well-being and quality of living could be improved through regulatory measures. Regulation, regulation and regulation. Regulatory efforts must be made according to standards, rules and ordinances. If these are not amended, what can be regulated? The bigger problem is: Why should SWD spend $3.7 million to employ eight retired officers of the disciplined services to assist in inspecting residential care homes for the elderly and persons with disabilities? How can they help enhance the quality of living of the elderly and persons with disabilities? I consider that it is a total irrelevant measure, and even a mismatched piecemeal approach.

As to SWD's "enhanced regulatory measures" and "strengthened inspection", they just send SWD's staff to inspect the hardware of residential care homes, audit the paperwork, see if all the records are properly kept and whether their work is in compliance with the procedure. Eventually, this will only further increase the administrative work of residential care homes. As a result, their frontline staff will have even less time to handle the residents of residential care homes. Their answerability has increased but they have less responsibilities. They have more paperwork and meetings to deal with, but their sincerity and commitment have decreased. I am very concerned about that. I just cannot understand why SWD must employ eight retired officers from disciplined services to inspect residential care homes. Is SWD trying to tell the public, intentionally or otherwise, that residential care homes are really dangerous, and that the residents there should go home as soon as possible because many criminal offences are also involved? Is it necessary to employ retired disciplined service officers to check the paperwork and observe the complementary hardware of residential care homes? SWD has never given a direct answer to this question. What I care about is the improvement in the quality of residential care homes, but SWD says it has to enhance the regulatory measures. Even if we do make an excessively enormous concession and even if the enhanced regulatory measures can improve the quality of residential care homes, why should retired disciplined service officers be employed?

Dr Fernando CHEUNG and I have formed a civil inspection team which comprises medical practitioners, physiotherapists, nurses, clinic psychologists, social workers and colleagues who have once operated such residential care homes. We have conducted inspection visits to private residential care homes and service enhancement work on 29 October 2016, 28 December and 5 February 7054 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

2017 respectively, with our own resources and time. We not only inspected the hardware, Secretary, we inspected not only whether the residential care homes were clean and tidy, whether they had wet floors, or what the conditions of their canteens and kitchens were. Of course we did inspect those things. At the same time, we also asked their staff to demonstrate their lifting and transfer techniques so that we could assess whether the lifting and transfer jobs were properly done and the workers had adequate knowledge and experience.

I remember that during our visit, they were arguing whether a resident should be laid down on the floor or lifted up immediately in case he or she had an epileptic seizure at the moment. Our professional staff gave the advice immediately and told them that the resident should be made to sit upright instead of lying on the floor.

Ours is a civil inspection team established with our own resources and time. Our professional members have completed a report with practical suggestions on private residential care homes. Not long ago, we have also sent the report to Miss Annie TAM Kam-lan, the Permanent Secretary for Labour and Welfare who has just retired earlier. I hope she has forwarded the report to the Secretary and see if we can learn from each other.

In fact some professionals and family members of the residents are conducting very good inspections. I do not see the need to hire retired disciplined service officers. I will surely give my strong support if SWD says it needs the funding to employ doctors, physiotherapists, nurses, clinical psychologists and social workers to help residents and residential care homes to arrange rehabilitation services, or for strengthening the training of staff working in residential care homes, formulating personal care and rehabilitation plans for residents, or enhancing the residents' quality of living.

If Members can propose an increase to the allocation, I will definitely request to increase SWD's allocation for employing various professionals not only for regulatory purpose, but also for improving the residents' quality of life. Unfortunately, Members are only vested with the power to reduce the allocation instead of proposing amendments to increase the allocation. As such, I can only move the amendment to reduce the estimated expenditure.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7055

Secretary, in the practical suggestions made by our professionals on private residential care homes, we have explored the role of physiotherapists in such homes. These therapists may play a leading role in the prevention and treatment of sickness, as well as providing personalized assessment and rehabilitation plan for residents to minimize their risk of hospitalization. They can help improve the facilities of residential care homes and ensure an overall safe environmental. They can provide education and training on occupational safety and health care to the staff of residential care homes to prevent residents from falling and injuries to staff. These are very specific roles that they can play.

As to clinical psychologists, we consider that among all members of the inspection team, they can safeguard the mental well-being of residents. They can also provide staff training, case enquiry and consultation as well as clinical intervention. In fact, many residents are suffering from various emotion and cognitive function impairments, thus they really need assessment and psychotherapy with scientific evidences.

I need not say much about medical practitioners. However, some doctors of the outreaching service are attached to the Hospital Authority. I think the Secretary knows that very well. They visit residential care homes for the elderly to conduct follow-up consultation or treatment. But what I wish to say is that residential care homes for persons with disabilities are not on the list. In fact, residents in residential care homes for persons with disabilities, who are also weak and vulnerable, frequently fall ill. How can they enjoy professional support from medical practitioners?

With regards to social workers, nurses and so on, they also play a vital role in the residential care homes inspection team. For example, social workers are playing the role of resource distributor and case manager. I have repeated many times that Hong Kong adopts an approach which differ very much from overseas countries in case management. The names are the same but the contents are widely different. What we are asking for is not just referral of cases. We need case managers who will design personalized services for residents from a professional perspective to provide different supportive services to them by monitoring their various needs at different stages. In fact, social workers can play this role.

We hope the Government does not conduct the review and enhancement of residential care homes through regulatory measure only. If so, I am sorry, I can only propose the amendment to the allocation which involves $3.7 million. May 7056 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

I repeat, Secretary, that the Government always talks about three things, namely "poverty alleviation, elderly care, and support for the disadvantaged". However, what will it do to avoid mere lip service? I hope that everyone of us will act with sincerity, intensity and tenacity to get the matter done, even though we only have very little time left.

Chairman, I so submit.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I remind Members that according to the debate arrangement, this debate will end at about 4:10 pm today.

I will call upon public officers to speak at about 2:20 pm. After public officers have spoken, I will call upon Members who have proposed amendments to speak again. This debate will come to a close after the relevant Members have spoken.

Members who wish to speak, particularly those who have not yet spoken, will please press the "Request to speak" button as early as possible.

MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, first of all, I will focus my speech today on Amendment Nos. 116 to 120, which concern subhead 000 of head 139. Amendment Nos. 116 and 117, which are proposed by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen and Dr LAU Siu-lai, seek to cut the expenditure for the emolument of the Secretary for Food and Health. Amendment Nos. 118 and 119, proposed by Dr LAU Siu-lai, seek to cut the expenditure for the one-month emolument of the Under Secretary for Food and Health and the Political Assistant respectively. Amendment No. 120, which is proposed by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, seeks to cut the expenditure for the annual emolument of Head (Healthcare Planning and Development Office).

I support all the five amendments. The reason is simple. The health care system in Hong Kong is plagued with problems. First, there is a serious shortage of health care resources, and both funding allocation and staff establishment are persistently low. Second, planning is unsatisfactory and there is the problem of resource mismatch. Resources are already insufficient, but this is even compounded by a resource mismatch that sees an inappropriate deployment of resources. These problems are very real. In my opinion, the government officials of the Food and Health Bureau have neglected their duties, thus victimizing the public. Hence, it is necessary to deduct their emoluments.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7057

In a word, the biggest problem with the public health care system of Hong Kong is that resource increases are far slower than the growth of service demand. We all know that the ageing problem of Hong Kong is very serious. At present, people aged 65 or above account for 16.6% of the total population of Hong Kong. The ageing population has greatly boosted the demand for public health care services. The average waiting times for accident and emergency ("A&E") services and specialist clinic services have become longer and longer. The occupancy rate of public hospital beds is persistently higher than 90%. During influenza peak seasons, the situation is even more acute; wards are crammed beyond capacity and it is necessary to provide temporary beds, some of which must even be placed along corridors. The Hospital Authority ("HA") says that it has already reserved $267 million for the addition of 229 hospital beds. Chairman, how much money is $267 million? We have just passed a several billion-dollar funding proposal for the expansion of the Hong Kong Disneyland. This amount of money is more than enough for procuring 229 hospital beds. It is actually enough for procuring 3 400 hospital beds. But the Government thinks that it must save the Disneyland rather than people. This is really absurd, isn't it?

How about our health care expenditure in the midst of these acute problems with the health care system? Healthcare expenditure still accounts for merely 5.4% of our Gross National Product, far lower than the rates in Asian countries like Korea and Taiwan, most European countries and the United States. Actually, the Government said a few years ago that it would increase health care expenditure to about 17% of its recurrent expenditure by 2012. Regrettably, this is only lip service. In 2017, health care expenditure still accounts for merely 16.7% of the recurrent expenditure, meaning that the aforesaid target has not been achieved. The Government has allocated the resources to other areas, rather than the area of health care as it originally promised. This is unacceptable.

With insufficient health care expenditure, our health care services have naturally declined in quality and failed to cope. Since the demand for public health care services is so great, how can the demand be met? According to the standards laid down by the World Health Organization ("WHO"), there should be at least 2.3 health care personnel for every 1 000 persons. But to Hong Kong, this ratio is just a luxury. Why? Because there are only about 13 000 medical doctors in Hong Kong and, according to the Government, less than half of them work in public hospitals. In other words, only a few thousand doctors practise in public hospitals, but public hospitals are taking up almost 90% of health care 7058 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 services in the territory. How can public hospitals possibly cope? Roughly calculated, there is only 0.8 doctor for every 1 000 citizens. This ratio is just one third of the WHO standards.

HA says every year that it will increase its manpower by about three to eight doctors. These words on manpower increase are appealing, but HA has not considered another problem, the problem of natural wastage. Actually, some 300 health care personnel retire or resign every year. Even primary school children know whether there is any actual manpower increase. We all know the answer only too well.

Chairman, yesterday, there occurred an incident which I consider very absurd. The carelessness of doctors at United Christian Hospital led to the acute liver failure of a patient named TANG Kwai-sze. She had to undergo two liver transplants and is still in critical condition now. Two doctors were involved in the process. Both of them failed to notice TANG's record as a hepatitis B carrier. What is so infuriating about this incident is that the hospital did not disclose the blunder and tender an apology until TANG's family members made repeated inquiries. Medical blunders are nothing new, but they are very frequent these days. I think the reasons may be resource and manpower shortage, short consultation sessions and hence insufficient time for doctors to have any prudent assessment of patients' conditions. We cannot know at this stage whether the medical incident involving Ms TANG was directly related to insufficient resources. But I think the series of medical incidents have already sounded the alarm for the health care system. Is the Government aware of the present situation? I fear that the Government may end up harming people, rather than saving them. I also fear that the Government will only care about how many "white elephant" projects are required, instead of paying any heed to people's need for health care resources.

Speaking of resources, we think the greatest absurdity is that when health care resources are already so tight, the Government still fails to allocate such resources correctly, making one mistake after another. I wish to point out that at present, HA does not apportion resources among its hospital clusters on the basis of their relative population sizes. Despite overall funding increases in recent years, the respective proportions of funding received by the various hospital clusters have remained largely unchanged. For instance, the Hong Kong West Cluster covers 7% of the population in the territory. The per capita income in this cluster is higher than those in others. The occupancy rate of its hospital beds has always been low, but it is still allocated 11% of the health care LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7059 resources, and its per capita operating cost is about $11,000. The case of the New Territory West Cluster is just the opposite, very different. The hospital wards in this cluster are often crammed beyond capacity, but it is only allocated 14% of the resources, and its per capita operating cost is only half that of the Hong Kong West Cluster. The New Territory West Cluster is not unique, as the New Territory East Cluster and the Kowloon East Cluster both face a similar situation. Actually, the money available is already not that much, standing at some $50 billion a year only. But HA still fails to apportion the money properly, making the resources unable to be used in the right places. I think the Secretary, government officials and particularly HA must all take the blame because they have failed to make good use of the money. Isn't this a justification for deducting their emoluments?

Besides, uneven distribution of resources is found not only among different hospital clusters but also among the different areas inside individual clusters. There is a heavy demand for public health care services in the New Territory West Cluster. We certainly know that this problem cannot be solved overnight. But we have been discussing the health care needs in this cluster for years. For example, at one time, we argued that it was necessary to build a hospital in Tin Shui Wai due to the heavy demand of grass-root people for public hospital and public health care services in the district. But the Government kept delaying the actual construction of a public hospital there, so many residents in the district could only seek medical services in Tuen Mun Hospital. Two months ago, Tin Shui Wai Hospital eventually started operation. But when residents thought that they could finally seek public health care services in their own neighbourhood, the authorities announced that Tin Shui Wai Hospital would only provide medical services for eight hours a day. Only eight hours. How about the rest of the time? They must go to Tuen Mun Hospital. The authorities say that manpower permitting, the service hours of Tin Shui Wai Hospital may be extended to 12 hours at the end of this year or early next year. Chairman, we are asking for 24 hours, not 12 hours. But now, they are stilling say that they do not know whether it is possible to provide services for 12 hours because all must depend on the availability of manpower? The Government seems indifferent to the current shortage of manpower and resources. If one says that government officials should not be held accountable, who else should be?

The Government often claims that it is already working very hard to alleviate the shortage of health care services. But the so-called solutions it has adopted are only palliatives. Why? Because they only resort to Elderly Health Care Vouchers, increases in the A&E fee and the concept of voluntary health 7060 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 insurance as ways to tackle the problem, to drive people to the private health care sector. The Government has not solved the problem, but it thinks it has. Have Members ever wondered why A&E services were originally free of charge but later became fee-charging? Why do the authorities still think that the fee is not high enough and wants a further increase now? Why? They claim that they do not want to see any abuses of A&E services. Actually, the point here should not be about any abuses of services. Has it ever occurred to the authorities why people want to seek A&E services in the very first place. The reason is that there is a shortage of medical services elsewhere. For instance, there are no 24-hour outpatient services and outpatient quotas are limited. We often say somewhat jokingly that if any members of the public want to use public health care services, it is very important that they must first know when they will fall sick. Why? Because it is impossible to see a doctor on the day they are sick, not even the next day. So, members of the public must know in advance when they will fall sick so that they can queue up beforehand.

But can the Government solve the problem by increasing the A&E fee? I would say the answer is definitely no. Why? After an increase in the A&E fee, private clinics will definitely follow suit, right? They will also do so. Now, people need to pay $300 to $400 for a private medical consultation with a two-day prescription, or three-day if the doctor is more reasonable. If the prices of private medical consultation also go up, how many people can still afford? So, at the end of the day, they will have to go back to A&E departments for treatment. I thus think that increasing the A&E fee or providing Elderly Health Care Vouchers cannot possibly solve the problem. Doing so will only put the cart before the horse. The Government should properly and pragmatically provide more community health care services. This is the only solution.

There is one more thing that I find very regrettable. The Secretary and the Government keep saying that HA will ensure that no one will be deprived of appropriate medical care due to financial reasons. But is this the case in reality? Definitely not. As Members can see, apart from the shortage of health care resources and manpower I mentioned just now, there is another problem, the problem that the HA Drug Formulary ("Drug Formulary") is all the time unable to keep abreast of patients' needs. We all know that many patients (especially rare-disease patients) are unable to meet their drugs expenses, and they rely heavily on the publicly-funded drugs in the Drug Formulary. Unfortunately, the Government still ignores such patients even when it sees that they are dying.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7061

Many patient groups have been telling us that many drugs are not included in the Drug Formulary, and they ask whether such drugs can be added. The Government, however, has never heeded our request. I once wrote to the Secretary, the Under Secretary and HA officials, asking them whether they would have a meeting with patient groups on tackling the problems with the Drug Formulary. But most regrettably, they did not even want to see us. I do not know why. These days, the SAR Government is not even willing to meet with the public during office hours. This is simply absurd, isn't it? Why do they even refuse to listen to the feelings of patients? I once said to the Under Secretary that seeing such patients and listening to their feelings could be a form of treatment that can help ease their stress and make them feel that the Government cares about them. Why does the Government even refuse to do such a simple thing?

Members may still remember the lady who came to the Legislative Council to ask the Government to include a certain drug in the Drug Formulary, so that she could receive the required treatment. It is so regrettable that just a few days after she had made the request, she passed away.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Chairman, my speech will focus on Amendment No. 116 put forth by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen. It seeks to cut a total of $894,000, an amount roughly equivalent to the expenditure for the remuneration of the Secretary for Food and Health from April to June 2017.

Chairman, I am caught in a difficult position. The popularity of Secretary Dr KO Wing-man is the highest among the officials in the Government of the present term. Compared with other ill-performed officials under the leadership of "689", Secretary Dr KO's performance is by no means unsatisfactory. Nevertheless, can we therefore say that Secretary Dr KO should not be held responsible for the various problems with Hong Kong's health care services so far? People can make their own judgments.

The most saddening incident these days is the one involving TANG Kwai-sze. Yesterday, the United Christian Hospital ("UCH") announced a medical blunder involving TANG Kwai-sze. Many friends from the media have come to interview me to ascertain my views in these two days. As a medical 7062 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 practitioner myself, I can say for sure that doctors make mistakes as well. Doctors are no saints, and it is absolutely possible that they may commit amateurish mistakes like anybody else. The crux of the incident, however, should not be ascribed to the two doctors concerned. Many people and frontline doctors have questioned whether it is fair to put all the blame on the two doctors. Perhaps they can only spend 5 minutes on a specialist case and 10 minutes on a new case. With over 100 patients waiting outside their consultation rooms, doctors simply have no time for lunch, nor can they leave on time. They are facing immense pressure. Besides, due to the persistent wastage of health care personnel, especially those at middle and senior levels, they have to bear very heavy workloads. Consultant doctors must be accountable to their superiors and take up the duty of training new doctors at the same time.

The crux of the problem lies in why the governance of the Hospital Authority ("HA") can be so outrageous, rather than the medical blunder itself. UCH became aware of the incident on 6 April, but it did not report it to HA until two weeks later. After learning the incident on 20 April, HA hid the case and refrained from telling the people involved until last weekend. Many officials came forward to make repeated public calls for organ donation to save the life of Ms TANG Kwai-sze since 9 April. Some Legislative Council Members even intended to enact legislation for reason of urgency. In this incident, Miss CHENG was the first person who donated part of her liver, and this in turn saved the life of Ms TANG Kwai-sze.

This incident has revealed to us that HA's governance is a total failure. May I ask who will accept HA's quality of governance today? Soon after assuming office, the Secretary set up the Steering Committee on Review of Hospital Authority. In July 2015, he released a report in his capacity as Chairman of the Steering Committee. The report clearly states the necessity to improve HA's governance and structure. Members may ask anybody whether they have any knowledge of HA's membership. I once asked some journalists, and they invariably replied in the negative. How come a public organization can perform so outrageously that its work is unknown to anybody? How come the HA Chief Executive and Chairman can perform so outrageously to the point of refusing to show up after the incident? What kind of governance is this? HA spends $50 billion a year, and the health and wellness of some 7 million people are in its hands.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7063

Does Secretary Dr KO still remember our joint scrutiny of the criteria for setting up a Hospital Authority as set out in the Scott Report back then? The Report stated that since the Medical and Health Department ("MHD") was unable to meet the prevailing needs as its governance was constrained by its civil service structure and lacked flexibility, it was necessary to set up a statutory organization with much freedom and flexibility. The Report also made various undertakings, including the introduction of "Class B" wards. More importantly, the Report recommended the removal of "fats"―its Chinese counterpart is my literal rendition. It means that the organization concerned wasted much money on impractical matters.

I believe that today, some 20 years later, HA's performance is even worse than MHD's performance at the time. MHD was mainly staffed by civil servants, and they had to give explanations to Members in the then Legislative Council. In contrast, HA officials are nowhere to be found, without having to assume any responsibility. Nobody knows who the HA Chairman and members are, let alone requiring them to be accountable. How are we supposed to hold them accountable? The Secretary should ask himself one question. He is a veteran in HA. Shouldn't he bear part of the responsibility? Why have all the problems we see today arisen?

The Government often makes its appointments based on differentiation between close and distant relationships, meaning that it only appoints those who "sit by its fireplace to get warm", in colloquial parlance. It means that the Government tends to appoint its political allies, pro-China people or those from pro-China political parties. The Government may also appoint prominent figures in society. These people, however, have one thing in common: They seldom say a word of fairness in case of policy or administrative blunders. Is this the duty of HA? The Government may as well continue to appoint its trusted fellows to its coterie. But the HA staff and patients are the very ones who pay the price. Members can imagine the following situation. At present, UCH doctors and nurses may have come under patients' mockery, and patients' families may question whether the medical staff have read the records thoroughly. These staff should not have suffered all this. Despite inadequate resources and funding, tens of thousands of health care workers still work very hard every day. But the poor performance of the senior personnel and their improper handling of the whole incident have caused unfairness to the workers. Can the Secretary still say that he has nothing to do with all this?

7064 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

(THE CHAIRMAN'S DEPUTY, MS STARRY LEE, took the chair)

I know that the Food and Health Bureau is rested with many important duties and is in charge of a large number of matters. At the very least, HA's governance has turned into an utterly real problem. Over the past 10 years or so, HA's transparency, accountability, administration and management have continued to decline. And now, it has degenerated to the point of covering up the incident. This is the most outrageous. Anyone who ascribes this incident to an amateurish mistake will agree that it is an amateurish mistake on the part of its executive staff members. HA's notification mechanism has prescribed a clear requirement, the requirement of reporting any serious incidents involving major risks. In this incident, however, there was a delay of two weeks. Moreover, UCH and HA have even covered up this incident for as long as one month. It was not until the last weekend that the Secretary was informed of this incident. Besides, UCH urged the public for liver donation but HA covered up the incident for nearly one month. What kind of public organization is HA? The annual salary of an HA senior officer amounts to a few million dollars. What kind of public organization is HA? We give HA some $50 billion out of the public coffers. However, when we require it to show good performance, it is like milking the bull because it is ripped of any determination and accountability, thinking that it is not necessary to hold itself responsible. HA's performance has attracted many praises at the annual HA Board meeting but what have we seen year after year?

Speaking of waiting time, it is 108 weeks for the orthopaedics department of the Kowloon Central Cluster. Members may think that this is already a very long time. But I have found that the waiting periods in the orthopaedics departments of the Kowloon East Cluster and the New Territories East Cluster are 167 weeks and 140 weeks respectively. Members may think that the waiting periods are already very long. But I have come to know that the waiting time in the gynaecology department of the Hong Kong West Cluster is 159 weeks. What kind of performance is this? The Secretary will definitely say that he has striven for $200 billion to implement a 10-year plan. He is honestly better than his predecessor because his predecessor merely sat there idly without any achievement―excuse me for being so blunt. Such mediocre performance is not what we require. As the Secretary is a veteran in HA, we certainly have high expectations from him.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7065

Just now, many Members explained Hong Kong's health expenditure level in terms of its percentage to the Gross Domestic Product ("GDP"). I feel ashamed to talk about it. In 2013-2014, Hong Kong's rate of public health expenditure is 2.8%, and this rate was already "inflated". In Mainland China―whose health care system has attracted severe criticisms from us―the rate was 3.1%. The rates of Taiwan, South Korea, Britain, Australia and Japan were 3.7%, 4%, 7.6%, 6.3% and 8.6% respectively. We have always boasted that Hong Kong is Asia's world city. During our discussions on Hong Kong's participation in the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, we have often stressed that Hong Kong's financial system is only second to the systems of New York and London. Hong Kong's health expenditure ranking, however, stands in the few positions at the bottom among other developed regions. How can this happen?

I want to talk about the underprivileged―patients with chronic illnesses, rare diseases and cancers. They pass away one after another while waiting for the authorities' improvement in the Drug Formulary. At present, HA's doctors treating cancer patients must have some physiognomic knowledge, so to speak. What is meant by this? This means that some cancers can be treated by prescribing targeted therapy drugs ("TTDs"), the prescription of which will incur a monthly expenditure in the range of $30,000 to $100,000 in the case of the most expensive ones. Therefore, a doctor must first consider whether his patient can afford the relevant expenses. If he thinks that the patient cannot afford the expenses, he will have a sense of guilt and dare not recommend the use of TTDs to the patient. When the doctor tells the patient that his cancer can be treated with certain expensive TTPs outside the Drug Formulary, he is in effect saying, "Your illness is curable but you cannot be cured because you have no money to buy the medicine to cure it." How can doctors say something like this? Therefore, some doctors will resort to an indirect approach, such as asking questions about the number of children in their patients' families and also their occupations. Patients whose children are professionals will be given a list of self-financed drugs and asked to purchase the ones prescribed therein to sustain their life. Otherwise, the doctor can only put forth the excuse that he has already done his best.

Why has the health care system of Hong Kong degenerated to the point of requiring patients to wait for alms? Why should patients be required to purchase self-financed drugs? Why do patients need to apply for subsidies under the Samaritan Fund and the Community Care Fund? Some lucky patients can see the formal addition of their required drugs to the Drug Formulary. What kind of health care system is this?

7066 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

The second kind of patients are people with mental illnesses. I am glad to see the release of the Report of Review Committee on Mental Health ("the Report") before the tenure of the present Government and the Secretary comes to an end. I have read the 40 recommendations of the Report in detail. Nonetheless, I find that the Government has failed to allocate any additional resources correspondingly. The Report has pointed out many problems, including that as many as 160 000 children and youngsters are suffering from mental illnesses, dementia is prevalent among many elderly people, and many patients with serious illnesses and those with different degrees of mental illnesses are not given proper treatment and care.

However, what has been done after the Report has pointed out those problems? The reality is that the Government has refused to allocate any funding for psychiatric services all the same. We have requested the setting up of a Mental Health Bureau. But the Government has not given any reply. We have put forth repeated demands for additional funding. The overall funding allocated to HA accounts for 8.5% of our GDP but the expenditure on psychiatric illnesses merely accounts for 0.25%. The rates in Australia and Britain are 0.75% and 1% respectively. Why? Because these countries believe that the failure to cure their patients' illnesses will lead to significant social consequences. If a patient is unable to study, he may drop out of school and become a hidden youth or juvenile delinquent and end up in prison. Subsequently many of these people cannot return to the community and need to apply for financial aids. Many others require long-term hospitalization and cannot live a new life. This explains why these two countries are willing to commit resources, not so much because of their generosity, but because of their awareness that so doing is beneficial to society at large.

In contrast, the Hong Kong Government―I dare not say the Secretary―is short-sighted and wants to save money. In reality, however, the community will be paying a very high price for this. If these people cannot live a new life, they can only receive welfare benefits persistently. Do the Government and the Secretary really think that they should not be held responsible for such problems?

I so submit.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7067

DR PIERRE CHAN (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has moved CSA No. 116, proposing that head 139 be reduced by $894,000 in respect of subhead 000. The reduced amount is approximately equivalent to the Secretary for Food and Health's estimated expenditure on emoluments for the period from April to June 2017. I would like to speak on health care issues.

Earlier on, I criticized the last Policy Address delivered by the Chief Executive on the part concerning health care. I would give a very low score to the implementation of the health care policy agenda after four years of policy implementation. He has got only 28 marks out of the full mark of 100. Given the very disappointing fact that most of the initiatives under the policy agenda are not fulfilled, I think the Secretary for Food and Health should be held partly responsible. Hence Mr CHAN Chi-chuen has proposed such an amendment pinpointing the unsatisfactory performance of the HKSAR Government in respect of health care services.

Concerning the issue of insufficient public health care services, I want to reiterate that the Government's philosophy on financial management simply fails to deal with the ever-increasing demand for public health care services. As pointed out by Dr KWOK Ka-ki just now, it is anticipated that the public's demand for public health care services will only rise and will not drop, partly due to population ageing. According to the Census and Statistics Department's projection, the period from 2015 to 2034 will see rapid ageing of the local population, where the percentage of people aged 65 or above will rise from 15% in 2014 to 23% in 2024 and further go up to 30% in 2034. Given that the number of elderly persons continues to grow, the demand for health care services will naturally be on the rise.

Another reason lies in the problem of poverty. Not only is Hong Kong a place with the biggest wealth gap among the developed economies, it also faces a serious problem of poverty. The Commission on Poverty announced last year that the local poor population in 2015 reached 1.34 million with an increase of 25 000 persons as compared with the 2014 figure. However, even with the provision of regular government subsidies, including the "fruit grant" and Old Age Living Allowance ("OALA"), we still have a poor population of 970 000, among whom 300 000 are the elderly in poverty. The demand for public welfare and health care services will only rise because of the increase in the poor the ageing population.

7068 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

Nevertheless, every time when the Chief Executive delivers the policy address or the Financial Secretary delivers the budget, it is reiterated that Hong Kong, an externally oriented economy not of a large scale, is susceptible to external factors and uncertainties. Therefore, we need huge fiscal reserves to weather volatility in both the local as well as global economy and to cater for highly unfavourable economic situations. Moreover, both of them will mention that the HKSAR Government has to stick to the principle of fiscal prudence under the Basic Law, keeping expenditure within the limits of revenues in drawing up the budget so as to avoid deficits. But the point is, in anticipation of the fact that the demand for public welfare and health care services will only rise but not drop, there will be increasing numbers of helpless poor or elderly persons having to rely on welfare benefits and public health care services if the economic conditions remain unchanged. Therefore, I do hope that the Government will develop a fresh mentality to deal with the issue of public health care services which are deemed most vital by grass-roots people.

The medical sector has repeatedly pointed out that government expenditure on health care is not based on demand while the Legislative Council has queried the Government as adjusting presently the amount of health care expenditure according to its financial situation. In other words, it will increase health care expenditure when there is a considerable surplus in the coffers but cut the amount of expenditure when the surplus is small. In the foreseeable future, the demand for public health care services will only rise but not drop. However, it is impossible that government revenue keeps increasing without any decrease. To cope with increased public expenditure by increasing tax rates is against the will of both the Government and the public. Neither do the latter wish to see the former compromise too much on public services due to its diminished revenue in times of economic hardship. Here, I suggest once again that the Government seriously consider setting up a "health budget stabilization fund". By setting aside a sum that will generate returns from investment, the Government can keep increasing its budget for public health care services even during economic recession where it has to cut public expenditure. Meanwhile, a population-based approach should be adopted for the allocation of recurrent health care funding, while factors such as population ageing, availability of preventive medicines and advanced medical research are taken into account. The local population has been growing in recent years. However, relevant figures of the recent two to three years tell us that both public expenditure and health budget have been shrinking. It is the problem at issue.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7069

Here, I would like to point out in particular that the Chief Executive has promised to deal squarely with, as appropriate, the problem of frontline health care staff suffering from fatigue at work and the manpower shortage currently facing public hospitals. Increasing recurrent health care spending is the fundamental solution to the shortage in health care personnel and inadequate resources. However, even with surpluses and sufficient reserves in the past two years―either due to the increases in revenue from land sales, budget surpluses or the doubled property prices―the HKSAR Government has never increased health care spending. Instead, it cut the funding for the Hospital Authority ("HA") in 2015, making it necessary for HA to solve problems by means of its own reserves. The provision of $55.3 billion allocated to HA this year is more than the revised estimates of last year mainly due to the additional funding of $2 billion allocated to HA as recurrent subsidy, which approximately accounts for 3.6% of the total amount of funding for this year. Taking into account the inflation rates of the past two years, the actual rate of increase is minimal, as compared to the 2.4% inflation rate in 2016.

Nevertheless, HA has to increase or enhance quite a number of services with the government funding. As seen in both the Policy Address and the Budget, such items include recruiting more health care personnel, enhancing existing services, shortening waiting time, improving services for the elderly, providing free hospitalization and outpatient clinic services to poor elderly recipients of OALA, increasing some 200 public hospital beds, augmenting the quota for general outpatient clinics in the New Territories East Cluster and New Territories West Cluster to some 20 000 this year and some 40 000 in the following year. All these call for additional manpower. As I have pointed out, the actual rate of increase in HA's recurrent funding is insignificant. In other words, staff in the public sector may have to resort to magic means to alleviate the fatigue suffered by the frontline health care staff.

The Chief Executive-elect, Ms Carrie LAM will assume office in July, whose political platform on health care is precisely about formulating long-term policies on health care and health care professionals, investing resources to ensure full employment of all local medical graduates by the public health care system, and launching initiatives to help retain talents for the public medical sector. We definitely welcome her proposals and do hope that she will genuinely honour her election pledge by making long-term commitments to the public health care system instead of continuing with the number tricks currently played by the Government. The medical sector is also very concerned about her proposal to 7070 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 reform the Medical Council of Hong Kong ("the Medical Council"). We support the idea of reforming the Medical Council in order to expedite processing and investigation of complaint cases while increasing transparency in its handling of matters. Yet, we are much worried that the change in the ratio of appointed members of the Medical Council may result in its being manipulated by the Government. Meanwhile, we hate to see the Medical Council being affected by its consideration of possible outside interests or under the Government's influence in taking forward any policy. What we expect is the professional autonomy of the Medical Council which guarantees its dedication in serving the general public.

As I have mentioned just now and everyone is aware, our Government has not increased its financial commitment to health care. Hong Kong's economy is still growing in recent years and property prices have doubled, forcing the Government to launch stamp duty measures in a bid to curb the soaring prices. In spite of all these facts, the Government still proceeds to cut its spending (Noise caused by interference in the Chamber was heard) … What happened? In the past few months, the current-term Government has, probably due to the upcoming change of Government, started wars on various fronts concerning health care, and Members just feel worn out from too much running around. For example, the Panel on Health Services held its meeting a couple of days ago, at which numerous items had to be discussed and followed but members simply did not have enough time to discuss those issues in depth. Besides, we once engaged in meetings lasting eight to nine hours a day for two consecutive days and finished discussions on seven items in total. Above all, public hearing sessions were held continually for several months.

Right at the beginning of this legislative session, the Government submitted to the Legislative Council a list of legislative proposals for the current legislative year and among the 19 bills, 5 are to be moved by the Secretary for Food and Health, including the Medical Registration (Amendment) Bill and the Medical Devices Bill, which I have mentioned just now. In fact, the Government has already started a battle on the Medical Devices Bill long before the issue about reforming the Medical Council arose. The Government has neither differentiated beauty treatments or procedures from medical treatments at their origins, nor exercised direct regulation of the beauty industry. Instead, it leaves the regulation of the latter in the hands of professional doctors. I have repeatedly indicated in this Council that I hope the Government understands one thing: We doctors have assisted the Government in sorting out various problems. Hence it must not "call on God in adversity but forget Him once relieved". The LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7071

Government shifting to doctors its responsibility to regulate the beauty industry has already aroused discontent among doctors and caused grievances to the beauty industry. In my opinion, the Government requiring doctors to operate beauty equipment is no different from imposing a difficult task on the industry.

Such a recommendation is based on the report submitted by the Working Group on Differentiation between Medical Procedures and Beauty Services of the Steering Committee on Review of Regulation of Private Healthcare Facilities. Supposedly, as the Working Group comprises representatives of doctors and the beauty industry, views from both sides will be given due consideration. But strangely enough, representatives of the beauty industry asked me to speak on their behalf during public hearings. I thus questioned their reason for seeking my assistance since the representatives of their industry also sat on the Working Group. They said that their industry representatives account for no more than half of the membership of the Working Group―well, neither do the representatives of doctors, who may only account for just half of it―and became the weaker side when it came to voting. No wonder representatives of the beauty industry once clarified at the meeting that they did not intend to antagonize the doctors, and all confrontational situations were created by the Government itself. The latest development is that in response to the request of Members speaking up for the beauty industry, this Council will appoint a subcommittee to discuss relevant matters. Nevertheless, the waiting time for establishing a subcommittee is quite long and it will take six months to a whole year before the first meeting can be held. In fact the Government should deal squarely with the issue of regulating the beauty industry, but there does not seem to be definite time frames for implementation of proper regulation.

Controversies over legislative amendments of a relatively small scale can be rather intense, let alone a bill. Take for instance the Government's plans to increase the coverage area of the graphic health warning from 50% to 85% of the two largest surfaces of the relevant packet or retail container of tobacco products. In fact, those who are concerned with the Government's tobacco control efforts are aware that discussions on the suggestion commenced in 2015 and the Panel on Health Services has already held five meetings in this connection. Currently, the Panel continues to hold meetings and public hearings, with over 100 submissions received both from deputations attending and not attending the meetings. This means consultation has been in progress all along. As a medical practitioner, I have to support the Government's tobacco control efforts, but I also understand that there are different voices from other sectors of society, 7072 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 such as those representatives of the business sector who have been criticizing the Government for failing to heed industry's views and thus repeatedly demanding additional meetings to be held to allow continuation of discussions on the relevant issues. As a result, very little progress has been made in this regard.

I think everyone agrees that the time for the proceedings of this Council is very precious since the operation of the Council costs the public purse a great deal of money. Members belonging to some political camps are quite often criticized by the Government or other people for filibustering. Regarding today's Council meeting, the number of Committee stage amendments ("CSA") moved by Members is drastically reduced by the Chairman so as to prevent filibustering. This has been taken by them as a means to exchange time for bargaining chips in a bid to shape the desired scenarios at the meeting. Such a practice is not exclusive to Members belonging to a certain political camp because it is also present in discussions on tobacco control and funding proposals for Hong Kong Disneyland. The discussions on regulation of medical devices and graphic health warning on tobacco product packet are no exceptions.

The Government's two major areas of efforts, namely regulating the beauty industry and exercising tobacco control, will certainly have my support because they mean to safeguard the health and safety of the public. Yet, I also understand why other Members are discontented and seek deferment of legislation. Hence, I hope the Government can give serious thoughts to ways that help enhance efficiency of proceedings of this legislature and decide the priority of agenda items. It ought to be sincere and introduce to this Council those bills on which extensive consultations have been conducted with consensus reached so that Members will not feel offended either at the passage of bills or people's acts of filibuster.

I so submit.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Viewing from my seat, I am not certain if Dr Fernando CHEUNG and Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung are present. Now I ask Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung to remove the displays he has put up so that I can have a clear sight of the situation inside this Chamber.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7073

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I am here.

I would like to speak on three heads, namely heads 139, 141 and 170, which respectively seek to deduct an amount approximately equivalent to the estimated expenditure for one month's emoluments of the Secretary for Food and Health, to deduct an amount approximately equivalent to the estimated expenditure for one month's emoluments of the Under Secretary for Labour and Welfare, and as proposed by Mr SHIU Ka-chun, to deduct an amount approximately equivalent to the annual estimated expenditure for the recruitment, on contract terms, a total of eight retired disciplined service officers by the Social Welfare Department ("SWD") to assist in the inspection of homes for the aged and residential care homes for persons with disabilities.

First of all, I would like to talk about health care. There is a succinct description of the health care policy of Hong Kong: no one should be denied adequate medical treatment due to the lack of means. This health care policy sounds simple but it is actually a lofty ideal. If that can be done, it will be really wonderful. But unfortunately, we are lying to the public every day. We have failed continuously to materialize the health care policy but we tell the public about this policy day after day. In reality, we can never achieve that goal.

"Long Hair" quoted two cases earlier on. One of them is the case of Ms CHI Yin-lan, who was a patient suffering from tuberous sclerosis complex ("TSC"), which is a rare disease. During a public hearing of the Legislative Council Panel on Health Services on 11 April, she expressed her yearning for life. Under her health condition at that time, even though she could not afford to pay for the drugs to treat her illness, she was not willing to give up. She had a 13-year-old daughter who, unfortunately, inherited this rare TSC.

In my communication with the patients, I learn that many of them do not know they have contracted such disease. Since it is very difficult to identify and diagnose a rare disease, they only realized that they have this disease after they got married and pregnant. But it is already too late and their children have also inherited this disease from them. There is another patient, who is the mother of two daughters. Her elder daughter has passed away already and she is also very worried because she does not know who will take care of her younger daughter after her death. It is unfortunate that this situation also happened to Ms CHI Yin-lan, another patient. It is most deplorable that while we are sure of the availability of drugs to treat this disease, we are unable to provide her with the 7074 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 drugs because they are rather expensive, though not exorbitantly expensive. The drug expense for a TSC patient is around $20,000 a month. It is impossible for an ordinary family to afford it, but not so for the Government. Every year, the recurrent expenditure of the Government in this regard amounts to hundreds of million dollars. We always say that hundreds of billion dollars are being dumped into those white elephant projects. Nevertheless, we do not have money to buy drugs for these patients and can do nothing except watching their health condition getting worse. Ms CHI attended our public hearing on 11 April, but passed away on 23 April. This incident has triggered some repercussions in society but in fact, these things happen every day.

Last week, I came across three cases in which two ladies and an old man have cancer. Two of them have lung cancer and one has pancreatic cancer. All of them need to take targeted therapy drugs. They would have passed away and would not be unable to meet me but for the Apple Daily Charitable Foundation. They came here to meet me and speak out their thoughts. Nowadays, we see rapid development in medicine, Hong Kong is affluent and the Government has its public coffers flooded with money. However, what are the situations of these patients? They have worked very hard for their whole lives and have contributed to Hong Kong. All the three patients grew up in Hong Kong and raised their families here. They were engaged in elementary work and even took up a few jobs at the same time. Despite their contributions to society, they unluckily suffer from terminal diseases during their old age but cannot afford the medicine. But for the Apple Daily Charitable Foundation, they would not have lived to talk to me, face to face, today. Not only are they worried about their own situation, they are also concerned about other fellow patients. They cannot understand why the basic health care and life-saving drugs need to be paid by the charitable donations of people in society, and why the patients need to rely on the charitable foundation of a newspaper. They wonder why they have to beg to society and reveal to the public all their information, including their appearance and family background. This should not have happened in a civilized society. Absolutely, Hong Kong has enough economic means to take care of such basic needs of its people. Everyone may fall ill, grow old and experience disability. Why don't we do some life-saving work when we are so rich? Nonetheless, this is what is happening. Under the biggest lie that "no one should be denied adequate medical treatment due to the lack of means", we are jeopardizing the lives of these people every day, but we simply do not care.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7075

"Long Hair" quoted a case which he referred to SWD, and we have such cases every day. I heard Dr KWOK Ka-ki saying that he sometimes would be put in a difficult position. Knowing that there are drugs to save the patient's life but they are too expensive for the patient to afford, he cannot stand to tell him the availability of these drugs. These things are happening every minute. What kind of society is this?

We are discussing the Budget today. What should resource allocation be prioritize? The Finance Committee of the Legislative Council can allocate billions or tens of billion dollars of funding to the consultants for investing in the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank as admission fees, and to the Government for its continuous investment in the Hong Kong Disneyland, which is incurring losses. We feel very comfortable and at ease, without any guilty feeling in our conscience. The authorities are reluctant to spend money on good causes but they are willing to waste it, as witnessed in their refusing to provide even the most basic life-saving drugs. Deputy Chairman, what kind of policies and government officials are these? If they had taken the basic interests of the public into consideration, the Budget today would not have been like this. The Government should not be rebating the money back to the public and the conglomerates after collecting their tax every year. We have no idea how tens of billion dollars are used every year. Over the years, there are rebates not only in rates and income tax but also in profits tax. What is wrong with the Government? The Government has resources but does not know how to use, and then says that there is insufficient money to buy life-saving drugs. What sort of Government is it? If it does not know how to use public money, please step aside. Why should it get in the way? Government officials are obliged to implement public policies. If they cannot even safeguard the lives of the public, are they qualified to be government officials? The public pay tax as they have confidence in and expectations from the Government. However, it cannot do well even in the basic health care services.

A couple of days ago, a lady from an ethnic minority group spoke in a hearing of the Legislative Council. She said that her husband sustained an injury at work. However, he could not receive even the basic compensation due to communication problems; nor could he receive proper medical care due to mistranslation of his work injury. She unluckily tripped over and sprained her ankle in the Chamber of the Legislative Council. Since the situation was serious, we immediately sent her to the Accident and Emergency ("A&E") 7076 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 department of the hospital. Through WhatsApp, I maintained communication with a staff member of the Catholic Diocese of Hong Kong―Diocesan Pastoral Centre for Workers who accompanied her, and asked about her situation and whether translation service was available in the hospital. That colleague told me that translation service was being arranged but they would have to wait for four to five hours. I immediately mentioned in the meeting that I had received such a message, and I found that the translation service in Hong Kong was very terrible as it was unreasonable to ask her to wait for four to five hours. What the doctor from the Hospital Authority ("HA") said gave me a deep impression. He said, "You might have got it wrong. She might have to wait for four to five hours for the translation service, but she will also have to wait for four to five hours in A&E department before she is given medical care." Is there anything wrong? Deputy Chairman, I did not know about her situation. She might have ankle fracture and was in great pain, but the doctor said that it was very normal to wait for four to five hours. What he meant was that she had to wait for four to five hours for medical care anyway, and thus the long wait for the translation service was not a problem. What kind of society is it? Can we be called an advanced city or a cosmopolitan city of the 21st century? The medical practitioner in charge of the medical treatment may be right in telling us to wait four to five hours for the service in A&E department. It is just a trivial matter that one has to wait four to five hours for the service in A&E department. As a matter of fact, someone has waited 10-odd hours for the service. But is that something that we should be proud of?

The Government explains the whole scenario with a remark that some people are abusing the A&E services and wasting the time of A&E departments. Subsequently, the Government has increased the charge for A&E services from $100 to $180. The Government is already acting generously as the original proposal was to increase the charge to $220. It then tells the public, "I am sorry. Do you have money to consult a private doctor? Even if you call to book an appointment for public health care service, it is very difficult to get through to the telephone appointment service hotlines to book an appointment. If you do not succeed in booking an appointment, you will have to wait. If an elderly person has symptoms of fever, dizziness or a high body temperature, he can either wait or take some patent medicine. Otherwise, he has to go to A&E department." However, if they go to A&E departments, the Government will say that they are abusing the services of A&E departments. What does it mean?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7077

I once felt very painful due to nephrolithiasis and went to A&E department. Inside the consultation room, the doctor told me that he would refer me to the urology centre. However, considering my condition of nephrolithiasis, he said that my appointment would be scheduled half a year later but I would need to see the doctor again before that appointment. I was told to go back to A&E department if I felt unwell in the interim. Deputy Chairman, this is what the doctor told me, and am I abusing the A&E services? Or is HA not providing enough services and we are thus forced to abuse the A&E services? I have to face that situation even though I am a Legislative Council Member. How can we say that the public abuse the A&E services? The Government, however, seems to have every justification to raise the charge for A&E services.

The Government is now allocating resources in this way. Dr Pierre CHAN described the medical staff in Hong Kong as performing magic. They are of course performing magic in the face of minimal resources and very limited consultation time for doctors. It is true that a psychiatrist will send the patient away after meeting him for one minute. The scene in Mad World is definitely what happens in real life. The psychiatrist was facing the screen of his computer. After asking the patient about his condition for 15 seconds, he was almost sending his patient off. The psychiatrist continued to prescribe medicine for him when there was nothing special about his condition. What can these doctors do? Every morning, each of them has to see at least 30 to 40 patients.

What kind of advanced city is it? Even the basic services are incomplete and life-saving drugs are lacking. The waiting time for services of specialist outpatient clinics and services of A&E departments is getting longer. The Government thus increases the charges concerned and says that it will provide a little more resources accordingly. Deputy Chairman, I am not referring to the situation of rare disease patients, the elderly or certain people. Instead, I am talking about my personal experience. Everyone will fall ill. If the basic health care services of our society are incomplete, how can the Government ask us to set our mind at ease?

Deputy Chairman, in this debate, I really have a lot to say. On health care alone, I still have a lot of opinions to express. I do not know why Secretary Dr KO Wing-man has left the Chamber. I am not sure whether there are public officers in this Chamber who are in charge of health care and public health. I hope that they can return to the Chamber and listen to the criticisms and suggestions made to them by Members.

Deputy Chairman, I request a headcount.

7078 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

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

(While the summoning bell was ringing, a number of Members returned to the Chamber, but some Members had not returned to their seats)

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Will Members please return to their seats so that we can do a headcount.

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

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I remind Members again that according to the debate arrangement, this debate will end at about 4:10 pm today.

I will call upon public officers to speak at about 2:20 pm. After public officers have spoken, I will call upon Members who have proposed amendments to speak again. This debate will come to a close after the relevant Members have spoken.

MS ALICE MAK (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I rise to speak against the amendments moved by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen concerning head 139 and head 140, which seek respectively to cut the estimated expenditure on the emoluments for the Secretary for Food and Health from April to June 2017 and the estimated annual expenditure on the emoluments for the Head (Healthcare Planning and Development Office) of the Health Branch of the Food and Health Bureau.

Members have mentioned the operation of the Hospital Authority ("HA") and the uneven distribution of resources just now. I very much agree to their viewpoints in this regard. But, regrettably, no amendment has been moved to cut the emoluments for the Chief Executive of HA. If there is any such amendment, I suppose I will render my support. However, speaking of cutting the Secretary's emoluments, I would think that he should not be the target at all, and any proposal to deduct his salary will not hit the true culprit. The real culprit earns a salary higher than the Chief Executive's. But, he has turned HA LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7079 into a complete mess. The staff doing frontline work are low in morale and medical incidents occur very frequently. Every time when there is a medical incident, all top management staff will simply disappear, leaving junior or frontline doctors to face all the problems and bear the responsibility. This has caused widespread grievances.

Dr KWOK Ka-ki has remarked that public hospital doctors do not have sufficient time for diagnosis, because they only have 5 minutes for each patient, or 10 in the case of a new patient, and there are always a hundred or two hundred people waiting outside their rooms. I admit that this is true. In fact, Members may remember that during the debate on the Policy Address or the Budget a few months ago, I already talked about the growing number of patients, and at the same time, I also questioned whether it should be considered normal and proper to require doctors to diagnose a patient within 5 or 10 minutes. This is not to speak of the fact that doctors will still have to fill in large numbers of forms every time a medical incident occurs. You see, a doctor must look at the monitor and fill in various forms within the five minutes available, so he simply does not have any more time to even glance at his patient. Therefore, the system must be improved. However, this poor system should not lead us to accept Dr KWOK Ka-ki's justification that to err is human and doctors are also humans.

I wish to point out that the errors of doctors are usually of an irreversible nature. Such errors may jeopardize patients' lives. Can he possibly return the liver to the patient concerned? How can he ever say that since there are just several minutes for diagnosis, it is impossible to do the job, and that since doctors are also humans, they will similarly make such irreversible, infantile mistakes? I do not think anyone will accept Dr KWOK's view that doctors may make such infantile mistakes because of all this. The infantile mistake has cost the patient a healthy liver and two liver transplants, or may even take away her life.

Members may remember the inquest relating to a leukaemia patient held in the Coroner's Court last month. I actually assisted in pursuing this complaint case for the patient's family. When the patient was rushed to the Accident and Emergency ("A&E") Department … Previously, when the patient attended a follow-up consultation, the doctor forgot to write down the date of his next follow-up consultation, so his next follow-up treatment was delayed in time. Then, when he was rushed to the A&E Department, the doctor on duty was not alert enough and did not give him appropriate treatment right away, so the patient 7080 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 could not grasp the one golden opportunity that could have saved his life. Even the magistrate and the doctor providing the report stated that the patient could have been saved.

Right, doctors are human beings, and human beings commit error. Moreover, doctors have to deal with enormous work pressure. We do understand this. Therefore, we must work together to perfect the system, but we must not argue that since doctors are also human beings, they will also make errors. The reason is that doctors' errors are usually irreversible ones.

In case any health care personnel are listening to my speech now, I want to tell them that we certainly appreciate their work pressure, but more importantly, we also hope that they can take good care of their patients because every single decision made by them concerns a person's life, and even a whole family.

Furthermore, how does the notification mechanism for medical incidents work? As shown by the case of Ms TANG Kwai-sze, the hospital did not disclose the incident after learning of it. It said nothing until the patient's family members made queries, and it did not make any disclosure until after a very long time. Subsequently, it even said to the public that the case did not require notification because it only involved the omission of a drug in the prescription, rather than a wrong prescription of drugs. But the omission in their words may make the patient develop complications, or render her susceptible to complications, and thus kill her. Why did the hospital still insist that it was just the omission of a drug in the prescription, rather than a wrong prescription of drugs, so no notification was required? That is really absurd! How absurd! How can they gloss over their mistake with such underestimation of its impact?

Actually, like the case of the leukaemia patient I have mentioned, many medical incident-related cases which I handled in the past were first brought to my attention because the patients concerned or their families wanted to seek my assistance in some other matters. In the case of the leukaemia patient, for example, his family members contacted me because they did not want his dead body to undergone an autopsy. They therefore asked us what they could do. However, when studying the case, we noticed many problems: the doctor did not arrange a follow-up consultation for the patient; the patient did not receive any attention whatsoever from doctors or other health care personnel during his several-hour stay in the A&E Department; and the patient was still left unattended to several hours after he had been sent to the ward. All these problem only came to our attention when we were studying the relevant information. The point is LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7081 that if we had not discovered all these problems in the course of handling other issues after the death of the patient, HA would never have disclosed these problems to the family, nor would it have borne the responsibility.

I also handled another medical incident-related case in 2014. The patient concerned was admitted to Castle Peak Hospital. Since the patient's blood glucose level soared after he had taken a psychiatric drug prescribed by the hospital, the doctor asked him to have a blood test. But after the test, the doctor forgot to read the report. As a result, the patient's blood glucose level went up so high that he developed a fever. When he was transferred to Tuen Mun Hospital, his blood glucose was already higher than any measurable levels. Eventually, the patient passed away, and his family members approached us for assistance. However, they did not ask for assistance in relation to the medical treatment, as they trusted the doctor all along and were not aware of the doctor's omission. They only approached us for assistance regarding the missing wallet of the late patient. We hence made an investigation into the lost wallet, and then came to discover a totally different story. We discovered something else which was far more serious, the fact that the patient's blood test report was all the time placed deep down the drawer. The patient already passed away. But his family members never knew that his blood glucose level was so high. The chance of saving the patient's life was thus lost. If his family members had not approached us for assistance in finding the lost wallet, they would not have known the truth, as the hospital would never have told them anything at all.

Therefore, I do not think we should only talk about the work pressure of doctors here. Rather, we should also ask whether this very hospital has ever wanted to hold itself accountable to its patients or their families. In case of medical incidents, will they only think about concealment? Is this case only the tip of the iceberg? How many other unknown cases are there? If the mother of the patient had not approached us for assistance in finding the lost wallet, she would not have learnt that there was a blood glucose report about her son deep down the drawer, that it was never read by the doctor, and that her son was thus not given any medical treatment.

We are now discussing the need for improving the system, and I want to point out that all will be useless if we focus only on cutting the Secretary's emoluments and do not look into the problems with HA. All will be useless no matter how drastically we cut his salary. All will be useless even if we do not pay him a cent in annual emoluments. What actually is the attitude of the top echelons of HA when they deal with these problems? Dr Pierre CHAN has said 7082 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 that the amount of resources allocated by the Government to HA is in fact very small. This means that $50 billion or so is a very small amount to him. He may think so. But as I have pointed out, we are not talking about how big or how small the allocation is. Rather, we are discussing whether all the resources have been put to proper and appropriate uses.

As rightly pointed out by certain Members, HA's expenditure on drugs only accounts for around 10% of the Government's overall expenditure. When compared with other countries, we are lagging behind by 10 percentage points. Why? How has it spent the $50 billion or so? It has not spent the money on drugs, or I should say that even if it does spend on drugs, it does not spend much. Moreover, HA frequently talks about the difficulty in recruiting frontline personnel. We and the trade unions representing frontline staff and supporting staff met with HA a few weeks ago, and during the meeting HA said that it was difficult to recruit staff to fill these posts. We certainly realize the challenge in filling these demanding positions in public hospitals, yet I always suggest offering better remuneration in order to employ the right staff. It is surprising that the Chief Executive of HA earns an emolument higher than the Chief Executive of Hong Kong, yet frontline staff have received no pay rise for several years, or are merely offered minimal increases. There is also the problem of unequal pay for similar work, with experienced staff having long years of service earning less than newcomers. If HA does not address these problems properly, it will of course fail to recruit sufficient manpower. And, in that case, whenever anything goes wrong, it will talk about manpower shortage as an excuse. It should really note that whether it can recruit sufficient manpower actually depends on its determination to improve the system.

So, it is not a question of resources as pointed out by Dr Pierre CHAN. It is no use allocating more resources as suggested by him, if the additional funding is only paid to the top echelons. Increasing the salaries of frontline and supporting staff, nurses and doctors and improving their fringe benefits are the only adequate measures. Hence, I do not think the point is about the adequacy of funding allocation.

Moreover, certain Members have talked of the issue of rare diseases. I would like to talk about this too. How can such an affluent society like Hong Kong possibly allow its citizen to die because of a lack of means to buy drugs? This is totally unacceptable. We believe the Government or HA should seriously study how to deal with the expenditure on drugs for rare disease. And LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7083

I believe the Legislation Council can also follow up certain issues, such as why the drugs for rare diseases often cost at least several million dollars. We may also look at other countries to see if the pharmaceutical companies over there have been providing any drugs assistance to rare-disease patients. If every type of drug developed pharmaceutical companies costs several million dollars, it is frankly impossible for HA or the Government to bear the entire cost of drugs.

In this regard, I would like to raise two questions. First, we should think about ways within the system which can enable patients to afford the drugs. On the other hand, we must not ignore the question of why the drugs sold by pharmaceutical companies are often priced at several million dollars. I believe drug prices will just keep rising if we only ask for more government support on drug purchase. This is a problem we must face squarely. In my opinion, if the occasion arises, the Legislative Council should discuss issues in relation to pharmaceutical companies in Hong Kong … of course this involves a myriad of vested interests. Probably I will be widely criticized for raising this point today, because this involves many interests at stake. After all, we are talking about several million dollars or several dozen million dollars of drug expenses for one patient.

Deputy Chairman, I therefore do not approve of the amendment moved by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, which seeks to cut the emoluments for the Head (Healthcare Planning and Development Office). To be honest, as described by Dr Pierre CHAN just now, the current-term Government has been behaving like a shop on its last day of business before closure. It has been roll out many different new measures, thus imposing very heavy tasks on everyone. But we must note that all these tasks, such as the enactment of legislation, are performed by this department. Cutting the expenditure incurred by this department, say, expenditure on salaries, will impede its operation. In this case, the regulation of private hospitals discussed extensively in society a few years ago will not be able to proceed then, and the same is true of the regulation of medical devices or manpower planning. Therefore, I believe we simply cannot do away with this department. Instead, we should confer this department with more powers or functions, giving it the authority to coordinate or even oversee HA's operation, so that resources can truly be deployed for patients, as well as for improving the fringe benefits for frontline doctors and other supporting health care staff, instead of merely enriching the top echelons.

Deputy Chairman, I so submit.

7084 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now call upon Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Dr Helena WONG and Mr KWONG Chun-yu to speak. Then, I will call upon public officers to speak. After public officers have spoken, I will call upon Members who have proposed amendments to speak again. This debate will come to a close after the relevant Members have spoken. Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, please speak.

MR LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I wish to speak on the amendments Members proposed for the third debate session, particularly those related to heads 49 and 170.

First of all, I wish to talk about the amendment proposed under head 170 by Mr SHIU Ka-chun regarding social welfare. He proposes to cut an amount of money roughly equivalent to the estimated annual expenditure for the Social Welfare Department ("SWD") to employ, in contract terms, eight retired disciplined service officers to assist in inspecting residential care homes for the elderly ("RCHEs") and residential care homes for persons with disabilities ("RCHDs"). I think there is something wrong with the direction of Mr SHIU's amendment. Members should still remember the elderly abuse case that happened in the Cambridge Nursing Home. It aroused strong reaction in society. After reviewing the incident, the Government concluded that the manpower of the inspection team must be strengthened. The inspection team did lack resources at that time, and this affected its inspection of RCHEs and RCHDs. Hence, increasing its manpower resources can urge these homes to rectify their inadequacies and prevent similar elderly abuse cases from happening. The proposed amendment, which seeks improve SWD services by slashing its inspection funding, is illogical. I will oppose it.

In fact, the Government has substantially increased the resources for its services for the elderly in recent years. For 2017-2018, the recurrent expenditure for elderly services will reach $7.84 billion, which is 7.2% more than the $7.3 billion in the previous year. The Secretary has also highlighted this point in his speech. Undeniably, the resources are increased, but the increase is like a droplet added to a pond. It is expected that the result will be utterly inadequate, and it will be impossible to actually improve the elderly services.

I thus hold that the Government should provide dedicated resources for elderly services, so that elderly persons can feel the care the Government and society show them. In this connection, the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong has proposed that better arrangements LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7085 must be made for RCHEs. We have conducted surveys and made recommendations for consideration by the Labour and Welfare Bureau. One of the recommendations is that a $10 billion fund be set up to assist in enhancing the service quality of existing homes, stepping up manpower and providing staff training. We observe that only about 40% of existing RCHE services are provided by the Government, while almost 60% are provided by private homes. These services are like a drop in a bucket, which is utterly inadequate. But is the Government capable of substantially increasing the number of residential care places in the short term for elderly persons in need of appropriate care? It actually cannot. This is an unrealistic idea. The Government now plans to increase the number of residential care places by phases, expecting to provide an additional 9 000 places in the coming 10 years. However, we all understand that many elderly persons who have been waiting for a place may not be able to wait that long.

Or, a quicker solution is to raise the standard of private RCHEs to the standard of EA1 homes, which is the highest standard, so that these homes can immediately serve elderly persons waiting for residential care places, so as to solve the problem.

At present, there are almost 10 000 vacant places in private RCHEs. Due to the poor service standards of these homes, many elderly persons, as well as their family members, are unwilling to accept these places. Besides, public confidence in private residential care homes has been further undermined since the Cambridge Nursing Home incident. Hence, if the Government wishes to quicken the pace of arranging residential care places for the elderly, the simplest way is to strengthen the manpower and resources in this regard, so that these RCHEs can immediately enhance their services to meet the standard required by the Government. In this way, many elderly persons now waiting for residential care places can immediately move into these homes, and do not need to wait for the construction of more homes, the provision of manpower training and improvement in the environment of these homes. This proposal can immediately provide the conditions for these RCHEs to enhance their services. Since it takes time for them to meet the requirements, elderly persons simply cannot wait that long.

I thus hold that the Government, especially the Secretary for Labour and Welfare, should consider our proposal of setting up a $10 billion fund to enhance the existing manpower, service quality or even the facilities. We once proposed a way to reduce manpower while maintaining the residential care home services. 7086 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

For instance, some homes are rather labour-intensive. They need staff to assist elderly persons in taking showers. If this process can be assisted with automated facilities, these homes, some of which are using two staff members to help one elderly person take a shower, can use less manpower in this regard. In fact, some higher-standard RCHEs have already adopted this practice. Only private or small-scale homes cannot afford to do so. Can the Government assist them in this regard so that they can enhance their service to meet the requirements?

Last but not least, I wish to talk about the amendments proposed by Members to cut the emolument of the Secretary for Food and Health and the problem of insufficient medical services. Many Members, including Dr KWOK Ka-ki and Dr Pierre CHAN, have talked about the severe shortage of medical manpower, which has put medical services in Hong Kong in a very difficult situation. In particular, they have talked about the substantial resources the Government must put in the employment of health care personnel as a result of the manpower shortage. I think they are right in this point, but they are wrong, especially Dr KWOK Ka-ki who is a doctor himself, in opposing the proposal on reforming the Medical Council of Hong Kong last year. Their opposition makes it impossible for us to employ overseas doctors with good qualifications.

Now we realize that even if the Government injects more resources into employing additional doctors, it may not be able to do so because there is insufficient local doctors in the first place. It will only encourage doctors in private practice to work in public hospitals, but this in turn will drain the manpower in private hospitals. This is a zero-sum game. In my opinion, their justifications for opposing the legislative proposal at that time were untenable. For instance, they said that some of the employment terms for overseas doctors in the legislative proposal were unattractive, and that the proposed composition of the Medical Council was flawed. All in all, their views were illogical. I think we should have a frank discussion on the present plight of insufficient medical manpower and find a solution to it. If we insist on our own position, I believe we will only make the public suffer. I urge Dr KWOK Ka-ki and Dr Pierre CHAN to join hands with the general public and have an open discussion on the problem of insufficient medical manpower, and together find a solution to the problems we now encounter.

I met with a group of doctors recently. They have made a series of proposals on the problem of mental illness. I hope the Secretary can spare some time to listen to their views as he is also a doctor. The present psychiatric LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7087 services are actually quite good. Some mental patients need to take medicine. Some of them, however, may omit some doses or give up taking the medicine altogether on their own accord after a certain period of time, thinking that they are cured. This often leads to a relapse of their mental illness. Some doctors tell us that the brain cells of these patients will be damaged during a relapse. This will worsen their mental illness, and they will then have to face more serious consequences.

Hence, some doctors who are concerned about these patients suggest that injected medication administered regularly by medical staff should be adopted instead of oral medication taken by patients themselves. This can minimize relapses due to deliberate or unintended omission of oral medication by patients. But injected medication is much more expensive than oral medication, with the former costing about $40,000-odd a year. Due to the expensive cost of injected medication, public hospitals usually prefer prescribing oral medication than injected medication for patients.

But if half of the 40 000 mental patients often stop their medication (that is they deliberately omit or take an insufficient dose of medicine) every year, the outcome is that 20 000-odd people may affect society and waste health care resources. On the other hand, if medication is administered to them by injection, the resources are less likely to be wasted. So, will Secretary Dr KO consider the possibility of replacing oral medication by injected medication and discard the common misconception that oral medication is cheaper? More importantly, more patients should be introduced to the idea that these injections are not "stupid jabs" and they are even more effective than oral medication.

This Budget of the Government may leave much to be desired, but I still hope that the Secretary can listen to our views and make improvement. I so submit. Thank you.

DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I speak in support of Amendment Nos. 116 and 117 proposed by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen and Dr LAU Siu-lai respectively.

In my five-year service with the Council, I have never requested for an expenditure cut in the Budget on the personal emolument of the Secretary for Food and Health. As such, why have I waited until now, when Secretary Dr KO 7088 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 is likely to leave the Government, to find it necessary to support these amendments to the Budget? In the past two months, the incident relating to the liver transplant of Madam TANG was in the spotlight of this city. It is of course an unfortunate incident. It is also a full display of the warmth and geniality of the Hong Kong society, where the daughter of filial piety offered voluntarily to donate a piece of her liver for transplant to her mother although she has yet to reach the legal age for donation. Some persons who did not even know Madam TANG and her family, such as Madam CHENG, was willing to make some sacrifice. She donated a piece of her living liver; and there was cadaveric liver from a dead donor. Besides, the doctors in charge of the operations and the attending doctors have also won the admiration of Hong Kong people. It is always our belief that there is love and care in this world, and we earnestly hope that Madam TANG can survive her illness and fully recover.

Yet, the story turned into an anti-climax yesterday when we were suddenly shocked by discovering the reasons for Madam TANG's unnecessary suffering. Why did she need a liver transplant? She was originally receiving treatment for nephrosis, not for liver disease. Why did it turn out to be a liver transplant? We had no idea about this until the Hospital Chief Executive of United Christian Hospital ("UCH") came out to bow in apology. According to him, when UCH reviewed Madam TANG's medical record on 6 April, it was found that two renal medical staff had forgotten to prescribe antiviral prophylaxis to prevent the spread of hepatitis virus during the period when she was put on high-dose steroid treatment. We were confused initially. Why did the doctors of UCH have to bow in apology when Madam TANG had undergone liver transplant in the Queen Mary Hospital ("QMH")? More were revealed in the last 24 hours. When Madam TANG attended consultations in UCH in January and February, her doctors were not aware that she was a hepatitis B carrier, and hence did not protect her liver when high-dose steroid was prescribed. It is a sentinel event. So why was the incident, which occurred in January and February and came into attention of UCH in April, not made public and reported through the reporting system? This is utterly unimaginable.

We are aware that the Hospital Authority ("HA") has implemented a policy on the reporting of sentinel events since October 2007 to standardize the practice and procedures in handling sentinel events in all hospital clusters. The relevant documents have been submitted to the Legislative Council for Members' perusal. Under the policy, hospitals are mandated to report nine types of "sentinel events". The reporting mechanism was further enhanced in January 2010.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7089

Apart from the nine types of "sentinel events" which require reporting, hospitals are also required to report two additional types of "serious untoward events". In total, there are "nine plus two" types of medical events which require reporting. Under the policy, hospitals and clusters are required to report sentinel and serious untoward events, which are the "nine plus two" types of medical events, within 24 hours through HA's Advance Incident Reporting System. Does the unfortunate incident of Madam TANG belong to the nine types of "sentinel events" or the other two types of "serious untoward events"? If we go through the documents submitted to the Legislative Council, the answer is yes. Madam TANG's incident belongs to two of the nine types of "sentinel events" as well as one of the two types of "serious untoward events". The two "sentinel events" are "medication error resulting in major permanent loss of function or death" and "other adverse events resulting in permanent loss of function or death"; and the "serious untoward event" is "medication error which could lead to death or permanent harm". Now we can see that Madam TANG's case is a medical event that requires reporting. Why was this sentinel and serious untoward event not reported to HA within 24 hours? This time, the hospitals or clusters concerned can no long pass the buck.

In April, Madam TANG's liver already functioned very poorly. UCH, which did not know how to treat the extremely poor condition of Madam TANG, transferred her to QMH. However, why did UCH not give an account of Madam TANG's case to the medical team of QMH in charge of the liver transplant during the transfer, apologizing to the medical team for its omission to prescribe certain medicines which resulted in the permanent loss of function of her liver? Otherwise, Madam TANG's liver would not have functioned so poorly and the transplant would not have been necessary. This is a medical event that requires reporting. However, UCH did not report the event and did not tell her family and doctors of other clusters who took over the case. Why have HA's doctors done so? Although a well-established reporting system is obviously in place, it can be ignored by doctors and hospitals.

Besides, I would like to know when Dr KO received notification of the medical error. UCH said it was not aware of the case until 6 April, when it reviewed internal records. But is that true? We do not know whether UCH has lied or not. Then, when was HA notified of the incident? Is it really the case that it was not until 20 April that HA was notified of the incident? Had Dr KO already known it by 20 April? Or, as he has said, he only knew about the details 7090 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 yesterday night as all of us did. If so, I think it is really serious and it is really appropriate to have his salary cut, to the extent that he should refund his salary for the past few years.

Secretary Dr KO came out to express his regret over the incident, and so on. Unlike current affairs commentators or other persons who are in the position to make such remark, as the Secretary, Dr KO's expression of regret is like standing aloof from the incident. HA can turn a deaf ear to all except Dr KO, who is an accountable Director of Bureau. Has HA become a "local lord" under no one's rule? HA already has a reporting mechanism in place and it has come to the Legislative Council telling Members that it runs a very open and transparent reporting system to properly deal with medical events. Under this system all medical events would be reported to avoid doing further harm to patients and at the same time provide support to the doctors who have made mistakes. In reality, although such a reporting system has been formulated, we do not know whether doctors and hospitals are observing it.

Besides, if it is true that HA did not know about the incident until 20 April or I assumed that Dr KO was probably in the dark until then as well―I am not sure when he was aware of the incident and will he please explain this to us later―why didn't HA come out and give an account of the incident? Is it the case that any information reported through the internal reporting system is for their knowing only? Why didn't patient's family know about this? Did the Secretary know about this? Why hasn't anyone offered a public apology until yesterday when the Hospital Chief Executive of UCH made an apology?

The whole incident is way beyond imagination. It also tells us that even though there is a mechanism in place, no one will obey it and observe the 24-hour reporting rule. Besides, we have no idea if there will be any penalties, nor the forms of penalties, if any. Neither do we know whether the penalties will be imposed on the medical practitioners or hospitals concerned. Indeed, why wasn't Madam TANG's family informed of the incident immediately? I think her family has every right to know about the conditions of its family member. Moreover, the relevant situation was not made known within the hospital cluster during the transfer of the patient from one hospital to another for liver transplant.

Fortunately, we have an Electronic Health Record ("eHR") Sharing System in Hong Kong. I now call on residents in the neighbourhood and friends to expeditiously register with the System on Internet. Through the System, a LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7091 hospital which takes over a case from UCH can have a full grasp of the patient's history of medication and treatments in a glance just with a click of the button. I am not sure if this is also the reason why UCH said later that it became aware of what the two doctors had done after a review of the medical records. Perhaps, they bet on a successful liver transplant operation delivered by Prof LO Chung-mau, a liver transplant expert and Dr NG, the doctor attending her currently, after which the incident would no longer attract attention and die down. Then no investigation would be conducted and nobody would be penalized. Is this the case?

On the basis of the above information, we think there is an element of deliberate concealing on their part. We of course hope that the Secretary and HA will conduct a comprehensive investigation into the incident. Nevertheless, what worries me more is that this incident reflects the existence of problems in each level of the entire medical system. The two doctors belong to the first level. In fact, they are very experienced specialists as both of them are Associate Consultants in Nephrology. While one such unfortunate incident is already too many, the same mistake was committed by a less experienced doctor at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital 10 years ago. The case was investigated by the Medical Council of Hong Kong that time. The complaint was found to be unsubstantiated on the basis that there were not any medication guidelines in respect of the prescription of high-dose steroid. No penalty was imposed on the junior doctor and he was able to wash his hands off the case. It has been 10 years since his getting away with the case, so I believe that relevant medication guidelines should be in place already. For the present case, it was handled by two experienced doctors, the first in January and the second in February. Actually, a simple review of Madam TANG's medical record in the eHR System will show that she is a hepatitis B carrier. In such case, another medicine must have been prescribed to protect her liver under the medication guidelines. However, they failed to do so. We definitely need to investigate why they did not do so. At the first level, it is the mistakes made by the doctors.

The hospitals are the second level. Did UCH know about the incident earlier? Why wasn't the hospital aware of the incident until 6 April? Why didn't it report the incident through the reporting system within 24 hours according to the established mechanism? The refusal to notify the patient's family and report to HA is another problem at the hospital level. With regard to HA, we are not sure if it was aware of the incident on 20 April. When this sentinel incident was reported to HA, why didn't HA come forth to give an 7092 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 account of it? The whole incident was hidden. For those things we are talking about here, HA was aware of them as early as April. Today is already 10 May, and it was not until yesterday that we knew about the incident. The patient and her family are still suffering.

We take pride in many aspects of Hong Kong, which is a highly advanced city. However, why does it appear that many problems have emerged in various levels of our medical system? The fourth level is of course the Secretary Dr KO Wing-man, who is unable to properly manage the "big monster" of HA. Does the Secretary know what are happening internally in HA? The whole incident could not be resolved simply by the Secretary's expression of regret. When it happens that even senior doctors can ignore the medication guidelines and act negligently, how many cases have they dealt with before? Do all public and private hospitals in Hong Kong comply with the medication guidelines in the prescription of high-dose steroid? Is the unfortunate incident of Madam TANG the tip of the iceberg? Are there any other victims? I think Secretary Dr KO Wing-man should order a comprehensive investigation be conducted to examine the relevant cases over the past 10 years.

MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, at the Committee stage of the Appropriation Bill 2017 ("the Bill"), we can only propose to reduce the estimated expenditure, make criticisms about the Government's performance which has fallen short of public expectation, and provide justifications for reducing the emoluments of public officers. In my opinion, the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department ("AFCD") under head 22 should of course be the first department whose estimated expenditure should be reduced.

What exactly should AFCD reflect on? AFCD is the only department responsible for animal euthanasia. Information reveals that 2 412 dogs were caught by AFCD in 2015-2016, and euthanasia was performed by the department on 2 421 dogs also in the same year, and I could not quite understand how such figures were got out in the first place. I have tried to sort this out and have arrived at the conclusion that as suggested by some remarks circulated among the people, nearly all cats and dogs caught by AFCD could not escape the fate of being euthanized. Some people may ask what we can do if these animals are not euthanized. In this connection, a "Trap-Neuter-Return" policy has all along been adopted in other cities and countries.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7093

As for the case of Hong Kong, the determination of AFCD in policy execution actually plays a crucial role in implementing the "Trap-Neuter-Return" policy on an ongoing basis, and expeditiously extending its scope from the existing trial programme to cover all 18 districts. However, AFCD has all along been criticized for euthanizing cats and dogs recklessly for various reasons when these animals are not adopted after a certain period of time, so that the problem could be resolved. This is absolutely not a phenomenon that Hong Kong people would like to see nowadays in an international city like Hong Kong.

There is a famous saying by GANDHI which suggests that the greatness of a city and its moral progress can be judged by the way its animals are treated. Hong Kong is a civilized city, Hong Kong people are concerned about animal lives, and our increasing awareness about the need to protect animal lives is something we should be proud of. However, regrettably, an animal police team has so far not been set up in Hong Kong, an animal protection law has not yet been enacted, and AFCD as a stakeholder does have an unshirkable responsibility for these. As a government department which promotes care for animals, how can AFCD do anything that will inflict cruelty on animals? Judging from its performance and activities at present, we can see no reason why AFCD should be commended, and I am therefore willing to give my support to the amendments proposed by fellow colleagues to cut the expenditure of AFCD under head 22, particularly the expenditure for euthanizing animals. Instead of providing funding for animal euthanasia, I would rather use the money to provide funding support for more initiatives to promote protection of animal rights.

As a matter of fact, many people are very anxious about the fate of animals in Hong Kong, because news about cases of cats and dogs abuse can be seen on newspapers so frequently that they are published nearly once every few days. Yet, we still have no clue about how the problem can be tackled, and the actions taken have failed to achieve the instant effect of bringing the culprits who have abused cats and dogs to justice. Some people may suggest that a mechanism is already in place to handle the problem, and that is, the Animal Watch Scheme jointly implemented by AFCD, the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (Hong Kong) and the Police, but what results has the Scheme achieved?

As we can see, there are still a lot of news reports about animal abuse and killing, but all of these cases have been left unsettled and the offenders are still at large, due mainly to the absence of a department with the ability of law enforcement to take the lead in combating such crimes. With the establishment of an animal police team and its power to gather evidence as well as carry out 7094 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 investigation, some instant effects will be achieved. It is most important to show to scoundrels hiding in dark corners and abusing cats and dogs that a whole team of police officers with public authority will be deployed to keep them under surveillance, thereby warning them that they should not treat small animals inhumanely.

In the meantime, an animal protection law has not yet been enacted in Hong Kong, and in this connection, I really fail to see any effort from AFCD. Whenever we have the chance to communicate with AFCD, especially during deliberation of the Budget every year, we will enquire about the works it plans to handle in the coming year and the objectives it wants to achieve, particularly in responding to the aspirations of Hong Kong people in animal protection. However, nothing has ever been offered in reply, and the department has only adhered to the same old way in performing its regular duties and handling the pressing tasks at hand, trying to resolve all problems with animal euthanasia. This is absolutely not something we would like to see.

Hence, we hope that in handling its work in the future, AFCD would strive to achieve greater accuracy and effectiveness, and in particular, it is the hope of Hong Kong people that it would refrain from doing too many bad things. Animal euthanasia is definitely not the best way to handle the matter, although it may help to save a lot of trouble in finding out other feasible options. Consideration can actually be given by AFCD to many different proposals put forward in the community, such as the setting up of animal adoption centres, the extension of the "Trap-Neuter-Return" policy to all 18 districts, and a series of measures I mentioned just now.

On the other hand, the discussions today also cover initiatives concerning health care services under the Bill. When it comes to health care services, we are of course fuming with rage, especially after we have learned about the details just disclosed yesterday on the liver transplant case of TANG Kwai-sze. When the incident was initially revealed, I wrote to the Hospital Authority and urged for the handling of the case with greater flexibility, since Ms TANG's daughter was eager to donate her liver to save the life of her mother, but was told that she had not reached the age of 18 and was too young to be a donor. I hope the wish of Ms TANG's daughter to save her mother's life would come true. The subsequent development of the case is known to all, and a warm-hearted person is willing to lend them a helping hand. When the whole city is praying for this family, the truth of a very serious scandal was disclosed yesterday, and the United Christian Hospital ("UCH") was found hiding the facts of a case occurred in early LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7095

April. UCH has remained silent when Michelle, the daughter of TANG Kwai-sze, appealed to the public for help in the middle of April and the case has caught the attention of the whole city. It was only after the patient has undergone a liver transplant operation and an enquiry was received from her family that UCH finally admitted the identification in early April of a mistake in failing to prescribe the necessary medicine to Ms TANG.

As I mentioned earlier, what we need to do at the present stage is to introduce reductions in emoluments and expenditure, repeal some items of expenditure which should not be approved, and take the necessary punitive actions. How can it be possible for UCH to make such an omission in the prescription of medicine? How can it be possible to commit such a serious mistake when so many mechanisms have already been put in place, thus leading indirectly to the need of performing a liver transplant operation on TANG Kwai-sze? This is really unbelievable to me.

There are indeed a host of problems with our health care services. I have provided assistance in respect of many suspected cases of medical blunders in the past few months, and have met with family members of children affected by these medical errors. They have been so devastated that they simply do not wish to see other children become victims of such medical blunders. Besides, quite a number of frontline employees in public hospitals have also sought assistance from me. According to these frontline employees, the occupancy rate of some medical wards has been standing high at the level of 170%, and some of them have even risked to provide me with the relevant information, so that I could understand where the crux of the problem lies.

Nevertheless, when efforts should have been made to improve our health care services, where has the Hong Kong Government spent all our money on? It has done nothing but to return wealth to the wealthy, thus rendering the poor ever poorer. We can see on calculation that more than $100 billion of public money has been spent on the construction of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge, the Hong Kong section of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link, and a funding of $5.4 billion has just been approved for the implementation of the Hong Kong Disneyland expansion plan. As for the tendering exercise under discussion for the Kai Tak Sports Park project, a bid incentive of $60 million will even be provided to each unsuccessful tenderer. If such an amount of public money can be spent on social welfare, education and health care, how great will be the positive effects produced on Hong Kong?

7096 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

Under the financial arrangements made by the Government, members of the general public are unable to share the fruit of prosperity, and this can most directly be reflected from the unavailability of satisfactory health care services, which are so important to each one of us. It will not be difficult for anyone in the community to understand the adverse situation currently faced by frontline medical staff of the accident and emergency departments of hospitals. The occupancy rate of some medical wards has already soared to a very alarming level, there are all kinds of complaints and aspirations from patients, let alone the spate of medical blunders, including the extremely ridiculous incident disclosed yesterday. A press meeting is still in progress now to explain the case and apologize to the public once again, but could an apology reconcile anyone to the loss of a human life?

Deputy Chairman, when we deliberate on the funding proposals introduced by the Government every year, prudent consideration has to be given to the question of how public money should be spent, thereby examining how resources should be deployed. In fact, as we all know, the funding proposals submitted for the "white elephant" projects I mentioned just now can in no way be negatived during the deliberation and voting of the items. Although the public opinion on these proposals is quite clear in most cases, there is nothing we can do to prevent their passage since we do not have enough votes. Hence, a large number of utterly absurd funding applications have been passed in the past few months, including that for the proposed increase in remuneration for senior officials. When deliberating on the funding proposal for the increase in remuneration for senior officials, discussions were also being held on the cancellation of cash subsidy for the "N have-nots", and the issue falls under the policy area of welfare services, which is also one of the areas involved in the current debate session.

In connection with the cancellation of cash subsidy for the "N have-nots", I have tried to gauge the views of residents of "sub-divided units" in the community. According to the Government, they may apply for Comprehensive Social Security Assistance ("CSSA") if necessary, and those who are not covered by the safety net of CSSA may apply for the low-income family allowance. However, it is not a bit easy to complete the application form for low-income family allowance since its contents are difficult for ordinary people to comprehend, and singletons are excluded from the scheme. It has been proven effective to provide cash subsidy directly to the "N have-nots", and although the amount involved is not great, the money can at least serve to meet the pressing needs of these people. Yet, the subsidy has been cancelled without the provision of an alternative option, and neither has the Government stated clearly how the service gap would be filled.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7097

While cash subsidy for the "N have-nots" has been cancelled, how about Disability Allowance? A public hearing on the subject was conducted by the Panel on Welfare Services last week, and all attendees regarded Disability Allowance the due benefits of persons with disabilities. This is exactly right, but the application procedures are still very complicated and the threshold is too high. To put it most simply, the allowance provided for recipients who have been admitted into hospitals for more than one month will be adjusted on the ground that they are receiving care in such institutions. Hence, Higher Disability Allowance will be adjusted to Normal Disability Allowance, while Normal Disability Allowance will be cancelled.

The Government is being so miserly in providing Disability Allowance of $1,000 odd or $3,000 odd to the grass roots on the one hand, but is more than willing to throw billions of dollars into the sea on the other. What is the point of discussing welfare benefits with the Government when it is so tight-fisted for benevolent causes? Deputy Chairman, since things have already come to the present stage, we must not be lenient with the Government when it should be reprimanded. For a period of time in the past, I really failed to see how the Government could convince us that we should spend all our public money on taking forward lavish and elaborate infrastructure projects of a massive scale, while welfare measures should be ignored when members of the general public are actually most concerned about the provision of such measures and regard this a matter of life and death.

One of the things which makes me most furious is the handling of cases involving patients with rare diseases. A patient suffering from a rare disease attended a public hearing held in this Council earlier to share with us her own true story about how long she had been waiting, but was still unable to have her illness treated since she did not have the financial means to do so. She passed away shortly after the public hearing, leaving behind a child who has inherited the same rare disease from her. Hong Kong has turned a blind eye to their plight, and the way to handle the matter is actually very simple. We can simply employ a delaying tactic before the problem can be completely resolved when all of these patients have passed away.

Deputy Chairman, when we can readily cite a number of examples off hand to illustrate how grass-root people are living in an abyss of misery, I really cannot understand why the Government can still be allowed to spend our public money so recklessly. We can only make criticisms and propose to reduce resources at the present stage, and public officers will inevitably feel aggrieved during the process, but I would like to ask them to reflect on this. As Members of this 7098 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

Council, we have tried to explain to members of the community that due to limitation in resources, it may not be possible to achieve an even distribution of social wealth on all fronts. However, this is actually not the case now, since wealth has been left to the wealthy year after year, and powerful and influential people are allowed to embezzle public funds. Is this the predicament that Hong Kong is bound to face? As elected Members, shall we keep on witnessing the hardship of grass-root people, the failure on the part of the Government in handling public affairs like welfare services, medical services and even matters concerning animals, the most silent and underprivileged group in society, and the urgent need to bring them all back onto the right track?

Deputy Chairman, I only hope that the Government would not be tight-fisted with benevolent measures, but generous with extravagant projects. I so submit.

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, with regards to some of the amendments relating to health services, food safety and environmental hygiene in the third joint debate session, the response of the Food and Health Bureau is as follows.

Some Members proposed to reduce various expenditures under "Head 22―Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department ("AFCD")", but the Government opposes to these amendments. The Government adopts a multi-pronged approach in promoting animal welfare. AFCD has done a lot of work in the management of stray animals in order to put the situation under control and minimize the nuisance caused to the general public. AFCD has also set up a task force to promote public education and publicity programmes on the prevention of cruelty to animals, as well as adopting a responsible attitude in keeping pets, and so on. At the same time, AFCD has enhanced the enforcement work by prosecuting animal owners for keeping the animals without a licence, improper management of dogs or abandoning animals. AFCD has been working closely with various animal welfare groups to promote the message about proper management of animals, as well as the re-homing for animals.

The above measures have started to bear fruit in recent years. In the past five years, the number of stray dogs and cats caught by AFCD has decreased by 59% and 71% respectively. The number of these animals euthanized has also decreased by 68% and 77% respectively. The re-homing ratio of dogs and cats passed from AFCD to animal welfare organizations has increased by 6.7% and 8.9% respectively. The sum to be reduced as proposed in the relevant LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7099 amendments is almost equivalent to the estimated full-year expenditure of AFCD in the euthanasia of animals, as well as the relevant staff expenditure in catching and managing stray animals. I have to point out that the relevant amendments will seriously affect AFCD in performing the management duties in this area, which may even aggravate the problem.

On the other hand, some Members proposed to reduce various expenditures under "Head 49―Food and Environmental Hygiene Department ("FEHD")". The Government also opposes to these amendments. FEHD's scope of work encompasses services vital to the people's livelihood. They include public cleansing services, public market management and hawker control, pest control (including rodents and mosquitoes), public toilet management, various licensing services and public cemeteries and crematoria management, and so on. The sum to be reduced as proposed in the relevant amendments is almost equivalent to the estimated full-year expenditure on the remunerations of FEHD staff and minor plant, vehicles and equipment. These amendments will affect the following services to be provided by the Government in the coming year, including environmental hygiene and food safety for the public, as well as public cemeteries and crematorium services for the deceased.

Some other Members also proposed amendments to reduce head 139―the estimated expenditure for remunerations of key posts in the Office of the Secretary for Food and Health. The Government also opposes to these amendments. The Food Branch of the Food and Health Bureau is responsible for the formulation of policies and monitor the implementation of polices, so as to ensure food safety, the provision of quality environmental hygiene services, promotion of the development of agriculture and fisheries industries, as well as the prevention and control of epidemics of animal and plant. If these amendments are passed, the above Government services vital to the livelihood of the public will be seriously undermined.

Moreover, some other Members proposed amendments to reduce the estimated expenditure for remunerations of the Head of Healthcare Planning and Development Office ("HPDO") under "Head 140―Food and Health Bureau (Health Branch)". The Government also opposes to the amendments. The Health Branch under the Food and Health Bureau is responsible for the formulation and coordination of public health policies and programmes, with a view to safeguarding and promoting public health, as well as facilitating the sustainable growth of the public and private health care systems and the provision of quality health care services to the public.

7100 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

HPDO of the Health Branch is responsible for a number of key tasks, including the formulation of the details of the operation of the Voluntary Health Insurance Scheme ("VHIS"); the examination and formulation of a brand new and comprehensive legislation for the regulation of private health care facilities; the promotion and implementation of the strategic review on health care manpower planning and professional development; the review of the mental health policy and the enhancement of the relevant services and the provision of support; the amendment of the Medical Registration Ordinance, so as to enhance the transparency and credibility of the Medical Council, to speed up the complaint handling process and hearing being conducted; and to extend the maximum duration of limited registration from a period not exceeding one year to not exceeding three years. All of the above work will be affected if the estimated expenditure on the emoluments of the Head (HPDO) is reduced.

(THE CHAIRMAN resumed the Chair)

Lastly, some Members have also raised their concerns of the medications for patients of rare diseases. Chairman, I wish to point out that in the budget, each year … recently we have made an additional allocation of $75 million to the Hospital Authority ("HA") for handling the need in medications in this area. However, HA should put in a place a mechanism to ensure the basis of scientific evidence of certain new medications, including medications for the treatment of rare diseases or targeted therapy drugs for cancers before introducing them into our health care system.

On the other hand, as to whether or not an individual patient needs certain medications or if he or she is suitable for the prescription of such medications, HA has put in place a panel of experts to evaluate the condition of each patient. I only wish to point out that actually HA has been actively promoting the relevant work on a number of diseases raised and concerned by Members recently. It is believed that HA can put in place some improvement mechanism within a very short period so that more patients who have the need may take these medications.

With these remarks, Chairman, I beg Members to negative all of the amendments proposed in the third debate session.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7101

SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): Chairman, regarding the amendments on poverty alleviation, welfare services, and elderly care in the third joint debate, the response of the Labour and Welfare Bureau is as follows.

Poverty alleviation, elderly care and support for the disadvantaged have always been at the top of the current-term Government's agenda, supported by resource investment. The recurrent expenditure on social welfare rose by 71% in five years, from $42.8 billion at the beginning of the current-term Government in 2012-2013 to $73.3 billion in this financial year of 2017-2018, way above the 41% increase in the Government's overall recurrent expenditure over the same period of time. The substantial rise in welfare spending fully reflects our commitment to the provision of enhanced services to the underprivileged and those in need.

Some Members have expressed concern about our poverty alleviation efforts as well as our support to low-income people. The Government launched the Low-income Working Family Allowance ("LIFA") Scheme in May last year to provide financial assistance to low-income working families who are not recipients of the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance, with a view to encouraging self-reliance and addressing inter-generational poverty. An overall policy review on the LIFA Scheme will be conducted in the middle of this year to examine its operation, design, effectiveness in poverty alleviation and promotion of employment, as well as its interface with other Government assistance schemes. In the course of the review, the views given by Members, members of the public and social groups will be fully taken into account.

The Government implements its elderly care policy under the principle of "ageing in place as the core, institutional care as back-up". Along with the continuous enhancement of services delivered under the conventional approach, it also incorporates new ideas in exploring new services, particularly the enhancement of the support measures for ageing in community. The Government is now launching the Second Phase of the Pilot Scheme on Community Care Service Voucher for the Elderly ("CCSV Pilot Scheme"), under which the number of service vouchers will be increased by 2 000 to 5 000 in the third quarter of his year. Still, the CCSV Pilot Scheme will not be implemented at the expense of the existing services. The Government will continue to increase the number of places for elderly care services. The Social Welfare Department ("SWD") has already devised plans in respect of 26 development projects and projects under the Special Scheme on Privately Owned Sites for 7102 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

Welfare Uses to increase the elderly service places. It is estimated that as many as 9 200 additional residential care places for the elderly and about 2 900 additional day care places for the elderly will be provided in the next five to ten years.

As regards the overall planning of elderly care services, the Elderly Commission is pressing ahead with the formulation of an Elderly Services Programme Plan ("ESPP"). ESPP, which covers the different needs of the elderly at different stages, is expected to be ready for submission to the Government in the middle of this year. In a forward-looking move, the Government has earmarked $30 billion in this year's Budget to strengthen elderly services and rehabilitation services for persons with disabilities, demonstrating the Government's commitment to taking care of the elderly and persons with disabilities. The funding will also provide additional resources for implementing a package of recommendations put forward by ESPP and the future Hong Kong Rehabilitation Programme Plan, definitely including measures to improve the quality of residential care homes, an issue over which Mr LEUNG Che-cheung has expressed grave concern. During the formulation of ESPP, we will race against time and take forward measures on which a consensus has been reached and which are found to be feasible, so as to continue to improve the services.

On the amendments proposed by Members in respect of head 141, I would like to stress that the Labour and Welfare Bureau is committed to implementing various important policies for the benefits of the grass roots and the underprivileged with a view to improving their livelihood. With the assistance of the Labour Department, SWD and other service agencies, the Labour and Welfare Bureau has pressed on with the tasks of promoting employment, maintaining harmonious labour relations, safeguarding the labour rights of employees and enhancing safety and health at work. Besides, the Labour and Welfare Bureau will also strive to take forward the Government's agenda on social welfare and poverty alleviation, and to assist the vulnerable, the disadvantaged and the under-privileged. The Office of the Secretary for Labour and Welfare, which comprises the Under Secretary, the Political Assistant, and the civil servants working there, is precisely responsible for providing support to the Secretary for Labour and Welfare in undertaking political work.

Dr LAU Siu-lai has proposed an amendment in respect of head 141 to cut the expenditure on the politically appointed officials in the Labour and Welfare Bureau. The proposed amendment will not only hinder the smooth operation of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7103 the Labour and Welfare Bureau but will also seriously impact the work of the Government and that of the Bureau. In the light of this, the Government opposes the relevant amendment.

Mr SHIU Ka-chun has moved an amendment in respect of head 170, proposing to cut the estimated expenditure under head 170 roughly equivalent to the one-year expenditure for SWD's hiring, under contract terms, of eight retired disciplined service officers to assist in carrying out inspections at RCHEs and residential care homes for persons with disabilities ("RCHDs"). The Government opposes this amendment. A new Licensing and Regulation Branch ("LR Branch") was set up on 2 May 2017 for the regulation of residential care homes and centres licensed or registered by SWD, with a view to strengthening its inspection and monitoring work. The new LR Branch will have a total of 121 posts, including 81 posts to be filled by the existing manpower of the relevant licensing offices and 40 newly recruited posts, to form multi-disciplinary inspectorate teams covering social workers, nurses, building surveying professionals, and fire services professionals to monitor the various aspects of the residential care homes.

In addition to these posts, SWD has since February 2017 employed, under contract terms, retired disciplined services officers to strengthen its inspection and monitoring work. Possessing investigation experience and skills, these retired officers will assist inspectorate teams in conducting inspections at residential care homes, collecting evidence and taking prosecution actions in respect of suspected cases of non-compliance. Still, they will not replace the existing professional inspectors at SWD. A total of eight retired disciplined services officers have been employed and each paid a fixed monthly salary of $36,785 each, which is lower than that of most SWD inspectors. As the newly established LR Branch is rolling out a number of measures to strengthen the inspection and monitoring of residential care homes, including the conduct of surprise inspections through a small team approach, the proposed spending cut related to the recruitment of retired disciplined service officers will seriously affect the strategic action plan and operation arrangement for collecting evidence and taking prosecution actions in respect of suspected cases of non-compliance.

With these remarks, Chairman, I urge Members to negative all the amendments in the third joint debate.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, do you wish to speak again?

7104 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, speaking of the third debate, I have only put forth four amendments. I have merely spoken once, and that was precisely the time when I moved my amendment. At the time, I explained the amendment that proposes to cut the estimated expenditure for the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department. Chairman, when you set the debate time limit in the future again, you should raise the time limit correspondingly. Today, many Members have put forth various views. One of my other three amendments proposes to cut the estimated expenditure for the remuneration of the Head of the Healthcare Planning and Development Office. Even though I do not have time to speak on this particular amendment, I must briefly explain the reasons for proposing this amendment, or else the Chairman may say that I fail to hold any discussion on my amendments.

I have put forth an amendment to cut the estimated expenditure for the remuneration of the Head of the Healthcare Planning and Development Office. This post was set up in 2011 with the Finance Committee's funding approval. The time limit of the post was extended for three years with additional funding in 2015. The main duties of this post are to supervise the work of formulating legislative proposals and to implement the Health Insurance Scheme ("the Scheme"). In this debate session, I do not have time to discuss the effectiveness of implementing the Scheme today, and to draw a comparison between the proposed uses and the actual uses of the health care reform fund set up with $5 billion earmarked by the Government.

I will focus my discussion on the proposal to cut the estimated expenditure for the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department ("FEHD"). This is related to head 139 … Sorry, it should be head … Well, let me talk about it later. I will first talk about the proposal to cut the estimated expenditure for the Secretary's remuneration. Even though I put forth over 100 amendments on previous occasions, I did not seek to cut the estimated expenditure for the Secretary's remuneration. But this year, I have put forth an amendment and seek to cut the estimated expenditure for three months' remuneration of the Secretary. Members may think that even if I propose to cut the estimated expenditure for the remuneration of the 5 Secretaries of Departments and 13 Directors of Bureaux, Secretary Dr KO Wing-man should be the last one among them. Members are actually quite nice to Secretary Dr KO. After I submitted this amendment, Dr LAU Siu-lai also put forth an amendment relating to the same head and merely proposed to cut the estimated expenditure for one month's remuneration of Secretary Dr KO. Even if democrat Members―the pro-establishment camp will LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7105 not support my amendment―vote for Dr LAU Siu-lai's amendment instead of mine based on their view that the estimated expenditure for Secretary Dr KO's remuneration of one month rather than three months should be cut, I will not get furious.

Speaking of the problems with FEHD, my speech would not finish even if the President arranged for a debate of five hours. The frontline staff, the management and even the top management of FEHD are all plagued with many problems, such as a rigid mentality and carrying out operations at their will with their powers. To begin with, I wish to talk about an incident yesterday. The Second Reading on the Private Columbaria Bill ("the Bill") has been completed. When the debate on the Appropriation Bill 2017 is finished, we will proceed to the Committee stage of the Bill. The Bill is under the direct charge of the Director of Food and Environmental Hygiene ("the Director"). Yesterday, she gave Members an account of various matters, including the implementation of the Bill after its passage. I have put forth an amendment, and so have Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung and Dr Fernando CHEUNG. Our amendments concern the definition of "prescribed claimant". We have divergent views from the Government's on who has the priority to retrieve a person's ashes after the closing down of a columbarium. This is naturally understandable, and we will hold a thorough debate when the time comes. However, at the end of April, the Court handed down a judgment on a judicial review filed by Senior Immigration Officer Mr LEUNG. As ruled by the Court, the same-sex partner married to Mr LEUNG should be entitled to the medical and dental benefits enjoyed by civil servants' families in his capacity as Mr LEUNG's spouse. Now, the 14-day appeal deadline is drawing close. But so far, the Government has not applied for a stay of execution of the relevant order. Neither has it filed any appeal. I reckon that the Government will file an appeal in the end.

Yesterday, I asked the Director with good intention whether she would consider accepting the Members' amendments, and whether she had sought any legal advice from the Department of Justice ("DoJ") as the Court had made that ruling. While I did not expect her to take on board my views, I hoped she could at least say that she would first seek DoJ's advice and could not give a reply at that moment. But she nonetheless replied in the negative, saying somewhat domineeringly that they would maintain their decision as stated in the relevant Bills Committee meeting. As Members are aware, the Administration has put forth an amendment to the definition of "related person". I have likewise proposed to put "related person" on par with "relative". However, the Director 7106 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 gave me the reply that even if the Government did not intend to lodge an appeal concerning that judicial review, their decision would remain unchanged. I think this is very outrageous. The reason is that while the Government refuses to lodge an appeal concerning that judicial review, the same-sex partner married to that particular civil servant in an overseas country should actually be entitled to the relevant benefits. In that case, the Bill … My amendment is marked by a high degree of inclusiveness. It proposes that a "related person" should have the same priority as a "relative". But the Director nonetheless replied that they would not consider my proposal. When I talk about this now, I am still furious. I hope the Secretary can take this opportunity to consider one point. That is, should the Government have no intention to lodge any appeal, it must accept the amendment of mine or Dr Fernando CHEUNG's; or else there will be more judicial reviews to come. This will lead to a wastage of public money and the Court's time.

Let me come back to the frontline personnel of FEHD. They have often been criticized for using excessive manpower and force to prosecute grass-roots people, especially those aged. Late last December, somebody captured a video footage in Sham Shui Po showing that some FEHD officers appeared to be surrounding a hawking granny and snatch the warm clothing from her. The granny was of course not as swift as those FEHD officers. Even if she wanted to take back the warm clothing from those FEHD officers, she was unable to do so as she was physically inferior to the three burly guys from FEHD. The passer-by who witnessed the incident was at a loss as to what was going on and said somewhat furiously, "Those FEHD officers trying to snatch the belongings from the granny have been trained to act with swiftness, ruthlessness, high accuracy and no restraints." In the end, the granny withdrew to one side. This passer-by said that he felt bad as he was unable to offer any help to this granny. After listening to the granny's explanation, FEHD allowed her to take back the personal belongings she claimed to have and left.

In order to combat street obstruction posed by hawking activities, FEHD officers must enforce the law during patrol and initiate prosecution. But in the course of enforcing the law, FEHD officers very often use disproportionate manpower and act without mercy. This gives people the feeling that they enforce the law selectively, which has greatly affected the public image of FEHD personnel. I hope FEHD and the Bureau concerned can deeply reflect on all this.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7107

Another infuriating incident happened in October last year. At the time, Granny ZHOU, a cleaning worker at Wan Chai Southorn Playground with a monthly income of merely $8,000, was given a $1,500 fixed penalty notice for allegedly pouring a bucket of water onto the ground outside the refuse collection point, which was an offence under the Public Cleansing and Prevention of Nuisances Regulation. What was Granny ZHOU actually doing at the time? She was cleaning the staff rest room near the Luard Road Refuse Collection Point. As the bleaching agent had yet to disperse―one should not apply water right after using the bleaching agent to avoid dilution and causing wastage―she poured the bucket of water onto the ground outside the refuse collection point with the intention of washing the street as well. In the process, an FEHD officer who saw this suspected that her disposal of water into the sewer broke the law and therefore asked her to produce her identity card and give her residential address for ticketing purpose. Granny ZHOU immediately burst into tears. Afterwards, her cleaning company and members of the public invariably said that they could pay the fine for her. While FEHD agreed to withdraw the fixed penalty notice after seeking DoJ's advice, the frontline FEHD officer already used all his power in the process.

Besides, I also want to seek justice for the cleaning workers performing duties outsourced by the FEHD. Last year, the Cleaning Workers Union ("the Union") conducted a survey involving such cleaning workers. The Union visited many refuse collection points of various sizes in order to ascertain the adequate provision of protective equipment for cleaning workers responsible for the daily cleaning of washrooms under the scorching sun and pouring rains in the streets. The result finds that the problem is very serious. The Government is the largest employer. FEHD is the department responsible for the vetting and approval of the relevant outsourcing contracts and also for the supervision of their daily cleaning work. FEHD will deploy manpower to conduct checks at various refuse collection points to ascertain the number of cleaning workers, their work performance, the level of cleanliness and also their equipment. FEHD may issue warnings or even tickets if they notice anything in contravention of the relevant rules in their view. But the point is that the rules are formulated by FEHD. Therefore, it can be said that FEHD already knows or even connives at the harsh treatment of cleaning workers performing the outsourced duties.

I wish to talk about a few outrageous examples. Cleaning workers performing outsourced duties may eat at refuse collection points. Of course, the hygiene conditions are unsatisfactory, and they are required to wear uniforms. 7108 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

They may also eat at the cooked food stalls nearby, but they must not wear uniforms because they will violate the rules and receive warnings if they eat on the streets in uniform. They must get changed before going out to eat. But FEHD does not provide any changing room for them, and their meal breaks are very short. Of course, some may say that they can eat inside refuse collection points without changing their uniforms. But the point is that if they want to eat outside, they very often have to put their personal belongings in back staircases, back alleys or even garbage trucks because FEHD does not provide any lockers and changing rooms for them. Their personal belongings are completely ripped of any protection. Has FEHD ever considered all such problems? Some workers even have to eat on garbage trucks. According to them, their personal belongings such as meal boxes, wallets and keys will very often disappear.

Besides, the Union also found that less than 30% of the refuse collection points were equipped with drinking facilities for cleaning workers. What should cleaning workers do without such facilities? They must bring a few liters of drinking water to work and put their water bottles on garbage trucks. This involves a basic concern about hygiene. It is not yet summer in Hong Kong but it was very hot last year. The Government often reminds workers to take a rest under very hot weather in its television announcements of public interests. But what is the reality? If an FEHD cleaning worker taking a rest is captured on video, he will receive a warning from the department. In addition to the penalty for eating outside without changing his uniform, a cleaning worker may likewise receive a warning if he takes a seat in summer.

Another problem which is more serious concerns the duty shifts of cleaning workers in public toilets. FEHD's public toilets are open 24 hours. In the past, the duty shifts of cleaning workers began at 7:00 am and ended at 11:00 pm. But now, the night shift has been cut in many public toilets with a high utilization rate, meaning that no cleaning worker is on duty after nightfall. This will affect the hygiene condition and at the same time impose a heavier workload on workers on the morning shift. Members definitely know that cleaning companies do this to reduce cost. But is FEHD aware of this? In the busy district of Wan Chai, for example, the night shift is retained only in two of the 18 public toilets in the district. The Union once lodged a complaint with FEHD, which replied that this arrangement commanded its approval. At present, the shortening of duty hours of cleaning workers in public toilets and manpower reduction have spread to other districts (such as Wong Tai Sin and Kwai Tsing). This is a problem with the management and not with frontline personnel.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7109

I also wish to take this opportunity to bring up another matter and condemn FEHD. Early this year, LI Tung-sing and CHIN Ka-kit, former Members' assistants of Sixtus LEUNG from Youngspiration, won the auction in their personal capacity for operating a stall in the Victoria Park Lunar New Year Fair. However, they were notified by FEHD two days before the fair that their right to operate the stall was repealed on the ground that their products and activities involved the advocacy of "Hong Kong independence" and stood a very high chance of jeopardizing public safety. After receiving FEHD's notification, the two of them gave a reply in denial of the assertion that their products were associated with "Hong Kong independence". They also said that FEHD had not demanded any prior product checks. They even produced the relevant pro forma invoices to assure FEHD that they would not sell any products in contravention of the relevant rules, and that they would act according to FEHD's instructions and enable FEHD personnel to deal with any problems at their stall.

Nonetheless, FEHD paid no heed to their rebuttal of the assertion of selling products relating to "Hong Kong independence". Besides, despite the sale of products carrying political themes at Lunar New Year Fair stalls every year, public order and safety were not adversely affected. Having seen how FEHD deprived them of their right without any express guidelines, we are concerned that their encounters may occur to anyone else in the future, meaning that after procuring certain products, one is not allowed to operate a stall on the suspicion that the products for sale may affect Hong Kong's stability and prosperity and advocate the thought of "independence". At present, "self-determination" is also regarded as a form of "independence". If this should happen, I really cannot imagine how people can run their business. I believe FEHD was probably under the political pressure from a higher level. As a department responsible for frontline law enforcement, however, it should talk reason and hold uniform standards.

I so submit.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, do you wish to speak again?

7110 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I believe many Members do not have sufficient time to speak on this subject. I thus think that your judgment is wrong. I hope that you can allow more time for Members to speak.

First, I have prepared a lot of information for my speech, but due to insufficient time, I can only focus on two amendments proposed by Dr LAU Siu-lai, Amendment Nos. 121 and 122. The amendments seek to cut one month of the emoluments of the Secretary for Labour and Welfare and the Under Secretary for Labour and Welfare. The cut is indeed very minimal. I believe Members may have guessed that I will talk about their failure to take forward universal retirement protection.

Chairman, thanks to your able leadership, pro-establishment Members can really afford some sort of laziness this time around. They do not need to worry about our quorum calls, and they do not even bother to speak. All is because after you have "cut the filibuster", we simply do not have enough time to speak and will not make any quorum calls. Why do they refrain from speaking? "More words, more mistakes" is the reason. I now come back to the subject of universal retirement protection. In fact, this Government has already made a decision on this subject. If the Budget is passed, funding will be earmarked for a so-called "three-tiered" retirement protection proposal. Hence, this is a very big issue. I do not know why no one speaks on it.

In the Budget debates of the past five years, I filibustered or made prolonged speeches in an attempt to make the Government accept the implementation of universal retirement protection. Conceptually, the kind of universal retirement protection we have in mind is different from the three-tiered retirement protection package the Government now wants to implement, and the former is a clear manifestation of the consensus on implementing universal retirement protection held by the Legislative Councils before and after the reunification.

Let me take a former Legislative Council Member, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, as an example. He was a former Chairman of the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong ("DAB") and also a former member of the Executive Council. He moved a motion in 1994 on implementing universal retirement protection. Let me quote his words, "I must, however, point out that the payment made under the CSSA scheme alone can only help a small number of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7111 people living in abject poverty―it is not a long-term solution to problems faced by most of the elderly in their later years. Furthermore, the Government is now spending up to $4 billion on Old Age Allowance and CSSA payments. If by the year 2030, the number of elderly residents increases by three times, the Government's expenditure will be as much as $12 billion, equivalent to 4% of the rate of contributions made by the Government to the OPS (Old Age Pension Scheme). Can our society as a whole afford this? Will this cast too heavy a burden on the future Special Administration Region Government? In the long run, the OPS and the central provident fund scheme should be implemented side by side." He was also of the view that a comprehensive reform should be taken forward.

He then continued, "Mr President, the 'cover-for-the-elderly' comprehensive proposal put forward by the DAB and the HKFTU (The Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions) is the best scheme in making provisions for the elderly after their retirement. The proposal was endorsed and highly applauded by Prof Nelson CHOW, who was among the 78 scholars who jointly signed an opposition to the Government's OPS." He already supported this idea as early as in 1994.

Members may think that his comment was made in 1994 and at that time, Hong Kong was not yet reunited with China. But in 2001, the former President of the Legislative Council and also a former chairman of DAB, Mr Jasper TSANG, made a similar comment in the debate on 21 November 2001. He said, "The DAB has all along attached great importance to the wealth gap problem in Hong Kong. We are of the view that the Government should formulate a comprehensive set of plans to help the poor and eliminate poverty." And he continued, "I have to take this opportunity to reiterate that a comprehensive universal elderly retirement protection scheme is essential to Hong Kong in the long run." These are the words he said.

Speaking of tracing such past remarks of people, very interestingly, there is one person who must be mentioned, Mr Paul CHAN. He used to be our colleague. He moved a motion on "Reviewing Public Finances Policies" on 19 January 2011. He made a long speech on the motion. Let me quote a small paragraph. He said, "Putting stress on fiscal discipline does not mean that we should stick to the same old rut and never change. The authorities should suit changes and adjustments to the dictates of the times and the prevailing conditions. 7112 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

There must not be any disregard of the poor grass roots, the disabled, the elderly and the vulnerable in our society. Nor should there be any callous insensitivity to their plight."

He then went on to mention his solution, "Some of the assets owned by the Government can be cashed in without affecting public policies. For example, the shares owned in the MTR Corporation Limited ("MTRCL") can be reduced from 77% to 50%, or to list the Airport Authority while the Government still holds 50% of its shares. If the Government keeps its shareholding at 50%, it will not affect the interest of consumers and the public while the Government can cash in $100 billion … if this sum of $100 billion is used to provide services to the elderly badly in need of social security or to launch universal retirement protection, this will serve to show instantly the Government's commitment to solving the problems of population ageing and universal retirement protection." This is the solution he proposed. He is the incumbent Financial Secretary. I wonder if he is here today. I do not know if he still remembers what he said in the past, but this is the record I looked up.

Mr CHAN Kin-por spoke on Mr Paul CHAN's motion. In the same debate, he said, "Regarding Mr WONG Kwok-hing's proposal to review Hong Kong's policies and measures on social welfare and public finances, including the establishment of a universal retirement protection system, so as to lessen the drastic increases in the Government's welfare expenditure caused by the ageing population in the future, I will support it." These words came from Mr CHAN Kin-por, the incumbent Finance Committee Chairman who cut my filibustering, saying that I should not filibuster in order to fight for universal retirement protection.

Besides, a Member belonging to HKFTU amended Mr Paul CHAN's motion. I will read out part of it for Members, "… substitute with … '(b) to review Hong Kong's policies and measures on'; to add "including the establishment of a universal retirement protection system, so as to lessen the drastic increases in the Government's welfare expenditure caused by the ageing population in the future' …". In other words, he supported Mr Paul CHAN's motion on Reviewing Public Finances Policies and moved an amendment to fine-tune it.

Both DAB and HKFTU, and Mr Paul CHAN and Mr CHAN Kin-por said the same thing. Their comments spanned the periods from 1994 to 2011 and from 2011 to the present. So, Chairman, who is right and who is wrong? I really cannot tell. This is also the reason why Members now tend to speak less LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7113 frequently. Any word they utter, whether on the spur of the moment, out of conscience or trying to deceive their voters, will be put on record. What Mr Paul CHAN said in the past is completely different from what he now says as the Financial Secretary. When he was against the Government led by Donald TSANG and when he wanted to usurp power, he called them miser. Right?

Chairman, I will take this opportunity to speak for those elderly people who have hitherto been denied universal retirement protection. Actually, the in-coming Chief Executive, Mrs Carrie LAM, has to share the blame. When she was the Chairperson of the Commission on Poverty, she entrusted the Centre for Social Policy Studies of the Department of Applied Social Science of the Hong Kong Polytechnic University to conduct a survey. According to the survey result, almost 70% of the interviewees support the establishment of a non-income and non-assets tested universal retirement protection scheme in Hong Kong; and almost 90% of the interviewees agree that large corporations making a surplus should be levied an extra profits tax of no more than 2% and that an activation fund on universal retirement protection should be established with a government funding of $100 billion. When I filibustered in the Budget debate in 2013, the Government undertook that it would earmarked $50 billion for this purpose. So, we just need another $50 billion to make up the fund. The Government now says that it will take some money from the $50 billion for use on the abolition of the "offsetting" arrangement. The Government's financial skills are indeed marvellous. It actually does not intend to implement universal retirement protection in the very first place. So, it now draws some money from the $50 billion for the "offsetting" arrangement.

The Government was such a bad loser. It asked Prof Nelson CHOW to conduct a research on the subject. But then after Prof CHOW put forth a financing proposal, the Government revised it with the excuse of inaccurate data and did not publish it until one year later. Prof CHOW was fooled by the Government. It was the Government who entrusted another party to conduct the research in the first place. But then it refused to adopt the recommendations in the research. In fact, there have been different old age pension proposals in the community since long ago and I mentioned them when I filibustered in the Legislative Council in the past five years. The Government wants to go for a three-tiered retirement protection option, but it also admits that this option may become unsustainable by 2046 and an tax increase may be necessary. In contrast, our proposal will not need any tax increase and will even generate a surplus by 2041, according to the calculation of actuaries.

7114 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

The President has cut the filibuster, so I do not have sufficient time to speak on this proposal or explain it in detail. What should I do? Hundreds of thousands of elderly people are now suffering poverty, especially those elderly women who are not part of the working population and thus not covered by the Mandatory Provident Fund scheme. They become the poorest of the poor. Across the street of the famous Yung Kee Restaurant frequented by many of you, there is a garbage bin. Every night a few old people would fight for the paper cartons dumped there. Our Honourable Secretaries, Under Secretaries and Secretaries of Department, have you ever talked to them? When your driver come pick you up, have you ever looked across the street?

Chairman, there are at least three fallacies in the three-tiered retirement protection proposal the Government wishes to take forward. First, if the Government is to fund the old-age pension, it will have to make an annual commitment of $60.4 billion to $68.9 billion in the years after 2041, which will further weigh down the Government financially; secondly, if the scheme is means-tested, it will encourage differentiation among elderly people and social dissension. It will also pose an asset transferral risk to elderly people, who will be encouraged to resort to illegal means or be cheated out of their money by their children during asset transferral; and thirdly, a universal retirement protection scheme should serve the purpose of repaying housewives who have contributed all their youth to their children and indirectly contributed to Hong Kong and those who have worked very hard in the past decades to raise their family with a meagre salary and thus do not have any savings. Wealthy consortia should thus shoulder a greater share so as to redistribute wealth. Instead of redistributing the wealth accumulated in the past decades in a more humane and fairer way, the three-tiered system proposed by the Government will make the poor poorer and the rich richer. I thus urge Members to support the amendments proposed by Dr LAU Siu-lai, so as to cut (The buzzer sounded) … the emoluments of the Secretary and the Under Secretary.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, please stop. Ms Claudia MO, do you wish to speak again?

MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): "Long Hair" has mentioned Carrie LAM just now. This reminds me that Carrie LAM, who has been "elected" the next Chief Executive, has never mentioned anything about animal welfare and rights either in the election process or in her election platform. My immediate guess is that she may not bother to put up any pretence at all, or she may be too busy to attend to these matters. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7115

Actually, many people may have some misunderstanding regarding the expenses on the management of wild pigs under head 22. I suppose we should not call animals "pets" so indiscriminately. Hikers often come across wild pigs, and some may be scared, because boars have tusks. People who do not know wild pigs well will understandably be frightened. But little wild pigs are very cute, only that however cute they are, they cannot be kept as pets at home. Anyway, we must still discuss wild pigs in relation to our community life.

There is a wild pig hunting team under the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department ("AFCD"). Since they call them "wild pigs" … Fortunately, they do not call stray dogs "wild dogs". We should call them "community dogs" instead. You know, if we call them wild dogs, volunteers from animal welfare organizations will certainly protest. Anyway, since very few people care about pigs at all, the term "wild pigs" is used officially by the Government. Why are wild pigs found in Hong Kong? Well, in the past, there used to be a large pig farm on the mountain behind Stanley, and from time to time, the residents there could really hear the noises of pigs being slaughtered. The Government later resumed the land, which is now occupied by a very nice Home Ownership Scheme estate. The pig farmers must move out when the site was resumed by the Government, but they did not want to kill their pigs, so they set all the pigs free, so that they could search for food on their own. Perhaps because pigs can swim, all those pigs eventually swam all the way from Stanley to Sai Kung. This is one of the reasons for the presence of wild pigs in Hong Kong. We call them "community pigs".

Members of the wild pig hunting team are all volunteers who, though not paid, are equipped with shotguns and issued with relevant licences by the Police. Hunting is not permitted in Hong Kong, but there is nonetheless a wild pig hunting team. According to AFCD, the management of wild pigs entails a total expenditure of $2.7 million. Since members of the wild pig hunting team are not paid, we all wonder why the expenditure should be so great. I have therefore asked AFCD for a reason. The answer is that $1.8 million of the $2.7 million is for research and laboratory tests, and the authorities will administer contraceptive treatment to the wild pigs they have caught. I did not realize that contraceptive drugs are so expensive, but anyway, I think the expenses can still be accepted for the sake of avoiding the birth of more wild pigs. Yet, I am not convinced that the daily expenses on managing wild pigs (including investigating and processing nuisance cases) should take up the remaining sum of $900,000, because the wild pig hunting team should be deployed only when there are no viable alternatives. Is it actually possible to use other means to deter wild pigs, such wire fences?

7116 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

We have of course received complaints from villagers of Sai Kung and Lantau about wild pigs scavenging litter bins at night and causing noise nuisance to them. However, I think villagers can stop placing litter bins outdoors or put them inside gated mud-wall enclosures. What I mean is that we human beings can do something extra in order to prevent wild pigs from causing nuisance. I can well imagine the nuisance. Pigs seldom obstruct traffic, but it is true that they will scavenge litter bins at night and cause noise nuisance. They may knock down litter bins, causing them to roll downslope. In the morning, drivers must then remove numerous litter bins before they can drive through. Nevertheless, do we really have no choice other than asking the hunting team to slaughter wild pigs? Is this method a bit too terrible, and too much? It is really frightening, right? It goes beyond the limit, right? AFCD says in its reply that it will take all possible precautions as far as possible. We surely can think of a wide range of reasonable precautions, including the erection of wire fences, but we do not encourage people to feed any wild pigs. Do not think that feeding them can stop them from scavenging litter bins. This will not be the case. They will come to villagers' homes every day and eventually become "domestic pigs" once they get used to being fed by human beings. This will give rise to another problem.

Yet, when all other means fail to work, the wild pig hunting team must be notified, and consent from the Police must be obtained because the team may need to open fire. Besides, the District Offices concerned must also inform members of the public, usually villagers in the New Territories, and some sort of confusion will be inevitable. Since the beginning of this year, there have been two cases in which volunteers from animal welfare organizations and some villagers against wild-pig killing proceeded to the village entrance to stage protests on learning that the wild pig hunting team would visit their village the next day. They intended to stop the pig-killing operations but their actions almost caused clashes between the Police and the public.

Consequently, AFCD called off the aforesaid two operations in a bid to avoid any possible unpleasant incident and bloodshed. The crux of the problem is that the authorities have not yet ascertained whether such operations are acceptable to all villagers and even the wider community; they have not yet found out how Hong Kong people as a whole perceive "community pigs". They simply ask the team to shoot the wild pigs to death whenever any litter bins are scavenged. This will not work.

Speaking of the hunting of wild pigs, I have got some figures here. They are provided by the authorities in reply to my question and are about the number of hunting operations conducted and the number of pigs hunted by the wild pig LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7117 hunting team―please call it the "community pig" hunting team―in the past five financial years. They played with words once again. What is meant by "caught"? Does it implies that the wild pigs caught are tied up and killed? If so, it means to "kill" and not "catch". And what is meant by humane handling? It is euthanasia in fact. Do be honest! I think self-confessed villains are better hypocrites. The truth is, they are purely trying to water down the very act of killing wild pigs in an attempt to avoid causing hard feeling to the public.

Earlier in 2012, the total number of such hunting operations conducted for the whole year was 110. Thanks to the numerous complaints lodged by the public, there is some improvement this year, as hunting operations are less frequent. The number of operations conducted this year has dropped by more than 50% to 49, but the rate of decrease in the number of "community pigs" killed is lower than 50%. Fifty-five "community pigs" were killed in 2012, whereas 34 were killed this year as at 2 March. Since that day, I have not heard of any more killing of wild pigs.

My discussion on "community pigs" ends here, but there is also the issue of "community cows". Cows are quieter than pigs and relatively tame in nature. They walk slowly on roads and are quite oblivious to sounds of car horns as they are rather composed in fact. Cows have a longer history in Hong Kong. Agriculture played a key role in Hong Kong's economy in the early days. Back then when I was in primary school, there was a chapter in the textbook about Sha Tin. There was a picture of farmers and cows in the fields. However, agriculture has declined and Sha Tin has now become a town. What about the cows then? Well, they were set free by the farmers who did not want to kill them, so they had to live on their own. They have since kept breeding cows for generations up to the present. It is said that cows can also be neutered or given contraceptive treatment. Some volunteers from animal welfare organizations once revealed that staff of the Cattle Management Team under AFCD are so ruthless that even a baby cow of four months old staying beside its mother was taken away for sterilization. First, when AFCD took away that baby cow by force, it could no longer enjoy its mother's love. Second, that baby cow was only four to six months old then and was not suitable for sterilization. Why were they so eager to neuter it?

AFCD pointed out in its reply that we might have misunderstood the situation because some cows with immature looks were actually adult cows. Volunteers from animal welfare organizations could not help bursting into laughter on learning this since they had witnessed when the cows were born and fed, and could tell when and where to find them. I am not sure if there are "mini 7118 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 cows" in Sai Kung, but the one in question is apparently a baby cow, although AFCD insisted that it was already an adult cow. Well, it must be of a new cattle breed called "mini cows" then. AFCD's explanation is largely meaningless. If AFCD happened to have neutered a calf by mistake, all it has to do is to admit the mistake. However, it refuses to do so no matter what.

That baby cow in question was not brought back to its mother after sterilization. I have been to Shap Sze Heung in Sai Kung. Volunteers of animal welfare organizations took me over to the original dwelling places of the cows. There, I saw green grass and only two big cows taking a siesta on heaps of grass. I took some nice pictures of them that day in the afternoon. The original dwelling places are in close proximity to motorways and it is likely that the cows will roam onto the motorways. Thus, volunteers for other animals have requested relocation of the cows to larger grasslands for fear that they may get hurt in accidents.

First and foremost, the cows used to live happily in their original habitats but the pleasant living environment was subsequently ruined by human beings who built motorways next to their dwelling places. Yet, they were blamed instead by human beings for roaming onto the motorways. This is absolutely unfair. At present, the cows have been relocated to Chong Hing Water Sports Centre in Sai Kung, and so we went there by bus to pay another visit to them. Nevertheless, buses do not have direct access and private cars are banned entry to the site, so we took a taxi to get there instead. It was March then and grass was totally out of sight in the cows' dwelling places. We saw that some calves still searched on the surface soil for traces of grass although their noses were almost bleeding due to abrasion. But grass was entirely absent there. Therefore, though knowing that it was not advisable to feed them with grass, we still gave out some grass. On noticing the grass, the big cows expelled the little ones so fiercely. The calves were thus bullied by other cows since they did not belong to the community of adult cows and their mothers were not there to look after them.

Taking all the above into account, we doubt whether the entire AFCD and the Food and Health Bureau have put in place any policies on the care for both the "community cows" and "community pigs". Anyway, their relevant expenses for this year must be reduced in the very first place. I so submit.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr LAU Siu-lai, do you wish to speak again?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7119

DR LAU SIU-LAI (in Cantonese): Yes. Chairman, this time I speak on three amendments moved by myself, which propose that head 139 be cut in respect of subhead 000, and the amount is approximately equivalent to the estimated expenditure on one month's emoluments for the Secretary for Food and Health, the Under Secretary for Food and Health and the Political Assistant to Secretary for Food and Health.

In fact, I have pointed out time and again that cutting the estimated expenditure on one month's emoluments for these officials is merely a symbolic gesture involving trivial amounts. I simply hope to advocate a value for money spirit to enable our senior government officials, who have totally lost touch with the people, to introspect about their performance in office. Frankly speaking, it is rather difficult to assess Secretary Dr KO Wing-man's performance as his purview covers health care as well, a topic that I am not very familiar with. However, according to the comments made by members of the medical sector and other Members today about how the authorities have handled health care issues or incidents, the Government's performance in this respect is not too favourable.

Speaking of the Food and Health Bureau, I have deep feeling indeed. The Bureau can be regarded as completely disconnected with the people, performing really badly. I once protested at the Legislative Council Complex with Mr HO Ying, the representative of hawkers at "Pang Tsai"(that is, Yen Chow Street Temporary Hawker Bazaar). He told me that he was repeatedly refused to meet Secretary Dr KO Wing-man, despite making numerous requests. I did try personally to make appointments with the Secretary on his behalf, yet the Secretary rejected the meeting, too. While undertaking in 2015 to promote the implementation of the policy on bazaars, the situation today merely indicates more heavy suppression, as the senior officers simply ignore the hawkers' repeated demand for a meeting. As I can recall, Mr HO called out emotionally outside the Complex: "KO Wing-man, you are simply holding a superior position, but it does not mean any superior ability. You just hold yourself superior without connecting the people, without any regard to the people in fact." I was greatly touched by his words. Why was this the case? It was because, while the Government claimed in 2015 that it would support hawkers and promote bazaars, suppression against hawkers gone worse and worse afterwards. The authorities were utterly hypocritical. Even a few nights of cooked food bazaars during the Lunar New Year became a target of their worsening suppression. 7120 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

This was the reason for my participation in the movement supporting hawkers. Indeed, the "I want genuine hawkers" movement which took place two years ago escalated into the civil disobedience last year.

I remember the scene in the court after I was arrested for civil disobedience. It stirred up my strong feeling. There were several dozens of hawkers put on trial collectively. Indeed, the court was filled with elderly people in their seventies or eighties. Officers from the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department usually pick the easy prey, selectively arresting the elderly. It pained me watching these elderly hawkers pleaded guilty to summary offences. When the elderly receive payments under the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance Scheme, they are described as burdens for society; when they ask for universal retirement protection, we have been evading our responsibilities, therefore the supposedly retried elderly have to work to earn their own living; when some of them do earn their own living and diligently work as security guards until their seventies or eighties, they are accused of having broken the rules and some are even jailed; when some work as hawkers, they are treated as thieves, are arrested and brought to trial. So, has our society ever give the elderly an option to lead a respectable life? I felt so bitter that I turned from supporting the elderly to more concretely supporting hawkers.

In the course of this, I witnessed how the dignity of these grass-roots hawkers was thrashed. The Government has been claiming that it will promote bazaars in its policies, that it will proactively open up, yet it has offered no assistance in reality, turning a blind eye to the indignity and harshness suffered by hawkers. Once I visited a legal bazaar called the Morning Bazaar. There I asked hawkers about their income of the day, and one of them replied that she earned around $30. I wondered why she earned only $30 after a day's hard work. According to this female hawker, she normally has to start hawking before dawn, or work secretively as if she is stealing. All she wishes is a bit more income for a meal to take care of her families. One more day's work means one more lunch box for her. Likewise, her income for subsistence decreases if she has no chance to work. However, being a hawker is like a burglar. The bazaar was named Day Time Market, implying that hawkers were able to operate open and above board under the sun at last. She felt happy even though she did not earn much. I was moved hearing her words. Why is there no choice for the grass roots and the elderly in Hong Kong? Therefore, I have started to study more about the Government's policy on bazaars. And, are the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7121 grass roots and the elderly the only beneficiaries of bazaars? I found that the Government has studied the meaning of bazaars in society for years, in which many scholars have proposed that bazaars are in fact beneficial to communities in many aspects.

In recent years, Hong Kong has seemed like facing some serious competition internationally. As a result, all the projects proposed by us have been projects with great ambition and foresight, such as joining the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank or constructing large-scale infrastructure which will easily cost us billions or hundreds of billions of dollars. I can try not to question at this moment how effective or how realistic these projects are, yet such high-end projects are truly distance away from the life of the grass roots and the elderly. I would like to quote an example against the backdrop of intense international competition and the dominance of chain stores and multinationals corporations, that is, the monopoly of the Link Real Estate Investment Trust ("Link REIT"). Under Link REIT, the people are offered nothing but uniform goods charging high prices. Even worse, it is difficult for them to play a part in the economy and get employed, as many female and elderly members of the grass-roots sector need to take care of their families, unable to work in such a demanding place where people work the longest hours on earth. The hawking trade and bazaars indeed offer the flexibility for them, while ensuring them a means of livelihood.

Therefore, I wish to point out in this Council that, despite the need to respond to competition brought about by globalization, when globalization gives rise only to high-end completion between nations, many members of the public are in fact living a underprivileged life. It is even not easy for them to get a job. In this case, community economy is beneficial in the sense that it creates another possibility in the people's everyday lives, enabling the elderly and women the flexibility and means to make a living and support their families.

Another benefit is about Hong Kong's poor ranking in the World Happiness Index. While being a hawker, they can utilize their creativity and talents to make their food or goods, or purchase goods for sale. They can fulfil and manifest their ability in this way, instead of like relying on society and living without dignity on payments under CSSA. They feel happy being a hawker. They feel so even without earning much. You know what? The popular old man who sold egg waffles at Tai Hang did not earn much actually, yet he told reporters of his happiness hawking egg waffles. He ran vice business in those 7122 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 days, but the enjoyment in making egg waffles and the compliments from patrons gave him the pleasure of satisfaction. This kind of happiness brought to the elderly, women and the grass roots can never be obtained from other social policies. Why does the Government not keep its word and actually promote and implement hawker polices in reality?

On top of issues concerning the grass roots' rights to make a living and fulfilling their talents, one can easily notice the lack of hope among young people who are confronted with low wages, long working hours, exorbitant property prices in which they can never own a flat after a whole life's hard work. There is no way to realize their talents. Many young people wish to set up street-side art bazaars or bazaars selling creative products, so that they can gain a livelihood with tiny capital, while creating a possibility for long-term business. However, society does not give them the chance. Say, if they perform music in the street, they will just be seen as conducting illegal hawking or begging.

After all, except big entrepreneurs or corporations, who else will have a chance in our society? Apart from giving the people an access to livelihood and promoting development, in this so called metropolis where grand projects like the Kai Tak Sports Park Project or other giant malls and significant investments are high on the agenda, it is more important that the Secretary can enrich his knowledge through reading. As explained by Jane JACOBS, a renowned American scholar on urban studies, when there are more and more shopping places in a big city, which means an increasing number of shopping malls, the community relationship will deteriorate. There is no longer any human touch, and no one will ever ask if the shopkeeper can give him a few more egg waffles as the snack is really delicious. This is not possible at all, as all we have are salespersons with a poker face who do not have any autonomy in themselves.

A large number of giant shopping malls will lead to more distance human relationship, and a less happy city. Having the luxurious private apartments and stylish shopping malls in our mind, we will lose the taste of bits and pieces of happiness in our day-to-day lives. Bazaars are places where individual producers can interact with the people, which is in fact a way to build up community relationship. We will meet the hawkers day in day out, recognizing their faces, eventually establishing a relationship in the community and a place with warmth. In this way, a policy on a minor issue like this can end up offering great help to community relationship and the lives of the elderly, women and the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7123 grass roots. However, although the Policy Bureau has always talked about more openness, what we have in reality are some disdainful arrogance and negligence instead.

The so-called bottom-up approach effectively means that members of the public have to contact all the relevant departments one by one by themselves. When the Government talks about openness, it simply means ignoring our concerns, allowing the lack of coordination among departments to go on. In fact, ordinances concerning the Fire Services Department, the Food and Health Bureau, the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department and the Housing Department are indeed contradictory to each other, and have created unnecessary duplication, rendering it very difficult, if not impossible, to get approval for bazaars. Yet we just do nothing to stop this, therefore it is virtually impossible for anyone to really gain any approval for organizing a bazaar. When the organizations finally succeeded in getting an approval for a bazaar for the first time after 10 years' incessant efforts, our high-rank officials would then say: "Look, the successful application simply indicates the work we have done." This is a quotation from Secretary Dr KO Wing-man. What an attempt to claim credit at the expense of others' hard earned efforts. As a matter of fact, the authorities did nothing at all. After the civil groups had been lobbying over the last two years, the Government finally agreed to relax its policy a little bit. Was it really that difficult for the Government to heed their requests? They simply requested the authorities to disclose the details about the land leases, so that they would know about the pilot sites for bazaars. Why was the Government so secretive in response to our enquiries about the land leases? The document was kept restricted. We were only given this 155-page document upon issuing our demands continuously. After this, we still had to assess whether these sites were suitable for bazaars one by one. The fact is that government departments know very well about the uses of the sites under their purview, yet they have provided not the least information to facilitate our process.

Hawkers expect the Government to simplify the application procedures for setting up pilot hawking points, resolve contradiction between departments and open up the policies and principles behind, so that they can lodge in applications accordingly. Having tried hard for two to three years, civil groups finally succeeded in pressing the Government to convene a meeting to review and rationalize the contraction in policies formulated by different departments. So what have our senior officials done in this respect? They are public officials on a top salary after all. Do they have to introspect about this themselves?

7124 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

Apart from sitting in this Chamber earning a good salary and honourable status, the fundamental meaning of being a public officer is to open your eyes and see if the people in society are living a better and happier life with you in your positions. The officers can bring about great happiness to the people simply by slightly altering their policies, yet they have been keeping themselves aloof without taking any actions. Do they not deserve a pay cut?

Many civil groups have spent the last 10 years working voluntarily on this issue. It is highly encouraging that they have made progress in pushing these policies forward after 10 years' endeavour. However, we are talking about voluntary input from a lot of people in their daily lives. The Polices would not have been rationalized without them. What they are requesting is a follow-up on the part of the Government to establish a seed fund, so that civil groups can have the means to hire sufficient staff to truly achieve policy rationalization, so that each district can have their own bazaars. That said, the Government merely responds in one sentence, that is, they do not intend to study this area, nor do they intend to set up a seed fund. They are just shameful.

The Government has indiscriminately spent hundreds of billions or tens of billions dollars on such useless projects as Hong Kong Disneyland Resort, the membership of the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, the Kai Tak Sports Park Project and the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge, yet it refuses to establish this tiny seed fund. Therefore, I seek to cut their emoluments for a month with a view to ask them to spend this sum of money on the seed fund to enable the grass roots the right to make a living, to be happy and to be respected. I urge them not to lose touch with the public anymore and really figure out what kind of lives Hong Kong people are living.

I so submit.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr SHIU Ka-chun, do you wish to speak again?

MR SHIU KA-CHUN (in Cantonese): Thank you, Chairman. I would like to speak again.

The Legislative Council is a place for policy debate and debate is serious business to us. Mr LEUNG Che-cheung said that increasing the manpower for inspecting residential care homes for the elderly and for persons with disabilities LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7125 could help plug service loopholes in these residential care homes. Therefore, he considered my suggestion of reducing eight headcounts in residential care homes inspection inadvisable.

The focus of my cutback proposal is on the appointment of eight retired disciplined service officers. If you have paid attention to my speech, I have indicated that in order to resolve various problems of the present-day private residential care homes, we should focus on enhancing the provision of care and on raising the quality of life allowed to the residents. Such an aim definitely cannot be achieved by strengthening the inspection and monitoring of residential care homes. As a matter of fact, the Social Work Department ("SWD") has already stepped up the inspection and monitoring of residential care homes for persons with disabilities after the Bridge of Rehabilitation Company incident. But according to the observations I made during my personal visits to these residential care homes, this measure has utterly failed to upgrade the service quality of residential care homes, not to mention promoting the well-being of their residents.

I hope Mr LEUNG Che-cheung would understand that the SWD team responsible for licensing and regulation of residential care homes for the elderly and for persons with disabilities has an establishment size of 121. It consists of social workers, nurses, fire services professionals, architecture professionals, building surveying professionals, and so on. I have indicated clearly in my proposal that eliminating those eight retired disciplined service officers is suggested as the expertise of disciplinary forces is in no way helpful to the inspection and monitoring of residential care homes. Neither SWD nor the Labour and Welfare Bureau has been able to produce the rationale for hiring disciplined service retirees for inspection. I have not proposed reducing the allocations for other licensing and regulation staff members and therefore the cutback proposal will certainly not affect the licensing, inspection and monitoring work of SWD.

In the speech I made, I even suggested hiring physiotherapists to help residential care homes provide rehabilitation activities, such as the provision of training for their staff or personalized care and rehabilitation programmes for the residents. I hope Mr LEUNG Che-cheung would understand that I am well aware of the abundant amount of follow-up work done by SWD after the Bridge of Rehabilitation Company incident. But as what Dr LAU Siu-lai has said, "deinstitutionalization" is the world trend in care provision for the elderly and for 7126 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 persons with disabilities. The use of community care in place of residential care homes allows the elderly and persons with disabilities stay in the community so that they can enjoy adequate and appropriate support and care services.

What about the service quality of residential care homes in Hong Kong? As at 31 March 2017, 4 504 persons were on the waiting list for Integrated Home Care Services or Enhanced Home and Community Care Services. While all these elderlies have been professionally assessed to establish their need for community care services, they still have to wait 11 months on average.

Responding to the issue raised by Secretary SUI with regard to the Community Care Service Voucher for the Elderly or the Residential Care Service Voucher for the Elderly, I would like to reiterate that the Community Care Service Voucher for the Elderly has triggered a lot of feedback within the sector. At the insistence of Government officials, the implementation of this kind of "commodified" social welfare continues, after all. In his book Poverty in the Midst of Affluence: How Hong Kong Mismanaged Its Prosperity, Leo GOODSTADT, formerly the Head of the Central Policy Unit from 1989 to 1997, has named Carrie LAM and John TSANG in his insider's criticism, reproving them for their misplaced confidence in private market forces in resolving social welfare problems. He further disapproved of their conservative management of public finance which had contributed to persistently unresolved problems in poverty and elderly services. Dissenting opinions regarding social welfare policy unquestionably exist in our community, and some of these come even from government insiders.

Chairman, the long waiting list for residential care homes is a lingering problem in society. In view of a lack of adequate community care services, elderly persons and persons with disabilities who are in need of long-term care can only choose to go to residential care homes. But, how long do they have to wait? According to the statistics provided by SWD, as at end-March 2016, more than 9 691 persons were on the waiting list for various subsidized residential care homes for persons with disabilities, and they have to wait seven to eight years on average. In some districts, the waiting period for a place in residential care homes for persons with severe mental handicap can stand as long as 15 years. In other words, the Government is still processing those cases which have been waiting since year 2000. Take residential care homes for persons with severe or moderate mental handicap as example, 1 784 persons were queuing up for 2 384 service places in 2014-2015 and people had to wait 39 months on average, as LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7127 only 20 new places were added throughout that particular year. Over the years, the provision of residential care homes has not even come close to people's demand and hence both the waiting period and the service waiting list are growing consistently. Meanwhile, upon an examination of the Budgets of previous years, we understand that the Government has time and again failed to honour its promises in the planning for residential care homes. Though it has undertaken to increase the number of residential care home places repeatedly, up to 40%-plus of promised places are unrealized and over the years, the cumulative number of unrealized places nears 2 400.

The cost of a place in a residential care home for persons with disabilities is about $170,000. If a society and its Government have the vision to shorten the current waiting list by half, it is only going to cost them an additional expenditure of $800 million. We see today the launch of many large-scale Government works. Though they do not want us to call those works "white elephantine" works, each of these projects may easily cost tens of billions of dollars or even more than a hundred billion. The overspent amount alone exceeds $10 billion. Our society definitely does not lack resources, we only lack the determination and the resolve to tackle problems. The successful provision of basic care services to the most needy people actually hinges only on the accordance of priority by the Government in policy implementation. In response to the extreme shortage of places in residential care homes, the Government proposes large-scale hostels for persons with disabilities. It is now preparing to convert the Siu Lam Hospital into a mega-scale integrated institution for persons with disabilities that accommodates up to 1 150 service users. Meanwhile, also under planning is the redevelopment of ex-Kai Nang Sheltered Workshop in Kwun Tong to become a residential care home with 300 places. But I do not think many people will willingly choose to live in these residential care homes. For the sake of high management efficiency in residential care homes, residents with disabilities have to follow a rigid schedule day in and day out and year after year, on top of being denied of access to community life and options. It is thus quite impossible to see an improvement of their quality of living. I am afraid that some large-scale residential care homes might limit the quality of living and rights allowable to persons with disabilities.

It is clearly stated in Article 19 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities that "States Parties to this Convention recognize the equal right of all persons with disabilities to live in the community, with choices equal to others, and shall take effective and appropriate measures to facilitate full 7128 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 enjoyment by persons with disabilities of this right and their full inclusion and participation in the community". In a public hearing session, many persons with disabilities have expressed their views on these large-scale residential care homes, saying these homes violated human rights, as residents were kept away from the community, in direct contradiction to the principle of autonomous living. They even described these residential care homes as fort-like and prison-like institutions. We ask for an increase of residential care homes with due planning but reject large-scale residential care homes. This is not a self-contradiction as we would like to bring in the philosophy and possibility of alternative service provision. And such a possibility is particularly relevant to the need to protect the rights of persons with disabilities and to provide them with care.

In the United States, Canada and many European countries, "deinstitutionalization" was first championed as early as in the 1970s. Community care services were highlighted as persons with disabilities were allowed to live in their own homes or with their families as far as possible. Overseas experience sees residential care homes, which model on small-scale community residential care homes as blueprint, keep their living arrangements as close to a home environment as possible. These homes provide care services to persons with disabilities while allowing them to live with individual autonomy at the same time. Each small-scale residential care home accommodates six to eight persons with disabilities. Several of these small-scale residential care homes share a team of health care and nursing personnel, as well as social workers and case managers to provide assistance for persons with disabilities. The provision of home-like residential care home service represents an ideological change or what we call a paradigm shift. How do we safeguard their rights, use the social model to eliminate existing environmental hindrance, respect the subjectivity of persons with disabilities and displace the prevailing expert-dominated health care model? These are the questions to ask when we are truly exploring our future development.

As a matter of fact, we do have small-scale institutions which provides home living in Hong Kong, as different non-governmental organizations are running small group homes. However, it is not part of a government policy to promote small group homes, and hence they have not been set up extensively. Meanwhile, in contrast to the trend we see in foreign countries, the Government launches large-scale residential care homes and this is certainly disappointing. As we will gradually see the completion of more public rental housing ("PRH") units in the next few years, I suggest converting 1% to 2% of these PRH units LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7129 into small-scale residential care homes for persons with disabilities. The plan will not only increase the supply of residential care homes substantially but also establish the conviction of shared community living and the respect for human rights. I understand, I do understand that the supply of PRH units is tight. But then our society also has to face up to the living difficulties experienced by persons with disabilities who are in need of long-term care services, as well as their demand for care services. Assuming we take only 1% of PRH units for conversion into residential care homes, the redevelopment which involves merely 600 PRH units will generate 2 400 places in the four years to come. This can greatly relieve the pressure arising from the long waiting list and protect the rights of persons with disabilities.

At present, our society fails to render adequate support for carers so that the latter have to ceaselessly provide care to their family members who have disabilities. Under such circumstances where carers are deprived of rest and support on a long-term basis, the pressure felt by them has reached the bursting point and the problem will be exploded any time. In recent years, many families with disabled members have met misfortunes of various degrees, including suicide and other family tragedies, owing to the pressure arising from care provision or from a lack of community support. The occurrence of even one single incident of this sort is already too much. There certainly is a pressing need for improvement to the relevant support policy and services.

I so submit. Thank you, Chairman.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHU Hoi-dick, do you wish to speak again?

MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Cantonese): Members might be able to feel how serious our air pollution was when they went out today. I believe the Air Pollution Index levels of Hong Kong Island, Kowloon Peninsula and the New Territories have reached 150 plus. The pollution level is unusual today because the air pollution of other Pearl River Delta cities are not as bad as that of Hong Kong. One can well imagine that urban development has brought to Hong Kong many unbearable problems, including environmental problems. Here, I wish to share my view on the amendment proposed by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, which seeks to cut the proposed annual expenditure for the emolument of the Director of Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation ("DAFC").

7130 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

What are our expectations of the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department ("AFCD")? When I think about this question, a very good analogy made by my friend comes to my mind. This friend of mine makes a living by farming and also teaches people how to farm. His analogy fully describes the situation of the agricultural industry now. He says that when we order a dish of rice with BBQ pork at a "siu mei" shop, there may be a piece of vegetable free of charge to go with it. And this piece of vegetable that goes with the BBQ pork is comparable to the agricultural development or the environmental problems in Hong Kong. If the shop stops giving that piece of vegetable to customers, will customers fly into a rage and complain about it? No, they will not. It is because the BBQ pork is the main ingredient that the shop provides. What does the BBQ pork represent here? It represents the massive city development, the vehicle-dominated transportation and the stifling air pollution.

I think DAFC fits quite perfectly into the role of "BBQ pork plus vegetable". Why do I say so? First of all, I wish to point out that DAFC states the aim of Programme (1) in head 22, which is to facilitate agricultural and fisheries production and improve productivity. Has he achieved this aim in reality? No, he has not.

Fellow Members, let us look at some simple and basic statistics and we will realize that AFCD has failed to facilitate agricultural and fisheries production … agricultural production in particular and I will focus more on it in this session. According to latest statistics, local vegetable production in 2013 reached 16 300 tonnes, and in 2016, it dropped to 14 200 tonnes. I am talking about the annual production here and the production has dropped. In terms of the proportion of local vegetable production, it accounted for 2% in 2013 and the latest percentage was 1.8% in 2015. We could not even stop local vegetable production from dropping below 2%. So, if we examine the work of AFCD from a value for money perspective, we hold that it has failed in achieving the aim of Programme (1), which is to facilitate agricultural and fisheries production. This is the first point.

Secondly, AFCD also mentions other work under its programmes. Under the Matters Requiring Special Attention in 2017-2018, AFCD states that it has to implement the new agriculture policy to proactively support the modernization and sustainable development of local agriculture, including preparing for the establishment of the Agricultural Park, processing applications for the Sustainable Agricultural Development Fund and commissioning a consultancy study on LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7131 agricultural priority areas. Fellow Members, the new agriculture policy launched by the Government in recent years seems to be a big move, giving people the feeling that agriculture finally caught public attention again. But we notice a major problem with this policy being taken forward by AFCD, and that is how to measure the progress of agricultural development in this city. I think the progress should be measured by nothing else but two criteria. First, the total agricultural production must show an upward trend; and second, the food self-sufficiency ratio should increase, and there must be a standard laid down on our food self-sufficiency ratio. However, the Government has not laid down any of these standards in its new agriculture policy, nor has it identified any major difficulties in the redevelopment of our agricultural industry.

The Secretary, Dr KO, is here. I wish to tell him that the major difficulties encountered by our agricultural industry is not whether he will make available $500 million for funding application, or whether he will spend more than $10 billion of public money on buying lands for the establishment of a Government-operated Agricultural Park. A major problem is the existing derelict agricultural lands which cover some 4 000 hectares of Hong Kong. First of all, does the Government have any conservation policy to protect against further damages made to these lands or further reduction in such lands? Secondly, how can these derelict agricultural lands be restored and used again?

I cannot find any of these ideas being considered in the new agriculture policy now. The policy has adopted a perverse way of thinking. It is well aware of the derelict agricultural lands in Hong Kong. Despite the fact that many industry players want to develop an extensive area of agricultural land, or that many people wish to join the industry … there is a joke … now in Hong Kong, the development of the Disneyland, the Sports Park or all such big projects have become the talk of the town, but people actually are only interested in three businesses: first, whether they can become a hawker and operate a small business of their own; secondly, whether they can become a farmer and have a little vegetable farm of their own; and thirdly, whether they can organize some cultural activities, like the people who did so and were arrested in Kwun Tong recently.

The aforementioned small businesses or productions have ample room for people to freely live out their dream. This is the vision that many people, especially the younger generation, have. But does the Government have any policy to help these people make their dream come true? No. Agriculture issues have now become political because farming touches on the biggest 7132 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 problem, and that is land. When it comes to land, AFCD or even Food and Health Bureau adopts a "Development Bureau-first" mentality. After the Development Bureau, which is the BBQ pork in the comparison, has made all the decisions, they will then play the role of that piece of vegetable, and see how they can decorate the plate. This mentality forms the philosophy of the new agriculture policy. The Government thinks that making a small garden for them will do. Actually, we do not want the Government to make a big investment or establish a 100-hectare Agricultural Park. All that we want is a comprehensive strategy for agricultural conservation and redevelopment. And this strategy requires AFCD and Food and Health Bureau to resolutely take some land back from Development Bureau.

I wish to touch on another subject. DAFC says that he will promote agricultural production and agricultural development in Hong Kong, but has he engaged himself in the discussion of some highly-debated subjects? No, he has not. In discussion on New Territories development, the people of Hong Kong often touch on the subject of brownfield sites. Regarding the problems of brownfield sites, many colleagues point out that large-scale new town development in the New Territories will inevitably touch on many brownfield sites. If the Government does not make a proper arrangement for people working in brownfield operations, these operations will spill over to their districts. Assuming that brownfield operations account for 200 hectares of the 1 000 hectares of land to be developed, these brownfield operations will relocate to other places if the Government intends to get rid of them, and these operations will continue to damage other farmland and conservation areas. This is where DAFC should step in, but we have not found him do so.

In fact, many Members point out that the accommodation policy for brownfield operations, which is being finalized by the Development Bureau now … the Secretary for Development happens to be here now … the policy has not truly addressed the needs of brownfield operations. If their needs are not satisfied, they will certainly relocate their operations to other places. In this connection, I urge DAFC to bear in mind the aim of developing agriculture in Hong Kong, take guts to participate in the discussion in the community now, and don't let a development-oriented mentality dictate him.

My last issue also concerns AFCD and it is about country parks. DAFC takes charge of country parks. The problem now is that some people, spanning from the Chief Executive, the Development Bureau to "LEUNG's fans", now LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7133 keep saying that some country parks with low ecological values can be used for development. Their comments have put the logics the other way round. Why? Because they never explain why these country parks have become a place of low ecological value. The reason is simple. It is because many of these country parks are close to ancestral burial places of the indigenous New Territories residents and are thus frequently destroyed by hill fire and become places of low ecological values. As DAFC, how should he tackle this problem? He should properly formulate a strategy to prevent hill fire and take forward afforestation, so that the ecological values of these places can be restored. But the reality is that he succumbs to other people's views and let these places of low ecological values be used for development. He has not uttered a word. He refuses to face reality and deceive the public. He has not vision of the future, nor any guts to stand up to other departments. Thus, we do not want such a DAFC. I hope the Government has listened to our voice. The people do not want only a tiny piece of vegetable, but a whole plate of vegetable, to go with the BBQ pork (The buzzer sounded) …

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHU, please stop.

MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Cantonese): … so that we can develop Hong Kong in a sustainable manner.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): This debate has now come to a close.

CLERK (in Cantonese): Heads 25, 33, 39, 42, 44, 60, 62, 82, 91, 118, 137, 138, 158, 159, 186 and 194.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): The committee now proceeds to the fourth debate. The themes are "Land, Housing, Transportation, Environment and Conservation". The policy areas covered by the relevant heads are: Housing; Development (planning, land and works); Building Safety; Transport; Economic Development (energy); Environmental Affairs; and Conservation.

7134 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Eight Members, namely Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, Dr LAU Siu-lai, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Mr Nathan LAW, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Mr Andrew WAN and Dr Helena WONG have respectively given notice to move a total of 38 amendments to reduce the various sums for 16 heads read out by the Clerk just now. Details of the amendments are set out in Appendix 1C to the Script.

Members may now proceed to a joint debate on the amendments to the 16 heads. Members have been informed that there are about five hours for the committee to conduct this debate.

I will first call upon Mr CHAN Chi-chuen to speak and move Amendment No. 24 set out in Appendix 1C to the Script, to be followed by other amendment proposers in sequence; but they may not move amendments at this stage.

MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I move Amendment No. 24 set out in Appendix 1C to the Script, which seeks to resolve that "Head 25―Architectural Services Department ("ArchSD")" be reduced by an amount which is approximately equivalent to ArchSD's annual estimated expenditure on maintenance works of all government buildings. As I have proposed 14 amendments in respect of the areas covered in this debate session, but I reckon that I will only have the chance to speak twice, or thrice if I am lucky enough, I will first speak on those amendments which I consider more important.

In fact, the current debate session involves a considerable number of amendments proposed by many Members, but the debate time allocated is the same and we only have five hours, so there is really no time to waste when the time we have is so tight. Therefore, Members who wish to speak should try to press the button as early as possible, lest they may have no chance to speak, just like what happened to Mr Steven HO earlier. I would very much like to hear him speak, and I wonder if the Chairman would allow him to speak if he wishes to make some supplementary statements in this debate session.

Chairman, I would first like to speak on Amendment No. 73, which is proposed in respect of "Head 91―Lands Department ("LandsD")" and is the only amendment I propose on LandsD. The performance of two government departments under the purview of the Development Bureau, namely, the Buildings Department and LandsD, has been widely criticized and denounced as LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7135 highly unsatisfactory. I have proposed amendments in respect of both departments this year, but if I have to choose between the two due to the need for making better use of time, I will first speak on the amendment proposed in respect of LandsD.

LandsD is notorious for its numerous misdeeds and scandals in recent years, and it has become the flag bearer of the Government and an accomplice in the collusion between rural forces and triad members. LandsD has committed a number of big mistakes, and even if the misdeeds committed last year are disregarded, I can still identify three major mistakes of LandsD in the current financial year. These three big mistakes are bad enough for me to propose a reduction of the emoluments expenditure of LandsD.

First of all, LandsD has connived at the unlawful occupation of Government land. It is suspected of oppressing the good and fearing the evil, and has even colluded with rural forces and triad members. With regard to the Wang Chau incident, LandsD has started posting notices since earlier this month for the resumption of land in three months. LandsD has kept in line with its consistent style of demonstrating favouritism towards rural forces and triad members, or oppressing the good and fearing the evil, and continued to turn a blind eye to the unlawful occupation of Government land in Wang Chau, while posting notices for the resumption of land in non-indigenous villages only. I am willing to take a step back if it is suggested that there is no evidence to prove the alleged collusion, and the whole thing is nothing more than a suspicion, but LandsD could in no way deny the allegation of oppressing the good and fearing the evil, am I right? LandsD can of course argue that it has only tried to deal with straightforward issues first over the past years, with priority accorded to handling cases involving non-indigenous villagers since it is easier to bully them. Rural forces and triad members are more difficult to deal with, and thus the need to defer the handling of their cases.

As pointed out by the Audit Commission, LandsD has failed to effectively combat the act of unlawful occupation of land, and has very often taken enforcement actions reluctantly against unlawful occupation of land by rural forces only after the cases were uncovered by the media. Was LandsD being slow to react, oppressing the good and fear the evil, or engaging in "government-business-rural-triad" collusion as frequently suggested by many people? There is a question mark in the mind of many of us.

7136 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

Suppressing the grass roots through the resumption of land is the second big mistake of LandsD. As the enforcing authority of the Lands Resumption Ordinance, LandsD has very great power to recover property and land from members of the public, and its actions are subject to almost no restriction. It has achieved a remarkable level of efficiency in resuming land from the underprivileged, and with a very bad attitude too. For example, under the escort of a large group of police officers, officers from LandsD visited the target villages in Wang Chau this month (that is, on 2 May) to start posting notices for the resumption of land in three months, when the relevant notices had not yet been gazetted. Since the notices for the resumption of land were only formally gazetted on 5 May, I do not know under what procedures could LandsD start posting them before their formal gazettal. Nuisance was also caused to villagers when these officers went to post the notices in the target villages under the escort of police officers.

I believe LandsD will, in the next three months straddling two different terms of the Government, keep on resorting to every conceivable means to make villagers accept the compensation proposals offered. Although I am not sure if the carrot would be used, tactics will definitely be adopted to use the stick. We can also foresee the situation then if villagers still refuse to move out after three months. LandsD will of course be unable to take law enforcement actions by themselves, and a large group of police officers will surely be deployed to evict villagers from their homes.

It is in fact not uncommon for LandsD to resume land by employing some rather ugly means as I put it. During the resumption of Wah Kai Industrial Centre more than 10 years ago, some owners were lured by LandsD into signing papers which caused a disadvantage to themselves, and they finally could only receive an extremely meagre amount of compensation. Furthermore, police officers were called to cordon off the industrial building then, making it impossible for owners to enter and get their property back. Hence, if continuous support is provided to LandsD for performing such duties, the department will only be allowed to keep on abusing its power and suppressing small citizens who are defending their home.

The third big mistake identified lately is getting rid of dissidents by registering warning letters issued in respect of breaching cases at the Land Registry (commonly known as "imposing an encumbrance"). LandsD is often criticized for being selective in law enforcement, turning a blind eye to certain LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7137 cases of breach of lease conditions on the one hand, but taking actions to impose an encumbrance on the other to suppress activities of a relatively anti-government or anti-social nature. What I am saying is the incident concerning Hidden Agenda, which has attracted wide media coverage these few days. Given the anti-establishment and anti-social spirit of rock music, sometimes even the Government will come under severe criticism, and will this turn the musical live house into a thorn to the Government? The sweeping operation conducted by the Immigration Department at the scene has nothing to do with LandsD, and it will not be made to take the blame.

However, the venue run by Hidden Agenda in an industrial building located on Hung To Road in Kwun Tong has actually met the fire safety requirements specified, but a Places of Public Entertainment Licence has never been granted in respect of the venue since the Government has created a lot of obstructions. Although it is a safe venue, an encumbrance has been imposed to force Hidden Agenda out, because it is specified in the land lease that the venue should be used for industrial operation. According to LandsD, a breach of lease conditions has already been confirmed for the venue occupied by Hidden Agenda and a warning letter has been issued to its owner, but as the owner has failed to rectify the lease breach, arrangements were made by the Kowloon East District Lands Office to impose an encumbrance on the property. There were views, however, that a more flexible interpretation should be adopted for industrial buildings converted for other uses, such as use for "Place of Recreation, Sports or Culture". In this connection, LandsD replied that the use for industrial operation was utterly different from the use for "Place of Recreation, Sports or Culture", and if the conversion involved pedestrian movement within an industrial building, follow-up actions must be taken timely for public safety considerations under the established enforcement and management system.

This is exactly the crux of the problem, because the decision will after all rest with the Government, which will determine at its own discretion whether industrial buildings can be converted for use as "Place of Recreation, Sports or Culture", and whether a flexible interpretation can be adopted for the use specified in land leases. In 2009, when the then Secretary for Development Carrie LAM spoke on the issue of optimizing the use of industrial buildings at a meeting in this Council, she opined that live music performances by young people and places of entertainment frequented by young people (such as band rooms) were usually the permitted uses for the whole block of industrial buildings after conversion. When responding to concerns about the increase in rent, she 7138 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 emphasized that with respect to the challenges or difficulties ahead, the Government should examine how tenants under the new use permissions could operate legally, effectively and energetically in compliance with the rules, instead of using such venues secretively and with fear as they were before, thus creating even higher fire risk for their users.

As I can recall, I put a similar question in this Council last year (that is, in 2016) to Paul CHAN, the incumbent Financial Secretary and the then Secretary for Development, and he replied that after reviewing the situation of change of use in breach of the lease involving industrial buildings, LandsD would implement risk-based enforcement arrangements. What does it mean by the term "risk-based"? It actually means that priority would be accorded by LandsD to taking enforcement actions against certain high risk cases.

Let us look at the case of Hidden Agenda. It is not located on the 10th floor but the ground floor of an industrial building, and in case there is a fire, the risk involved should not be very high. To my knowledge, the venue has met the fire safety requirements determined by the Fire Services Department, so how come it has not been granted a licence? Although LandsD has nothing to do with the licensing arrangements and the "undercover" operations conducted, it is directly related to the imposition of an encumbrance, and I am therefore speaking on the subject and would like to ask about the reasons for adopting such a merciless approach in law enforcement. Judging from the remarks cited just now and which were made respectively by Carrie LAM and Paul CHAN, cases not involving a high risk (that is, a fire risk if simply put) should theoretically not be an operational priority of LandsD.

As far as the musical live house of Hidden Agenda is concerned, this is the third time that it has been forced out of the venue it manages after the imposition of an encumbrance. However, we have never seen LandsD adopting such a high-profile approach in tackling other lease breach cases in industrial buildings. Frankly speaking, if the Government really wants to take actions and impose encumbrances against units in breach of the lease in an industrial building, it can simply find out such units by checking the lease against the signage. Why have encumbrances not been imposed on such industrial units? When asked about the reasons why enforcement actions have been taken against A but not against B, the Government can of course argue that enforcement actions not taken against B can still be adopted to handle the case concerning A. But it should at least tell to the public what principles it has followed. If it has been explained previously that a LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7139 risk-based approach would be adopted, and we can see from the case under discussion that the venue run by Hidden Agenda is not located in an industrial unit with the highest fire risk, why then should LandsD, as reported by TVB News, come forward and say that the case has to be handled in a formal manner, and that immediate enforcement actions have to be taken owing to public safety considerations?

As a matter of fact, a number of tenants in Hung To Industrial Building, where Hidden Agenda is located, are not using the premises they occupy for industrial purposes. There are design companies and logistics companies among them, and such activities involve no industrial operation, so why then were encumbrances not imposed on these industrial units? Why were enforcement actions taken against one single and small musical live house only? It is therefore inevitable that people would perceive the case as some sort of conspiracy, and consider that the Government does not find the non-establishment or anti-establishment nature of these community art activities agreeable, thus making such attempts to let them die out in this city. It is indeed most ironic and ridiculous that just a few days ago, LEUNG Chun-ying said that the completed revitalization scheme for industrial buildings was a very successful attempt.

With a little speaking time left, let me go back to Amendment No. 24 and explain why I would like to reduce ArchSD's expenditure on maintenance works of all government buildings. The amendment is proposed to express my dissatisfaction with ArchSD's serious waste of public money in handling the maintenance works for the official residence of the Financial Secretary, and its incooperative attitude in replying to questions raised by Members.

It was widely reported in the media earlier that not long after assuming the office of Financial Secretary, Paul CHAN already asked for luxurious renovation of the official residence of the Financial Secretary under the command of his wife, and this has caused an uproar in the community. After reading the media reports, I decided immediately to raise questions about the incident and have done so during deliberation of the Budget this year. I have asked in a question about the maintenance fee for the Financial Secretary's official residence in 2016-2017, and the estimated maintenance fee for the Financial Secretary's official residence in 2017-2018. In its first reply, ArchSD has on the one hand indicated that the expenditure on facility upkeep works was $140,000, and stated on the other that 7140 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 the estimated expenditure on repairing works was $590,000. However, the amount has not been reflected in the expenditure in 2016-2017 as it has not been paid out yet as at February 2017.

I have also raised a follow-up question to enquire if the maintenance expenditure has remained outstanding as at 31 March 2017, and would therefore be reflected in the expenditure in 2017-2018. Besides, I have also asked for a breakdown of the estimated expenditure of $590,000. However, as always, replies to my questions were only available 10 days after the deadline for giving notice of amendment. The Government has failed to state clearly in its reply whether the said amount has been paid out in 2016-2017. As I am deeply dissatisfied with the delay on the part of the Government in providing a detailed breakdown of the expenditure, and the Government's failure to state clearly if the relevant amount has been paid out in 2016-2017, an amendment is proposed in this regard.

Mr CHAN Chi-chuen moved the following motion:

"RESOLVED that head 25 be reduced by $658,000,000 in respect of subhead 000."

DR LAU SIU-LAI (in Cantonese): I will speak on my Amendments No. 113, 114 and 115, a total of three amendments concerning head 138 in respect of subhead 000, which respectively seek to deduct an amount approximately equivalent to the expenditure for one month's emoluments of the Secretary for Development, one month's emoluments of the Under Secretary for Development and one month's emoluments of the Political Assistant to Secretary for Development. I also speak in support of Mr CHAN Chi-chuen's two amendments, one concerning head 60 in respect of subhead 000, which seeks to deduct an amount approximately equivalent to the annual estimated expenditure for the operation of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Project Management Office under the Highways Department, and the other one concerning head 159 in respect of subhead 000, which seeks to deduct an amount approximately equivalent to the annual estimated expenditure for the salaries in the personal emoluments of the Works Branch of the Development Bureau.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7141

I have three reasons to propose these amendments and support Mr CHAN Chi-chuen's amendments. These reasons are related to at least three sins of the Development Bureau, which have committed more than three sins of course. These three sins are very infuriating indeed. First, paying no heed to the needs of the local residents, the Development Bureau carries out land resumption by force for the development of North East New Territories. It destroys the homeland of villagers, our agricultural industry and our environment for the sake of constructing a useless luxurious town with mainly private housing estates on the land resumed. The Government has resumed 60 hectares of farmland. As a result, the farmers do not have the land for farming and the most disadvantaged non-indigenous inhabitants are forced to leave. They can only receive a very low amount of compensation. The Government said that the amount of compensation was $600,000, but most of them could only get an amount of less than $200,000. Afterwards, what they have founded on the homeland for decades and what their past generations have passed on to them will all be swept away. What will be uprooted are not only the painstaking efforts of the villagers, but also our arable land, the very important vegetables and food, and the land for supplying local vegetables. The destruction of North East New Territories is tantamount to the destruction of our agricultural industry.

In the past, these non-indigenous inhabitants and the affected residents put forward various proposals, which include reinstatement of the village, non-means-tested application for public housing or rehousing before clearance. However, they were all rejected by the authorities, which then carried out resumption of land by force. Why must they be so rude and cruel to the farmers and the villagers in the New Territories? Are we really so short of land that the farms and villages have to be sacrificed for the sake of building a certain number of public rental housing ("PRH") units? We find that this is not the case. In fact, on the 40-odd hectares of land of the Fanling Golf Course, the Government can accommodate that number of PRH units together with the supportive facilities, but the Government does not do that. I remember the many strange reasons mentioned by the Government. For example, it says that the golf course possesses the collective memory of high officials and we cannot dispense with a golf course, or the construction of PRH units is not sufficient as there are no supportive facilities. All these are only quibbling. In fact, with so many hectares of land, the PRH units can be built together with the corresponding supportive facilities on the land. The Government is quibbling for the sake of allowing the rich to play golf but disallowing the villagers to farm or to live happily on the farmland.

7142 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

Such an unrighteous policy is actually turning people against people. The Government is ostensibly moving households originally living in subdivided units to North East New Territories, but in reality, the non-indigenous inhabitants in North East New Territories who are without rights and power are now become homeless. They are turned into households living in subdivided units of the urban areas. The Government says euphemistically that it is constructing PRH units there, but it has completely failed to resolve the housing problem. In order to genuinely resolving the housing problem, the Government has to identify other pieces of land to build PRH units. This is how it should really resolve the problem.

Regarding the Fanling Golf Course, the Government only receives a nominal amount of peppercorn rent from the Golf Club for the rich to play golf. The land under urban renewal development is used for the construction of private residential buildings which, however, are for speculation and thus the vacancy rate will be rather high. The area where the grass roots and the poor can live is getting smaller but getting more expensive, because the places where they originally lived were destroyed by the Government for building private residential units under the pretext of urban renewal. These people have no other alternatives but to move to the subdivided units of the equally old districts nearby, and the supply of subdivided units is getting scarce as a result. Under the circumstances, if I am a flat owner, I will increase the rent, and so will "Subdivided-units Paul" for sure. Hence, the area where they are living is getting smaller but more expensive.

This shows how unrighteous our land policy is. The authorities carry out land resumption by force and condone the rich to waste land. Even if the authorities have to carry out land resumption by force, they should make better arrangements. There are neither proper consultations, sufficient compensation nor ex gratia measures. They are really dealing heavy blows, though not physical ones, to our grass roots. It is due to these heinous policies that these people have become homeless. This is the first sin of the Development Bureau.

I have not finished with that. The development of North East New Territories has destroyed our agricultural industry and has made the villagers homeless. What is even more ridiculous is that when massive amount of arsenic was found in the soil of North East New Territories, the authorities argued speciously that they could manage properly. In fact, no government in this LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7143 world has ever dealt with a land with such a high density of arsenic. We really cannot imagine what damage will be done to the environment in case arsenic is released when works are carried out on the land.

The Development Bureau is ambitious for great achievements but it never considers the consequences. Every time when problems arise, it says it does not know how to finish a project which has already started. For such a Development Bureau, why should we pay emoluments to its Secretary, Under Secretary and Political Assistant? As I have said, the deduction of their one month's emoluments is only a gesture under the value-for-money mechanism. I really don't know how to secure the penalties due to them for these sins and evil acts.

What is the next sin? It is related to land. We have clearly stated that it should be "brownfield before greenfield", meaning that brownfield sites should be developed first. According to a study by the Liber Research Community, our brownfield sites are mainly located in Yuen Long, Tuen Mun and North District of the New Territories, but these sites have been damaged as they are now being used as container depots, open car parks and open storage areas. These sites amount to 1 200 hectares of land. If we develop these brownfield sites, many land problems can be resolved. However, our land has been damaged to the detriment of the agricultural industry.

Let us look at the reason first, which is the ineffective law enforcement. Who enforces the law? It is the Planning Department ("PlanD") under the Development Bureau. PlanD can issue notices for unauthorized developments, but the penalties are very lenient. If I were a squire and were aware of the lenient penalties, I of course would continue with my lucrative business on the land and completely disregard the penalties. What is more ridiculous is that the Government will sometimes turn a blind eye to it. I have not yet mentioned the situation in Wang Chau where some people are actually engaging in such businesses on government land. The Government is in effect condoning them to do. What kind of Development Bureau is it? What kind of development is this Development Bureau pursuing? It is developing the rights and interests of the rich and those in power. It is robbing the poor and the underprivileged of their resources to develop the rights and interests of the rich. Is this Development Bureau worth supporting? This is a hateful Development Bureau.

7144 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

What has the Development Bureau done? In "Hong Kong 2030: Planning Vision and Strategy" published by the Government in 2007, it was already suggested that brownfield sites should be effectively used. In 2013 when Mr Paul CHAN was the Secretary for Development, he said that the procedures for the development of brownfield sites were complicated as they involved technical assessments on the environment and transportation, application for funding from the Legislative Council, and there were issues such as compensation and rehousing, all of which could not be accomplished in one move but that he would do his best. In 2016, he said that we would rise to the challenge in 2017 and this was the spirit of Hong Kong people, and that we had to face the difficulties with courage and set up a database for brownfield sites for their development. At the end, the pieces of land which have been damaged continue to be damaged, and the database for brownfield sites is nowhere to be seen. In fact, is the Development Bureau sincere in the development of brownfield sites? The answer is definitely in the negative.

All policies share the same approach of robbing the poor of their land to strengthen the interests of those in power. The development of North East New Territories is no exception. The non-indigenous inhabitants are always the ones being forced to leave while the squires and the privileged are the ones who reap the benefits. "Collusion among the Government, business sector, rural forces and triads" has now become the most popular phrase in society. Who should be held accountable for this? Apart from the Chief Executive, should the Development Bureau be held accountable for this as well?

The authorities are being unfair and unrighteous in their land policies. Worse still, human lives are utterly disregarded in the development of white elephant infrastructural projects. Originally, issues with labour policy were not my priority, but noticing that serious industrial accidents happened one after another during the construction of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge, I attended a press conference concerning industrial safety of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge project. As the workers who have participated in this project recalled, they saw their fellow workers fall into the water with the collapsing work platform and disappear in three seconds. How could such an unsafe design be approved? This was attributed to our defective safety supervision. Should human lives be trampled like this?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7145

In order to construct this Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge, 10 human lives have already been claimed and a few hundred people were injured. Is it worthwhile? It is superficially a matter of industrial safety, but we want to follow up on the issue to see why industrial works are always unsafe, and why the lives of Hong Kong workers can be so worthless. After looking through those tender documents, we find that industrial incidents are condoned and encouraged by the Government. In the entire tendering system of the Government, 60% of the scores go to the price and 40% go to the so-called technical assessment. In such assessment, only three out of 100 points are related to accidents, and in these three points, fatal injuries bear the same weighting as other injuries in the arm or leg. Fatal accidents are not regarded as more serious.

Under the tendering system decided by the Works Branch of the Development Bureau, how will the tenderers who want to win a tender worth tens or even hundreds of billion dollars for the construction of such a technical, innovative and complicated project care about the rights and interests of workers and the lives of workers? Surely the tenderers will not care about these. They will only lower their bidding prices in order to win the contract. Should there be any cost overruns in future, all the company needs to do is to apply for additional funding from the Government, which is a very easy thing. However, the lives of some workers are then embedded in the bridge, with the blood, sweat and lives of workers becoming part of the cost for constructing the white elephant infrastructural project. Is it a reasonable infrastructural project? It is a white elephant infrastructural project which is blood-shedding, disregarding human lives and unrighteous. These are the rubbish projects condoned by the Works Branch of the Development Bureau.

We ask why things can happen like this; why a company which has scanty regard for human lives can keep on bidding and winning contracts successively. There have been accidents, one after another, during the construction of the projects under the charge of such a company and organization. Some bridges constructed by the company which is building the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge now have collapsed in other countries, such as China and Malaysia. However, I cannot understand why the authorities still award the contracts of such a large-scale project to this company, which is thus entrusted to construct the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge for us. Nevertheless, accidents happen when workers are catching up with the progress of various works which are behind schedule. The workers' lives and safety are totally ignored as a result. Our Government is really treating the tenders in a perfunctory manner. All its 14 7146 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 tenders were won by the lowest bid. The Government gives no regard to the past records of the tenderer, from which the Government can tell whether the tenderer really knows how to build a bridge or whether all the bridges built by it have collapsed. The Government cares nothing about such records.

A Chinese saying goes, "While those who kill and plunder wear belts of gold, those who repair bridges and mend roads die and vanish." It is a true description of the Hong Kong society under the management of such a Development Bureau. Are we developing such a society? Is it the value of Hong Kong people? Definitely not. Hence, the deduction of emoluments of the government officials concerned and the deduction of the funding for the expenditure on various works related to the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge are well justified while justice can also be served to our workers and farmers. I so submit.

MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I rise to speak on Amendment No. 112, which seeks to cut the estimated expenditure equivalent to the three-month emolument of the Secretary for Development.

Secretary for Development Eric MA is probably not in the Chamber now. He was originally not a Secretary. All actually started with a sudden change in the Government, when both Carrie LAM and John TSANG resigned in order to run in the Chief Executive Election. This led to a series of promotions. Former Secretary for Development Paul CHAN is now the Financial Secretary, and the Under Secretary for Development at that time, Eric MA, was appointed to his present position of Secretary for Development. I can of course remember him. Members will remember that after becoming Secretary for Development, he once attended a joint-panel meeting of this Council, carrying with him a thick pile of documents. We asked him various questions about Ove Arup & Partners Hong Kong Ltd ("OAP") and the Wang Chau contract, but he said that he could not say anything. Therefore, I walked up to him, took away his files and showed them to Mr CHU Hoi-dick, because Mr CHU is most concerned about "government-business-rural-triad" collaboration in Wang Chau. Subsequently, the Secretary reported to the police, saying that I snatched his files and must be arrested. I am not sure when the police will arrest me for snatching his files.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7147

His attitude towards Members really merits our attention. Actually, there is a very recent happening that can show his expertise in absolving contractors and consultants from their faults, and in accusing and attacking Members. Let me quote what he said on 26 April during the Resumption of Second Reading debate. He said: "In recent years, the delivery of the Capital Works Programme has often been affected by filibustering in the Legislative Council, making our work extremely difficult. In March this year, we even saw an unprecedented situation where no new works project had its funding application approved for eight months, resulting in the boom-and-burst of construction output, which is unnecessary. It has also brought about the situation of workers 'dying of overwork at one time and starvation at another'." Besides, he also said, "The drastic reduction in the amount of engineering projects has greatly upset the effectiveness of training workers and attracting new recruits. Filibustering will indeed only do harm rather than good. We hope that Members can make consideration from the well-being of the people and expedite the vetting and approval of funding applications in the remaining time of the current session of the Legislative Council to enable works projects to commence early." This is what he said. The purpose of his attending the Council meeting was to attack us.

Actually, such remarks can show a number of his wrongdoings over the years: first, deceiving the public; second, passing the buck to others; third, hostility towards Members who scrutinize funding for works projects with seriousness; and fourth, harbouring contractors and consultants. Actually, what is the career background of Eric MA? He started as a consultant in large-scale consultancy firms, so he is particularly good at juggling with figures. When Members scrutinize funding for works projects seriously, he says we affect the job opportunities of construction workers. The truth is that the spending on works projects this financial year is still on the high side. The construction of the three-runway system costing more than $100 billion will commence, and so will the Hong Kong Disneyland expansion project costing more than $10 billion. Honestly, his saying that our filibuster has deprived workers of their jobs is simply unfounded.

My argument can be proved by the fact that people in the construction industry has never stopped applying for labour importation. Having worked in the construction industry for such a long time, Eric MA should know this only too well. But has he ever mentioned that the construction industry is still facing a labour shortage? And, the cause of the labour shortage is … To be honest, 7148 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

Chairman, if you have a son, will you let him join the construction industry? The construction of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge has already claimed nine lives. As mentioned by Dr LAU Siu-lai just now, in the Government's tendering exercises, scores on industrial safety are given a very light weight in the course of consideration. Our workers were just doing their jobs on a common working platform, and frankly, we may think that all such working platforms in the whole world must be firmly fixed. But then, when our workers fell from that very working platform, the whole of it simply collapsed, dragging our workers into the bottom of the sea like a sinking anchor and killing them instantly. Honestly, no one will possibly let his son join the construction industry, because human lives are disregarded, not to mention the problem of low wages.

Hence, if Eric MA really knows the industry well, he would surely have instructed the Labour Department and relevant departments to inspect construction sites to safeguard the safety of construction workers, right? Besides, let me ask Secretary Eric MA this question. Was Members' filibuster the real reason for the frequent project cost overruns amounting to tens of billions in Hong Kong (He was of course not yet Secretary for Development at the time of approval)? The precise reason was instead some Members' sloppiness, their failure to meticulously examine the funding requests of the Government, and this has led to the cost overruns that cause misery to all.

Chairman, I think the Hong Kong Government is second to none among all governments in the whole world when it comes to the rates and actual amounts of project cost overruns it has approved. Secretary Eric MA often accuses us of obstructing the construction of public rental housing ("PRH") units. Chairman, what is the problem with the Wang Chau incident? It shows that the entire Government is very chaotic in operation. A person who is not supposed to lay his hands on individual PRH projects, Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying, took personal interest in the project and asked people to test the water. Then, after testing the water, they changed the number of PRH units to be constructed from 17 000 to 4 000. After testing the water, they cancelled the construction of PRH units in Wang Chau. They dared not continue in the face of "government-business-rural-triad" collaboration. Secretary Eric MA, you keep talking about construction workers' joblessness and the short supply of PRH units, but do you think that what I have just said is actually the real reason? You are actually the culprit and a stakeholder, right?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7149

Chairman, this is just a very simple PRH project, but still, it has been maimed beyond recognition. Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying and former Financial Secretary passed the buck to each other, and former Chief Secretary for Administration Carrie LAM and former Financial Secretary kept shifting the responsibility to the other during the Chief Executive Election. This is simply absurd, simply a farce. How can they still say that Members have obstructed Hong Kong's development. Therefore, we have to cut his three-month emolument. The salary cut was proposed by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, not by me. Mr CHAN Chi-chuen is rather kind-hearted. To me, the reduction should be his emolument for three years.

Chairman, the Development Bureau has put forward another "splendid" project named "Energizing Kowloon East". I initially did not want to talk about this project. It is proposed that in respect of the subhead concerned, a reduction of the estimated expenditure approximately equivalent to the annual expenditure for Programme (4) "Energizing Kowloon East" under the Works Branch of the Development Bureau be made. I would like to talk about this part. Why? Dr KWOK should know the reason. He was outraged by the Sports Park project in Kowloon East this morning. Once again, it is Kowloon East. It looks like the Government really treats the place as a "fat piece of pork". Chairman, it costs $31.9 billion, and the Government has decided in favour of an approach never adopted in Hong Kong and other parts of the world before. This very approach was in fact dropped many years ago due to severe public criticisms. This is the approach of awarding a Design-Build-Operate ("DBO") contract to one single bidder. The bidder is to have the right of operation for 25 years and the construction is to be wholly funded by the Government. Can there possibly be any other business more lucrative than this one?

You may ask why I have digressed from the subject matter. It is because "Energizing Kowloon East" is itself a "white elephant". I will give a simple example here. Has anyone listening to my speech here ever been to the cruise terminal? Can't we see that the cruise terminal is exactly a project under "Energizing Kowloon East", described by LEUNG Chun-ying as an almighty saviour of Hong Kong? LEUNG Chun-ying talks as if a big fortune will befall Hong Kong, saying that many visitors will come, and shop operators in Kowloon East are all elated. But the truth is that the Kai Tak Cruise Terminal has become an international laughing stock. The reason is very simple. The Government estimated years ago that by 2023, the cruise industry would generate for Hong Kong $1.5 billion to $2.6 billion worth of economic benefits a year, and the Kai 7150 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

Tak Cruise Terminal would create 5 300 to 8 900 additional jobs. However, in 2016, the number of ship calls was merely 191, 31.3% lower than the estimated number. The actual cruise passenger throughput was just 677 031, 33.5% lower than the estimated figure. The degeneration of the Kai Tak Cruise Terminal into a "white elephant" is already bad enough. But what is even worse is that due to the sluggishness of the cruise terminal, the Government now plans to build an elevated monorail system to connect it with Kwun Tong town centre. The estimated cost of the monorail system is over $8 billion, and I suppose the final cost will be around $10 billion. The Government has not yet submitted an appropriation request to the Legislative Council. Do you know whom the Development Bureau has sent to attend our meeting? If you have recently surfed through YouTube, you should know that I have uploaded a video clip entitled "Mrs LEE, what kind of expert are you?". It has so far recorded some 100 000 to 200 000 views. You probably would not believe that the person sent by the Development Bureau, a certain Mrs LEE, is just a civil engineering graduate. And, she told us that the monorail system was just superb. Since she claimed herself to be an expert, I immediately asked her: "Mrs LEE, what kind of are you? Are you a railway expert?" She said: "No, I am not. Mr LEUNG, I am a civil engineer." How can that be possible? You know, we have been arguing so hard over rare disease drugs, but a solution to this problem will only cost $100 million to $200 million, right? We have been arguing that patients often die because the drugs they need are not covered by the Drug Formulary. But then, that very project has wasted so much money. The cruise terminal is really a big waste of money. The project is called "Kai Tak Fantasy". But "Kai Tak Fantasy" has now become "Kai Tak Fallacy". What a flop!

There is one more thing, Chairman. Hidden Agenda is another worst-hit victim in the revitalization of industrial buildings. This policy is nothing but empty talk. What has the revitalization of industrial buildings brought about? It has led to high government rents and building rents. Those business-operators who otherwise managed to earn a living in Kowloon East are now forced to relocate their businesses. Chairman, you yourself used to be a factory operator before. If you walk around the area now, you will see that there are hardly any more businesses over there, and the restaurants are also pricy. Moreover, I must also mention those stupid people who have set up their cultural businesses in industrial building; they truly believe the revitalization policy, but they are now forced to go away. One example is Hidden Agenda, which is now considered such a nuisance that the authorities even carried out an undercover operation to arrest its operators.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7151

Therefore, I hope Members can appreciate that my proposal to cut the emolument for Secretary Eric MA and the estimated annual expenditure for the "Energizing Kowloon East" project under the Works Branch of the Development Bureau is perfectly reasonable, as it can make them (The buzzer sounded) …

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, please stop speaking.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Chairman, I wish to speak in relation to Amendments Nos. 111 and 112, as well as my Amendment No. 169. The amendments seek to cut three months of the emoluments of the Secretary for Development and the Secretary for Transport and Housing.

The Development Bureau and the Transport and Housing Bureau are just birds of the same feather. Why? Everyone knows that since the "689" Government took office, it has been deceiving the public, especially elderly people who are waiting for public rental housing ("PRH"). The incumbent Government says that building more housing is its top priority, and that it will continue to do so until people waiting for PRH or people who wish to buy a private flat all have a home. After being deceived by the Government for four or five years, people find that the waiting time for PRH has almost doubled from 2.6 years in 2012 to 4.5 years in September 2016. There is no way that people can be allocated a PRH flat in three years. Perhaps, in their next life! For the middle-class people whose income exceeds the cap for PRH or Home Ownership Scheme ("HOS") application, they may also need to wait for their next life if they wish to buy a private residential flat. It is because Hong Kong people cannot afford to buy one irrespective of the "flour price" or the "bread price".

The few parcels of land in Eastern Kowloon were bought by HNA Group and Poly Property Group. All of them are State-owned or private enterprises, through which hot money and black money in the Mainland are channelled into Hong Kong. The finished flats are expected to be sold at about $20,000 to $30,000 per square foot for the highest. We are talking about residential flats in Eastern Kowloon here. Hence, recently we saw a public officer … actually he is not a public officer, but the Managing Director of the Urban Renewal Authority, a post created with our public money. He was the Permanent Secretary for Development before taking up this post, and he urged people to live in "nano flats". In fact, one is considered very lucky if he could have a "nano flat" or 7152 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 simply a place to live in. People may have to share a common kitchen, a storage room or toilet in future housing units, and they will have to cook outside their flats, just like in the past when people lived in those seven-storey buildings. Chairman, this is nothing new. When we were small, there were people living in resettlement areas with similar living environment.

Hong Kong has already regressed to such a state. How come the Government could still tell us to press on with more infrastructural projects? It regards all those who hinder its "white elephant" projects as people who have killed their family, blaming them for undermining the livelihood of the workers. If this is true, how come the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge has now become a project of blood and tears to the workers? Has the Government ever shown any concern about or provided any support to the injured workers or the families of the diseased workers in the project?

Let me tell Members a true story. Two days ago, I took MTR at the Admiralty Station and saw two workers working for a "white elephant" project. They asked each other where they would go after work. One worker said he was going back to Shenzhen because he did not have a flat in Hong Kong. The other worker said he now lived in a subdivided unit but his wife and children were in Shenzhen. Why don't they have any place to live in Hong Kong? They certainly cannot get a PRH flat, but they cannot afford to buy a housing unit either … well, may be in their dream they can. They can at most live in subdivided units. That is why the worker who chooses not to live in a subdivided unit has to spend one to two hours to travel back and forth from Shenzhen every day. And the other worker chooses to live in a subdivided unit in Sham Shui Po.

They are both workers receiving your last batch of money as salary, that is, the additional funding approved. But they both have to pay a dear social price. One of them lives in a subdivided unit. To put it plainly, he does not have a healthy family life. The other worker lives in Shenzhen. He cannot get a PRH flat and the whole family has to live in Shenzhen. These are the workers you people strive to protect, so you claim. Pro-establishment Members and royalist Members are good at coming out with the developers, saying that the workers will be in a difficult plight if these projects are hindered. But the difficult plight of these workers and their family is actually caused by this ineffective Government.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7153

To what extent have these works project got out of hand? All projects are now concentrated in Eastern Kowloon. A sports park will be constructed there … Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung has already spoken on this point and I will not repeat it. And an environmentally-friendly monorail linkage system costing some $20 billion to $30 billion will also be built there. Developing infrastructures in Hong Kong is indeed the best excuse to cheat Hong Kong people out of their money.

People around the world know that monorail system is not a good option. The monorail systems in Sydney and Thailand are in a mess. A lot of money has been invested in these monorails without getting back any big result. But our Government presses ahead with this project because the contractors which have secured this works contract is China State Construction Engineering (Hong Kong) Limited, China Road Bridge Corporation and Ove Arup & Partners Hong Kong Limited, and the latter is also spotted in a few projects related to Wang Chau. These corporations are waiting for "big business". The infrastructural contracts concerned totally cost $500 billion, not to mention projects pending funding approval, such as the reclamation works for the construction of the artificial islands in the central waters costing a few $100 billion.

I hope the public will not be fooled by the Government. Taking forward these infrastructural projects does not mean that there will be more housing supply. Just look at the development projects now under planning. Take the Hung Shui Kiu New Development Area as an example, which will later be resubmitted to the Legislative Council for scrutiny. The Government says that it will provide housing for Hong Kong people in the Hung Shui Kiu New Development Area. However, the site next to a West Rail station in Tin Shui Wai is not planned for residential housing but for commercial buildings. The area at Ha Tsuen is planned for small houses except a spot for constructing public housing. The Government has made so many promises to the business tycoons, landlords and triads. It certainly has to fulfil its promises. Hence, the damaged brownfields will not be used for constructing public housing. They will be used for constructing small houses.

Or, shall we talk about the low-density residential developments to be constructed near Lau Fau Shan? Low-density residential development is another word for luxurious residential property. The project is situated near the Hong Kong-Shenzhen Western Corridor, a very convenient location for Mainland tycoons as a place of living there. If the Government truly wishes to provide housing for the public, why does it not construct more public housing there? 7154 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

When we asked the Government how it came up with the 60:40 public-private housing split, we were surprised to find that the Government included the public housing in Tin Shui Wai in the calculation in order to make up the 60:40 split.

The Government is despicable. It deceives its people. The people living in subdivided units in Sham Shui Po count on the government funding proposal now submitted to the Legislative Council to provide housing for them. They thus have asked Members not to ask unnecessary questions to stall on the proposal, so as to facilitate its speedy approval. But it turns out that the housing to be constructed is not for them. The housing units are for those who have $1 million cash such as the Mainland tycoons. They buy flats without seeing the sample flats. The arrangement that allowed first-time homebuyers to purchase multiple properties in a single transaction earlier facilitated them to spend a one-off $200 million to purchase all the flats, leaving none for you to buy.

This is a ridiculous society. The two Secretaries deceive the public. They say that the developments are for the people. But the truth is the developments are for the group of consultancy firms waiting for business, such as Ove Arup & Partners Hong Kong Limited. I do not want to name them all, but there are also the Chinese construction works companies, such as China Road Bridge Corporation and China State Construction Engineering (Hong Kong) Limited, as well as many other geological engineering companies beginning with the word "China". These companies all want to share a piece of the pie. Apart from the Chinese-funded property developers, there are also the China-funded property developers. Besides, there are the Chinese investors who wish to take their money out of the Mainland. Hong Kong is the most desirable place for them to deposit their money withdrawn from the Mainland. Nowhere else is safer than Hong Kong. People can simply invest in our property market to turn their "black" money "white".

The Government has pretended not to see and hear the people who make a fortune in Hong Kong, and then it says that the record shows that these people are Hong Kong residents. If you go see a modal flat of some property development, we will find the place crowded with rich people speaking Putonghua. But the Government lies to us and says that they are Hong Kong residents. Of course, the Government freely gives away 150 Hong Kong Identity Cards every day. The quota is capped at 150, but a Hong Kong Identity Card can actually be bought at a price in the Mainland. Or, if you know any senior officials in the Mainland, say, a CPC Hunan or Henan Provincial Committee member, you can LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7155 get one for free. Here comes another Hong Kong resident. He certainly is a Hong Kong resident. He has a Hong Kong Identity Card. How despicable! How come they still have the courage to ask for salary from us?

You cannot find any government worse than ours. It spends a few hundred billion dollars on "white elephant" works projects, and then takes forward private property developments to make a profit. And it takes forward commercial property developments as well. But when we urge it to build less private housing and more public housing on certain sites (including the Anderson Road Quarry site), it refuses, saying that it is very important to maintain the public-private housing split. But, are Hong Kong people able to buy a flat under the public-private housing split? Can they afford to buy one?

(THE CHAIRMAN'S DEPUTY, MS STARRY LEE, took the Chair)

The property index of Hong Kong is among the top few in the world. One has to spend nothing on food and drinks, stop providing for his family, halt repaying his loans for 19 years before he can have the money to buy a flat in Hong Kong. The Government, on the other hand, still says that it is looking after the interests of its people. What a swindle! Those infrastructural developments are a swindle! The Government gives all the "goodies" to the works project consultants, large consortia, Chinese corporations and State-owned developers. They can get part of the profits, and you cannot give them one penny less or one moment delay.

When we are still uncertain about whether the three-runway system is feasible, the project already fetches a price of $141.5 billion. The Transport and Housing Bureau is an absolute disgrace. It cooks the books. And the Route 11 project, which is expected to take some $20 billion to $30 billion to complete, will go through the East Lantau Metropolis on the artificial island in the eastern waters and then turn back. All these projects are connected to each other. Once you are deceived to support one of them, you will then find that there are more to come.

In the last debate session, we talked about the truly vulnerable groups. They spend $20,000 every month on buying medicine to sustain their lives. The Government does not provide any subsidy for their medication. It only provides some 300 residential care places for the elderly. How shameless it is for the Government to still mention this in the Budget! This is a heartless and biased 7156 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

Government. If the Secretaries still have any conscience, they should look at themselves in the mirror and reflect on what they have been doing. They are the jackals of the same tribe. They give an important portion of the money in the Treasury to the interest groups, financial groups, engineering consultants, and other parties with close connections with them.

Go, just give away all the resources. There is now only $1,000 billion left and soon it will be gone. If the artificial island project in the eastern waters is completed, go and build a few more Route 11. The Government definitely has the ability to spend all the money. This is what we want, too. There will not be any housing for the people anyway. Dream on! The Government can turn those "nano flats" into "super nano flats". In the future, families can live in dormitory-like flats. What do I mean? If Members have experience of living in university dormitory in the past, they will understand. They sleep in bunk bed and they share the toilets and kitchens which are located outside their room. Property developers are actually working towards this direction and they even say that it is good for the people if they can get hold of one of these flats.

Stop deceiving the people. Stop playing the good guy and criticize us for not passing these works projects in the Legislative Council. What we have seen is that some $30 billion, $20 billion, and $40 billion have all been given to those large consortia, while the people of Hong Kong cannot even get a PRH flat, or any subsidy for buying medicine, or a residential care place for the elderly. Why has our society regressed to such a state? There is certainly a reason for it. This system and the Chief Executive are the culprits. Both the "689" and "777", who are elected by a 1 200-person Election Committee, will have to pay the price. It is no easy task. They have to thank and repay each and every one of their supporters.

What about the people? Sorry, they have no votes, not even one. They do not care about the votes of the people anyway. What matters to them is that the Government can continue to feed the interested groups and feed them to their full, and ensure that their interests will not be undermined. If they have been receiving a few ten billion dollars, then the Government should give them $100 billion; if they are already receiving $100 billion, then give them $200 billion. If that is still not enough, just give them all the money in the Treasury. This is their ultimate goal. Fellow citizens of Hong Kong, please wake up. We should not use our money to raise these "dog officials".

I so submit.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7157

MR ANDREW WAN (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I will speak on Amendment No. 111. The amendment resolves that head 138 be reduced by $895,000 in respect of subhead 000, an amount roughly equivalent to the estimated expenditure for three months' remuneration of the Secretary for Development.

The performance of the Development Bureau throughout the period from the previous five years when it was under the leadership of former Secretary Paul CHAN to the present moment has been unsatisfactory and has fallen short of people's expectation by a large margin. People invariably thought that the deeds and performance of Paul CHAN as the Bureau Director heading the Development Bureau was substandard most of the time, and his deeds which aroused people's criticisms and caused unfairness were numerous indeed. Deputy Chairman, let me try to recap here. An example is the North East New Territories Development Plan. The change in the land acquisition approach has indirectly enabled developers to reap benefits by land hoarding. In the Wang Chau incident, the housing construction volume was reduced from the original 17 000 units to merely 4 000 in the end. The land acquisition approach adopted in Phase 3 of the Wang Chau Development Plan was likewise marked by inconsistent stringency. Using a Mahjong parlance as an analogy, I would say the Government has done a favour for those powerful and influential parvenus and village personalities. In contrast, the Government has sought to deal with those ordinary people without any power or influence and villagers facing demolition with the most ruthless and harshest means and done injustice to them through the law.

The Wang Chau development aside, the Government has likewise failed to finalize any specific proposal on the retention or otherwise of the small house concessionary right over all these years. The Government dare not discuss this matter at the least. Deputy Chairman, as indicated in previous discussions, the small house concessionary right can be likened to "Lord Voldemort" in the Harry Potter fiction. The Government dare not mention or touch on the issue of the small house concessionary right during the discussion in this Council or the community at large.

There has been an avalanche of calls for developing Lantau Island and country parks. But is it true to say that land shortage is really that serious in Hong Kong? We do need lands. But our land demand has not yet reached the point of necessitating the development of Lantau Island and country parks, as opposed to the Government's claim. Instead of utilizing our useful idle sites, the 7158 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

Government has cast its eye on our country parks or targeted on those people without any power or influence. People's hostility against the Government, social dissension and the Government's low popularity are not without any reason. Many government measures lead people to feel a collusion between the Government and the businesses. Now, such feeling has evolved into "Version 2.0"―"collusion among the Government, businesses, village representatives and triad elements".

"Uneven distribution of land resources", "haphazard land development", "violation of procedural justice", "disregard for rules and regulations", and "ruination of conventions and established practices" are our descriptions of the Development Bureau's performance over the past five years. All these turned particularly serious under the leadership of former Secretary Paul CHAN. Of course, I will not over-criticize the incumbent Secretary because he is merely the successor of this highly challenging post. I must give some credits to Secretary Eric MA. Speaking of the Tuen Mun Hung Lau incident, while he acted rather slowly, he still agreed to use his power and declare Hung Lau as a proposed monument in the face of social pressure and its high possibility of demolition. Even though the final outcome would only be available half a year later and the future of Hung Lau was still uncertain at the time, Secretary MA was willing to do something. Having spoken so far, I have no intention to target any individual or to say whose performance is better―Paul CHAN's or Eric MA's. Instead, the point I am driving at is that the Secretary for Development should lead the Development Bureau. Paul CHAN obviously failed in this task during his tenure as Secretary for Development. Therefore, we must put forth the amendment as a means to exert pressure on the Government.

Deputy Chairman, I discussed the small house concessionary right just now. In June 2012, Carrie LAM, the then Secretary for Development―the post of Secretary for Development is really a good one. All those who once held this post have all enjoyed career advancement―the South China Morning Post says so in a featured interview: "A time limit should be imposed on the small house concessionary right of indigenous villagers in the New Territories. The Basic Law merely guarantees that there will be 'no change for 50 years'." In that case, what will happen 50 years later? She thought that it required some sort of handling. She also pointed out that by that time (that is, 2047), the small house concessionary right should no longer exist after the 18-year-old male offsprings of indigenous villagers were all given the right to build small houses. In other words, she wanted to draw a line for the small house concessionary right.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7159

However, can she achieve that? Sadly, it is now 2017, and she has not achieved anything. Carrie LAM stood and won the Chief Executive election. We could see a historical scene during her election campaign―the burning of a Carrie LAM paper dummy by some indigenous villagers in the New Territories. Initially, Carrie LAM was severely reprimanded by indigenous villagers in the New Territories because she raised the necessity to deal with unauthorized building works in small houses and discuss the future development of the small house concessionary right. During her election campaign, she nonetheless allied with village representatives, and the latter even extended the hand of friendship to her and became her good friends. We are very concerned about the future development of the small house concessionary right. Carrie LAM is really something. She has obtained substantial votes rather than just a handful of votes from village personalities, and she has almost monopolized their votes. In that case, will she need to "pay the bill" in the future? People are very concerned about this. I hope the Government considers overall public interests. I do not want to see Carrie LAM, who has dubbed herself a good fighter and also a courageous official without any expectation, refrain from speaking up in front of village representatives and such controversial issues as the small house concessionary right.

Deputy Chairman, what has been done by Carrie LAM's successor Paul CHAN and the Development Bureau in dealing with the small house concessionary right over the past five years after she uttered those words? Nothing. They have not made the slightest efforts; nor have they initiated any discussion. My colleagues and I asked the then Secretary for Development Paul CHAN about this many times at various meetings in the Legislative Council of the previous and present terms. He merely replied that this matter would be handled in the future because it was no easy task to resolve this matter, and that was it. He failed to honour his past undertaking to tackle the small house concessionary right. Deputy Chairman, I have a deep impression of an utterance made by the Chief Executive-elect, "The small house concessionary right is unlimited; lands are limited." I wish to remind her that she once said these words.

Is it true to say that we perceive the small house concessionary right as a problem unilaterally? As shown by a survey conducted by the Democratic Party, 73% of the respondents do not agree that the small house concessionary right is a legitimate right of indigenous villagers. 70% of the respondents think that the Government should comprehensively abolish the small house 7160 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 concessionary right so as to increase social fairness. Information also shows that 932 out of the 2 153 hectares of unleased or unallocated government lands which are zoned for residential uses are "village type development" sites, and after some deduction, merely 391.5 hectares of lands have remained for residential uses. Deputy Chairman, as reflected by the distribution of land resources, Hong Kong does not lack lands. Hong Kong is of course a tiny place, but it is not totally deprived of any land. The housing problem and the resultant social conflicts are caused by the unfair and unjust distribution of land resources.

As stated by the authorities many times before, these 932 hectares of lands cannot be used for immediate development, so they should not be included in computation. Let me do some computation based on 100 hectares, which is less than one-ninth of the above figure. 19 hectares is roughly the size of our Victoria Park. So, 100 hectares is about the size of five Victoria Parks. How many people can be accommodated? How many grass-roots people can be benefited? The Secretary should know the answer very well. I think the previous explanations of the authorities are mere excuses.

For these reasons, the Democratic Party has requested the authorities to conduct extensive consultation on the relevant matter at various meetings. I have put forth this request two or three times at various Panel meetings and even Council meetings. The Secretary merely replied that since the court was still handling a judicial review relating to the lands concerned, they should proceed with the matter only after its judgment was available. He seemed to be saying that we were a hindrance to his work. His line of reasoning sounds familiar to us. We are willing to deal with the small house concessionary right for the community. But in the end, we become the very ones who are to take the blame, rather than those government officials and departments who were unwillingness to deal with it over all these years. This is honestly baffling.

According to LEUNG Chun-ying, the housing policy is a top priority in his policy implementation. Deputy Chairman, I believe everybody can see the reality. Has the Development Bureau developed lands dutifully and reasonably? Has the Development Bureau distributed its lands reasonably? In the past, the authorities would conduct extensive social consultation on controversial issues. For example, the Development Bureau conducted consultation on various reclamation projects, the relevant artificial island development project, and also the East Lantau Metropolis development project. The Government conducted consultation as these projects were controversial. Some examples concern other LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7161 social policies, including universal retirement protection, standard working hours and minimum wage. The Government likewise conducted consultation. But it has not undertaken any consultation on the small house concessionary right. Deputy Chairman, as I said just now, the small house concessionary right is like "Lord Voldemort" to the Hong Kong Government. It must not talk about it.

As Members know, the Development Bureau recently issued a consultation paper entitled "Hong Kong 2030+: Towards a Planning Vision and Strategy Transcending 2030". The consultation paper sets forth planning on Hong Kong's future development. But it has not devoted any treatment to the small house concessionary right all the same. I have reasons to believe that the authorities have come under pressure from certain influential people. As such, they have made some particular attempts to protect the interests of the privileged class or village representatives, in a bid to avoid offending those parvenus and village personalities in the New Territories. Has all this got to do with the Chief Executive election? Deputy Chairman, as I have no evidence, I do not know the answer. But people may think that she needs to "pay the bill" as her "accession to the throne" as Chief Executive was due to their support in the election. The Chief Executive and the Government must allay people's concern with action, rather than continuing with their denial and refusing to make any efforts to deal with the small house concessionary right. The presence of the small house concessionary right gives Hong Kong people the feeling that Hong Kong practises not only "one country, two systems" but also "one Hong Kong, two systems". Should we continue to tolerate the presence of noble or privileged classes in the New Territories? These people enjoy more civil rights than ordinary people. Why should we tolerate this system? The small house concessionary right is obviously inappropriate and improper.

Deputy Chairman, the land acquisition efforts of the Development Bureau have been haphazard over all these years. Information shows that since 2014, the authorities have merely acquired 7 hectares of lands. Land acquisition on the ground of public interest is a normal procedure and development process. How large is 7 hectares? Roughly half the size of the Morse Park in Kowloon. Deputy Chairman, I am really baffled. In Wang Chau as I discussed just now, some village personalities put forth the pretext that they are operating vehicle scrapping plants on the relevant brownfield sites (but the reality is that they merely place several worn-out vehicles on the lands), and they are therefore allowed to occupy the relevant Government lands. But the Government has refused to deal with this on the ground that such business has "potential 7162 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 commercial value". Instead, it must acquire the land with several inhabited villages in Wang Chau. How can the Government give a satisfactory explanation to this? The past development of new towns shows that the Government adopted a conventional approach to develop new towns in Sha Tin, Fanling and Sheung Shui. It first undertook massive land acquisition, development and formation, and then proceeded to formulate planning on the development of public facilities, public housing, private housing and also other facilities, so as to avoid land hoarding or development stagnancy due to scattered or segregated land ownership. But the Development Bureau has not done anything like this in recent years. The masses have urged the authorities to consider the ideas of developing the Hong Kong Golf Club site in Fanling as a matter of priority, instead of casting its eye on the North East New Territories, as well as conducting the Phases 2 and 3 development on the brownfield sites in Wang Chau instead of demolishing the existing villages. But the Development Bureau pays no heed to people's demand.

Deputy Chairman, due to time constraint, I cannot set out the numerous evil deeds of the Development Bureau over all these years. Honestly, we should not allocate any more funding to the Development Bureau. Therefore, I put forth the amendment.

Thank you, Deputy Chairman.

MR NATHAN LAW (in Cantonese): Ms LEE, there are two Committee stage amendments moved by me for this session, and I would like to speak on subhead 000 under head 118 and propose to cut an amount approximately equivalent to the annual estimated expenditure for the sustainability assessment under "Hong Kong 2030+: Towards a Planning Vision and Strategy Transcending 2030" ("Hong Kong 2030+").

"Hong Kong 2030+" is a study of great significance to Hong Kong and Members have put in a lot of efforts on the discussions of its contents. This updated study, which entails a huge sum of public expenditure, has been a subject of criticism due to its inadequacies and defects. In this session, I wish to express in detail my views concerning "Hong Kong 2030+". Here is my conclusion: the sustainability assessment should be suspended.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7163

The consultation on "Hong Kong 2030+" was flawed as it was poorly conducted when "Hong Kong 2030+" was first launched. Upon commencement of the consultation period, only three or four of its 15 topical reports were made public and so it was difficult for the community to conduct relevant studies. Besides, the consultation period of such a development plan spanning more than 10 years lasted as short as six months only, which was just half the length of the consultation period of the Elderly Services Programme Plan where the latter was of a smaller scale. Was it because that, as always, the Government regarded the ideas and views of the public as something not good enough and thus cannot be accepted? Or that the Government was hostile towards the public's views? Why that it was reluctant to allow extensive discussion among the community on such an important issue that concerns the overall direction for the development of Hong Kong, and was unwilling to heed public opinions?

It is very clear to us that adopting community wisdom, including the application of big data, has become a global trend. I think there are three reasons for the Government's reluctance to heed the public opinions gathered from the consultation on a development plan spanning more than 10 years for Hong Kong. It may be due to: first, the Government's own stupidity; second, the prevalence of the overwhelming sense of political struggle under the governance of LEUNG Chun-ying; and third, the fact that the overall concept of planning has already been accepted as an unchangeable decision, only that it was not decided by the Hong Kong people themselves.

In exploring the direction for Hong Kong's development after 10 years or so, it is necessary to sort out in the first place what problems are currently facing Hong Kong as this will shed light on which direction Hong Kong should proceed in future. Hong Kong is fraught with a lot of problems, among which are wealth gap, "government-business-rural-triad" collusion, utterly unaffordable property prices, heavy reliance on external oriented economy, homogeneity of industries, lack of social mobility for young people as well as problems concerning elderly care and education. All these issues have been discussed countless times during my term of office as a Member of this Council in the past six months. Yet, whether "Hong Kong 2030+" can genuinely address those problems facing Hong Kong is what really matters.

Here, I would like to quote an article written by Prof LUI Tai-lok, who has, in my opinion, rightly commented on certain points. He cited the key elements (referred to as "building blocks") from "Hong Kong 2030+": "Planning for a 7164 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 liveable high-density city; embracing new economic challenges and opportunities; and creating capacity for sustainable growth." He came up with a conclusion in respect of the recommendations made in "Hong Kong 2030+": "New strategies are absent from the part concerning economic development. From the present up to 2030 and beyond, what kind of new strengths will the Government develop for Hong Kong's economy and related areas (e.g. nurturing of talents)? How will it complement or make use of all the objective conditions and prevailing trends to its advantage for taking forward developments? Which of the relevant opportunities will mainly be seized? It is entirely in lack of any specific plan, nor does it give any relevant account in detail. Its so-called vision and planning are more like an essay on 'My aspirations' written by a primary school pupil."

I think everyone is aware that when "Hong Kong 2030+", a planning strategy spanning more than 10 years proposed by the Government, is dismissed by a senior professor of high standing as an essay on "My aspirations" written by a primary school pupil, there must be something wrong with it. The greatest failure lies in its direction which leads us to nowhere in resolving the various problems now facing Hong Kong. More importantly, those issues not mentioned as key elements in "Hong Kong 2030+" are actually the most imminent issues that needed to be addressed.

As I have mentioned just now, "Hong Kong 2030+" is currently under a barrage of criticism and must be full of flaws since it is being criticized as some sort of an essay on "My aspirations" written by a primary school pupil. Worse still, its consultation period lasted for only six months. Why was it so? Such a planning strategy is, as some people have suggested and I also agree, proposed by the Government for the sake of complementing the major trend of the integration of Hong Kong with China instead of genuinely serving the needs of Hong Kong people.

When we look closely at the social changes that Hong Kong has undergone over the past decade, we can notice the major trend in Hong Kong's development which has gradually been steering the courses of Hong Kong's politics as well as people's livelihood. Now look at the planning direction of "Hong Kong 2030+". How many of the proposed infrastructure projects originate from the state's conception plans and development blueprints? One should not forget that the Dedicated Chapter on Hong Kong and Macao is incorporated in the National 13th Five-Year Plan for the first time, enlisting in detail a lot of conception plans LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7165 concerning the development of Hong Kong and unveiling five keywords of development are unveiled, among which "sharing" being the most important one. "Sharing" means to share with all people the fruits of developments, but of course, the term "people" refers to the 1.3 billion of "heavenly people" in China and not us, the 7 million humble citizens. Actually, "Hong Kong 2030+" has already made clear one point: the direction of Hong Kong's future developments should complement with the state planning of China. Projects on the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link, the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge, the Hong Kong-Shenzhen Innovation and Technology Park" in the Lok Ma Chau Loop ("Hong Kong-Shenzhen Innovation and Technology Park"), the industrial estates in Liantang Boundary Control Point, as well as the various links connecting strategic trunk roads are all affecting the geographical pattern of Hong Kong to help pave the way for further integration of Hong Kong with China.

How come there emerges, without clues, an array of demands to be catered for by the various planning initiatives put forth in "Hong Kong 2030+", on which neither public consultations nor in-depth discussions by the Hong Kong community had ever been conducted? Where do they come from actually? The vision of providing room or buffer to improve living space for a population of 800 000 is mentioned in the development blueprint for the next 30 years under "Hong Kong 2030+". Regarding this, will a large number of Mainland enterprises be imported to the Hong Kong-Shenzhen Innovation and Technology Park while technology professionals will be exported from Hong Kong? And will the operations of brownfield sites in Hung Lung Hang make way for the establishment of a logistics hub? Actually, on realizing that Hong Kong's policies for the development of industries and infrastructural facilities are formulated in alignment with the state's conception plans within the framework of the regional development blueprint, we have to query if all those initiatives are what Hong Kong people really desire. Under the main theme of Hong Kong-China integration, will such planning strategy do good or harm to Hong Kong people?

I have mentioned just now quite a number of problems currently facing the public, but it seem unlikely that they will be properly dealt with as our Government only focuses its attention on complementing the state's town planning policies. The Government is not there for handling matters in respect of the provision of affordable housing and job placements within same districts for local residents as well as ageing in community for the time being. On the 7166 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 contrary, things are moving in the opposite direction instead. For example, planning for a liveable high density city is mentioned in "Hong Kong 2030+", but the standard of adequate living space is not mentioned. This means that the Government can propose a certain arbitrary area and subdivide that area into smaller portions for the construction of more residential units. Meanwhile, as those infrastructure syndicates keep growing in power as well as influence, both the rental levels and cost of living in Hong Kong will necessarily be pushed up by the ongoing infrastructural projects. The exploitation of tenants of subdivided flats will only be further aggravated as a result.

With a stronger presence of Hong Kong-China integration and the northward movement of employment opportunities, or that under the conception plans of regional employments, many more Hong Kong people may either have to travel between the Mainland and Hong Kong to work or to spend their old age in Mainland China. The price of infrastructural development will be translated into extra commuting time and travelling expenses paid by the residents themselves and result in inflation driven by rent increases. Those elderly people currently spending their old age in China still have to face numerous problems and this is contrary to the original intent of the Government's policy of "ageing in community". And this will inevitably cause people to doubt if the implementation of the policy of "ageing in community" will, just like many other government policies, become stagnant without making any further progress. Finally, when every local community and business hub are being linked up by more intensive railway and public transport networks, more inconveniences will be caused to local residents as well as the working class while setting the scene for contradictions associated with Hong Kong-China integration.

In general, given the proposed injection of hundreds of billion dollars of fiscal reserves into the planning initiatives under China's national integration policy, it is more appropriate to regard "Hong Kong 2030+" as a planning strategy that carries on the spirit of "running Hong Kong by building infrastructures" rather than a local long-term planning strategy aiming at tackling population ageing and the tight situation of housing in Hong Kong. However, since those planning initiatives are not meant for the local citizens of Hong Kong, they provide no solutions to the various problems which I have mentioned just now. More importantly, I wonder why the problems probably associated with "Hong Kong 2030+" have not been touched on, such as problems relating to the education sector, like the numerous instances of student suicide and the excessive pressure on students. Tertiary institutions also have their own demands and our LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7167 community needs to develop new types of schools. But the question is: are these problems being duly addressed in the blueprints under "Hong Kong 2030+"?

Besides, the issue of cultural industries, which is completely absent from "Hong Kong 2030+", will be the subject of my later speech. Aiming to project the future of Hong Kong, "Hong Kong 2030+" is supposed to focus on matters of the future as well as young people who are the future masters of society, but what did the Government do in these few days? Well, it selectively took law enforcement actions by resorting to even the most extreme measures in suppressing a local live house, namely Hidden Agenda. I believe that this must have been mentioned by a lot of Members before. In the light that the Government has taken actions to suppress the fads that our young people are after nowadays or a local culture, how can we trust that the planning initiatives under "Hong Kong 2030+" are meant to answer to the needs of the public, especially that of our young people's? It is understandable indeed that the incident has aroused tremendous reverberation from society. Yet, the crux lies, not in whether the organizer concerned had obtained valid work visas for the performers and complied with the permitted uses as well as the fire safety regulations of the premises in question, but in the fact that the Government's policy on cultural industries still has yet to be implemented after being put forth for years.

Ladies and gentlemen, we have been discussing the issue of the Kai Tak Sports Park recently and much time has been devoted to the discussion of its main stadium with a retractable roof which incurs a construction cost at $8.8 billion. According to the Government or its officials, such a 50 000-seat stadium will attract people to come to Hong Kong to stage their concerts here. Well, perhaps Mayday, a Taiwanese rock band, and singer Crowd LU will need such a huge venue for their concerts, but does the Government know that they are artists nurtured by live houses? Given an ineffective cultural policy coupled with the lack of internal communications within the entire government, how can Hong Kong's development needs in the coming decades be accurately projected, may I ask? More importantly, since culture is the root of a city, how can the government convinced its people that things will really work if it fails to put in place a sound cultural policy? As to "Hong Kong 2030+", can it accommodate the various demands of the public? Now, the Government's suppression on Hidden Agenda has triggered a rather serious problem while a lot of problems have not been properly addressed in "Hong Kong 2030+". All these tell us one thing: the Government has yet to reflect on the various development problems 7168 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 and mistakes committed in the past so far. In fact, it can draw reference from the experience of those neighbouring places on various matters concerning cultural parks. Examples include: the Huashan 1914 Creative Park in Taiwan, actually converted from an old factory zone, in which different live houses can be found; the 798 Art Zone (also known as Dashanzi Art District) in Beijing, also converted from a former factory zone. Thus, it is just impossible that no suitable sites can be identified for supporting the implementation of new policies if our Government is really keen on pursuing developments.

I wish to point out that "Hong Kong 2030+", on top of all its unsound premises, has not undergone adequate public consultation and is apparently not launched in answer to Hong Kong people's demands. If so, then I wish that Mrs Carrie LAM will take my advice and pay heed to the public's needs as soon as practicable. Eight years ago, she lightly made the remark that members of bands would no longer have to perform surreptitiously but the Government has not yet taken forward any policies to provide relevant support so far. On the contrary, it takes every possible means to crack down on them. Does our Government mean to go back on its words? If so, how can we trust that it will honour its promise and proceed to materialize its policy and planning after a decade or so?

Hence, I move a Committee stage amendment of reducing the expenditure of "Hong Kong 2030+" today, although I believe that it will not be carried anyway. And this precisely reveals that this Council is overshadowed by an immense worry untold: the Government will, reckoning that the budget will have sufficient votes and be passed by this Council, call on Members not to speak too much then in a bid to improve the relationship between the executive authority and the legislature. All that they have to do is to help expedite the passage of the budget. This is, however, neither acceptable nor feasible. The entire Council is well aware that pubic opinions are not duly reflected. There are some 10 Members present here who were returned by zero vote, but even with pro-establishment Members to clear the way for and come to the defence of the Government, but it is crystal clear that the total number of those Members is still smaller than the number of Members returned by the Legislative Council election. Thus, I advise that, in launching "Hong Kong 2030+", our Government takes heed of the voices of the public more often to formulate a complete set of policies, or "Hong Kong 2030+" will simply reduce to another "white elephant" in the end. The truth is, a blueprint strategically evolved on top of Hong Kong's own developments is what Hong Kong people need. (The buzzer sounded)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7169

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr LAW, your speaking time is up.

MR NATHAN LAW (in Cantonese): I so submit.

MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I am speaking on Amendment No. 33, which proposes that head 33 be reduced by $125,192,400 in respect of subhead 000, which is equivalent to 10% of the expenditure on personal emoluments (salaries) in the operational expenses of the Civil Engineering and Development Department ("CEDD") in 2017-2018. Besides, Amendment No. 34 also proposes that an amount equivalent to 50% of the estimated expenditure on the programme of "Advice on Development Proposals" in 2017-2018 be reduced, and CEDD is again the department concerned.

First of all, let me offer my apology to colleagues in CEDD. Although there are criticisms about CEDD in what I am going to say, they are in no way directed against any individuals. CEDD is the government department with which my Member's Office has the closest contact, and before every meeting in this Council, colleagues in CEDD have always taken the initiative to actively communicate with us and lobby our support for their proposals. We did have some very interesting discussions in the process because many officers in CEDD, particularly those of professional grades, are people with rich knowledge and thorough understanding of the development process of Hong Kong, and there have been a lot of meaningful exchanges between us. Therefore, I am not going to criticize them for adopting a negative working attitude, but am only afraid that CEDD is being too proactive in doing its job, and many fellow colleagues, I believe, would share my views and concur that under the strong leadership of the Development Bureau today, the working direction of CEDD is open to question.

As its name suggests, "development" is the key word of the Development Bureau, and we are therefore surrounded by development projects. Owing to the need to make development, the Government has conducted demand research studies, pilot studies, technical researches, preliminary feasibility studies, feasibility studies, traffic impact assessments, and so on, and prepared a lot of reports. Moreover, many fellow colleagues are often dazzled at seeing such terms as actual decontamination, demolition of old buildings, investigations, 7170 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 design, detailed design, land formation, infrastructure, advance works, first phase project, remaining works, and all these are common terms which we always come across in information papers submitted by CEDD.

In the Budget this year alone, a large number of highly controversial projects in my opinion are included in paragraph 26 of the chapter on "Head 33―Civil Engineering and Development Department" and cited as matters requiring special attention in 2017-2018. These projects include Cha Kwo Ling Kaolin Mine Site phase 2 development, the ground decontamination works at the site of ex-Kennedy Town incineration plant/abattoir and adjoining area, Kwu Tung North and Fanling North New Development Areas, the planning and engineering study for nearshore reclamation at Lung Kwu Tan, commence the technical study on underground quarrying-cum-cavern development, topside development at the Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities Island of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge, the planning and engineering study for nearshore reclamation at Sunny Bay, the strategic studies for artificial islands in the central waters, and so on. Deputy Chairman, the list is almost endless.

The point I wish to elaborate further is in fact very simple. When these projects are sweeping across the territory and commissioned one after another, there is one thing the Government should do to rationalize their implementation, and that is, to undertake a lot of feasibility studies, mostly by CEDD. What then is the problem with this? The problem lies in the fact that as revealed by the conclusions of all feasibility studies, all these projects are feasible. As mentioned by Dr YIU Chung-yim earlier, if all feasibility studies lead to positive conclusions, I wonder what the point of conducting feasibility studies is. The aim of conducting feasibility studies is to find out if we have other alternatives. Dr YIU has pointed out that there should at least be three research directions in undertaking these studies. Firstly, what will happen if the development projects are not taken forward? Secondly, what is project proposed by the Government about? Thirdly, are there any alternative options? All these are unavailable in the studies currently undertaken. Once CEDD proposes a project, the project will most definitely be deemed feasible by any feasibility study. As for the production of the reports of feasibility studies, a complete industrial chain has already been formed to commission certain engineering research and consultancy firms to do the job, and these consultancies such as AECOM Asia Company Limited ("AECOM") and Ove Arup & Partners Hong Kong Limited ("Arup") are simply too competitive to collapse. I think the Secretary should understand very well, since he has once worked with these large firms.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7171

Deputy Chairman, upon completion of such forever-affirmative feasibility, what is the problem we have to face then? I can only say that we as Members are really miserable, let alone members of the public. Even though we want look at such forever-affirmative feasibility studies, we cannot gain access to them. The Government often replies that the reports should be kept confidential because they contain secret information and involve commercially sensitive information, and Arup or AECOM which are responsible for undertaking the studies do not want to make the reports available for public inspection. Hence, members of the public are denied access to the reports of feasibility studies, though they are only used to put on an act.

It was until the discussions on Wang Chau development plan that we finally got the chance to access to more than 10 of the reports involved, and the studies concerned were conducted in 2012 to 2014. Unexpectedly, after these reports were made public, the Government told us that nothing has been done to follow them up. Although there are reports of feasibility studies to support the feasibility of the project, the Government has made another new decision but in this connection, we have not been provided with the report of the relevant feasibility study. Deputy Chairman, I have just followed up with colleagues in the Housing Department for the timetable I requested of the phase one plan of Wang Chau development, and is it not pathetic that the matter has already been delayed for more than half a year? What does it actually illustrate? It proves that political considerations are put above all things. Why are the projects that the Government has decided to take forward considered feasible? It is because they are politically feasible, and a report will be prepared then to confirm that they are also technically feasible.

Apart from reports of feasibility studies, there are also traffic impact assessment reports, and this is the second thing I would like to discuss. I would try to make it simple and short. As in the case of reports of feasibility studies, members of the public can have no access to traffic impact assessment reports, and it requires much negotiation before these reports can be provided for Members' perusal. Again, as in the case of reports of feasibility studies, it is always reflected in the conclusions of traffic impact assessment reports that the impact is considered within the acceptable range. How is it possible to arrive at the same conclusion forever in these assessment reports that the impact is within the acceptable range?

7172 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

Discussions were held earlier in this Council on the public housing developments at Area 9 of Tai Po, and I noticed that when flexibility has been provided in the determination of the scope of assessment, it will then be possible to arrive at the conclusion always that the impact is within the acceptable range. With regard to the traffic impact assessment conducted for the public housing developments at Area 9 of Tai Po, assessment has only been carried out for two road intersections beside the development site, and one of them is extended from the Tai Po Nethersole Hospital. How many vehicles will actually be using that road section? Anyone who really understands the crux of traffic problems in Tai Po would realize that assessment should in fact not be carried out for those two road intersections, but for the areas around Tai Po Centre and the access roads leading to Tolo Harbour and Sha Tin, because those are the areas where the major problems are found. However, the Transport Department replied that assessment would not be carried out for those areas. The report has been submitted to CEDD, and in which the development plan is considered feasible.

The same situation also applies to the traffic impact assessment report for Kam Tin South, another report which I have perused. What actually is the major concern of residents in Kam Tin or New Territories West? They are afraid that they might not be able to get on the congested West Rail trains, but nothing contained in this traffic impact assessment report can address the difficulties they face in getting on railway trains. While the concerns about the West Rail have not been addressed in the traffic impact assessment report for Kam Tin South, the assessment conducted for Area 9 of Tai Po has also left the East Rail out. Hence, the whole thing can be placed under total control of the Government, and assessment reports can be specially prepared to suggest that technical problems and adverse impact do not really exist. In this connection, I can draw a very simple conclusion again as follows: although a large group of consultants are commissioned by the Government to prepare a series of consultancy reports, this is in fact nothing but a technical move for the sake of being technical. These extremely voluminous reports are window dressing in nature, serving only to justify the political decision of implementing development plans.

Therefore, the crux of the problem still lies in political considerations, and what are the political considerations in question? As I have pointed out during the Second Reading debate, the key point is to turn Hong Kong into a city of infrastructures, where all kinds of infrastructural facilities which can connect China and Hong Kong will be constructed. Hence, apart from the construction of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge, we also need to develop the East LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7173

Lantau Metropolis; and after the completion of the Liantang Boundary Control Point, planning has to be made to develop Ping Che and New territories North. Apart from turning into a city of infrastructures, we should also strive to achieve comprehensive urbanization and take forward extremely costly development projects, so that the land resources in Hong Kong will not only be commercialized but will also be securitized. As we can see now, Chinese developers are coming to invest in Hong Kong, turning this place where we settle down and get on with our pursuit into a casino where they can launder the money they gain from corruption or through misappropriation of state assets, and have it exchanged into chips on gambling tables.

In this connection, all the problems mentioned will surface in taking forward the East Lantau development project. This development project will be a blend of the problem of spending every penny of our public money on infrastructural projects, the problem of commercializing the land resources in Hong Kong, and the problem of turning Hong Kong into a casino. We will exhaust our public money on unnecessary reclamation projects, create a raft of pollution problems, indulge in land sales, unlimitedly increase the number of vehicles and develop the tourism industry, and then the whole of Hong Kong Island East, Kennedy Town, Sai Ying Pun and Sheung Wan will undergo a change with the implementation of the East Lantau Metropolis development plan.

Deputy Chairman, to put it simply, the name of "Civil Engineering and Development Department" itself is frankly a product of the mindset in the 20th century. How exactly should we face up to the existing challenges when Hong Kong and the rest of the world have already entered the 21st century? How should we respond to the crises, and identify a sustainable way of life under which our next generation will be able to live in peace? We can do so as long as we do not follow the development path proposed by CEDD, or at least follow that advocated by the Environment Bureau and follow the footstep of the Hong Kong Observatory. If we browse through the website of the Hong Kong Observatory, we will come to realize that over-development is the most serious crisis faced by Hong Kong and other parts of the world. It has led to global weather change and a series of crises that threaten the survival of human beings. Not only has CEDD failed to tackle these crises, its initiatives have also served to intensify them.

7174 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I remind Members that according to the debate arrangements, this debate will end at about 10:30 am tomorrow morning.

I will call upon public officers to speak at about 7:15 pm this evening. After public officers have spoken, I will call upon Members who have proposed amendments to speak again. This debate will come to a close after the relevant Members have spoken.

Members who wish to speak, particularly those who have not yet spoken, will please press the "Request to speak" button as early as possible.

DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, in this debate session, I have put forward an amendment to the Budget. This is Amendment No. 184 in relation to "Head 194―Water Supplies Department", which seeks to resolve that head 194 be reduced by $2,865,000 in respect of subhead 000. The reduced amount is approximately equivalent to the annual emoluments of the Director of Water Supplies.

Deputy Chairman, my discussion is based on the subject matter. I propose to cut the annual emoluments of the Director of Water Supplies―Is any representative of the Water Supplies Department ("WSD") present here? It seems that no representative of it is here. Deputy Chairman, the Democratic Party met the Chief Executive-elect Mrs Carrie LAM yesterday and we heard the Chief Executive-elect say that the relations between the Executive Authorities and the legislature need to be improved. I totally agree with her because we also hope that the relations can be improved. Therefore, I put forward my views and criticisms. I have also highlighted that Legislative Council Members who are speaking want to have the presence of government officials, but it is a pity that the government officials concerned are usually absent. This is just like the situation at this moment. We see that the Secretary for the Environment is now present, but the Secretary for Development is nowhere to be seen, and neither can we see the Director of Water Supplies. Nor are there representatives of the Housing Department ("HD") and the Transport and Housing Bureau. In fact, it is the arrangement under the existing political system that the Executive Authorities are accountable to the legislature. The government officials, however, are always absent from the meetings or leave hastily after the meetings, and it is really very difficult to have them present in the meetings. How can the relations between the Executive Authorities and the legislature be improved then?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7175

I ask to cut the annual emoluments of the Director of Water Supplies is actually because WSD has owed us a lot. There are a lot of things that the WSD officials have undertaken to do but they have never been done. It has been almost two years since I disclose the lead in drinking water incidents. On 5 July 2015, I unveiled that excess lead was found in the drinking water of some public rental housing ("PRH") estates, and I kept on inquiring into the incidents and found that 11 PRH estates were affected and they were later verified to have excess lead in drinking water. Of course, the Legislative Council has recently published the investigation report concerned. Back then, Mr Stanley YING, Director of Housing, was in charge of the inter-departmental meetings. However, there are no meeting records whatsoever for the first seven meetings. Some people have already queried him for not arranging the minutes of meeting to be taken. Anyone who is in charge of an inter-departmental meeting would not say that minutes of meeting are not necessary. The way that the Director of Housing dealt with the meetings is questionable.

In regard to the lead in drinking water incidents, we tried very hard to persuade the Chief Executive to set up the Commission of Inquiry into Excess Lead Found in Drinking Water ("the Commission") which has published a report ("the Report") later. This is a very thick report with the incorporation of not a few opinions and recommendations from some overseas experts invited by the Government. I would ask Members to turn to page 134 of the Chinese version (or page 169 of the English version). In paragraph 487 under Recommendations, it reads, "The following are measures we would recommend in order to prevent the recurrence of similar incidents in future". I will read out one measure only, "Given the inadequacy of the sampling protocol adopted by WSD and in order to put the minds of all PRH residents at ease, the Government should undertake to test the drinking water of all PRH estates again using an appropriate sampling protocol that would include the testing of stagnant water as well." There are many other recommendations too. The Report was published in May 2016, and we are now in May 2017. During this one whole year, among the many recommendations in the Report, even the first recommendation that I read out just now have not been implemented. Should the annual emoluments of the Director of Water Supplies be cut? Furthermore, after the Report was published, I asked WSD when the initial draw-off samples would be taken again for all PRH estates in the whole territory. They responded that they had to ask experts for their opinions and sort out the sampling arrangement. They also asked us to give them a period of nine months as they needed time for preparation. Nevertheless, the period of nine months has already passed and it 7176 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 has been 12 months now. When will they take the samples? The Director of Water Supplies has not told me when the samples will be taken. Should the emoluments of the Director of Water Supplies be cut? I think there are sufficient grounds to cut all his emoluments.

Why do I, in this Chamber, always ask the Director of Water Supplies to materialize his undertakings? It is because during the process of inquiring into the lead in drinking water incidents, I have been battling with the Government. One of the major questions that I pursue is how water samples are taken by the Government, so that it knows whether there are contaminants and heavy metal such as lead leaching from water pipes and the inside service. How should water samples be taken if the Government needs to know whether there are any problems with these materials, and whether they will contaminate the drinking water? What I have been arguing is that the Government has to take initial draw-off samples, but WSD always says that its way of taking water samples is the best. What is its way? In fact, the way referred to and insisted by WSD is to turn the tap on at maximum flow and let the water flow for a minimum of two minutes in order to flush the interior of the nozzle and to free the service pipe of stagnant water, and the period of flushing time required depends on the length of the service pipes or sample lines, type of sampling tap, water turnaround time of the system, on-site water quality data, or the instruction given by Waterworks Chemist.

(THE CHAIRMAN resumed the Chair)

Hence, generally speaking, in the course of inquiring into the lead content in drinking water of PRH estates, the Government insisted on its way of turning the tap on at maximum flow and let the water flow for two to five minutes before taking the water samples. However, this method is actually being criticized by the Commission, which has pointed out that there are basically some problems with the sampling protocol of WSD. It comments that this way of sampling does no help at all to our understanding of any possible water contamination or the extent of water contamination by lead solder or plumbing installations.

As we can see in paragraph 95 of the Report, the Commission finds it difficult to appreciate WSD's sampling protocol. Although WSD quoted the method in ISO 5667-5:2006, this method actually states that if one wants to find LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7177 out the effects of materials on water quality, one should sample the initial draw-off. The reading of the Commission is that WSD should have taken initial draw-off samples in order to assess the lead contamination in the present incidents. The Commission does not agree to the water sampling method adopted by WSD.

This independent Commission has also invited some experts to assist in the analysis of the lead in drinking water incidents, and among them are Prof LEE from The Hong Kong University of Science and Technology and Prof FAWELL. They expressed their concerns on the way WSD has been taking water samples for testing purpose and published their joint expert report. Throughout the inquiry, WSD insisted to take flushed samples, which are the water samples taken after turning on the tap and allowing the water to flow for two to five minutes that I mentioned earlier. In the inquiry, they expressed their disagreement to the method used by WSD. WSD highlighted that its way of taking water samples could reflect the average quality of drinking water, but this argument could not get the support of the Commission and the two experts expressed their disapproval of the sampling protocol used by WSD.

Nonetheless, it seems that WSD does not read the Report which the Government has prepared with the cooperation of so many experts and on which the Government has spent so much money and time. WSD is still adopting the way which it thinks is correct in taking water samples in order to test whether the drinking water is being contaminated. It has never amended its guidelines on water sampling.

Hence, the situation that we can see is that WSD is being criticized for taking an incorrect way, but the Government just ignores it and is turning a deaf ear to these criticisms. HD then says that it only listens to the instructions from WSD. When WSD's instruction is that it has to take water samples in this way, it will do so. It seems that HD lacks independent thinking and judgment. Since the Report of the Commission points out that the method adopted by WSD is incorrect, when HD staff need to take water samples in future after the old water pipes of PRH estates have been replaced, they should listen to the experts by taking initial draw-off samples. Mr Stanley YING, Director of Housing, is not aware of that. He thinks that as the Director of Housing, he will only listen to the Director of Water Supplies. However, the method adopted by the Director of Water Supplies has already been disapproved by the experts. We 7178 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 have been arguing about this for nearly two years, but WSD still refuses to admit its mistake. We have been asking WSD to test the water quality again by taking initial draw-off samples for one year, but it has not taken any action yet.

Some people asked me recently, "Dr WONG, has the problem of lead in drinking water actually been resolved?" I did not know how to respond. I said that it was of course not yet resolved. We should not think that the issue has been resolved just because there is less media coverage. I said that many recommendations have not been implemented yet, including the most important recommendation of retesting water quality by taking initial draw-off samples in order to find out whether the drinking water of other PRH estates are also contaminated. Are more than 11 PRH estates being affected? This mystery is still unsolved, unless the Director of Water Supplies gives an order for taking initial draw-off samples to the test from tomorrow onwards and makes the information public immediately. We will then know which PRH estates are being affected and which are not, and whether really only 11 PRH estates are affected as mentioned by the Government.

For such a simple matter, why would the Government need to spend one year? Why does it not start testing the drinking water after it has found some more experts to study again for another year? In fact, there are already some experts here. These experts, including international experts and local scholars, are not engaged by Helena WONG. Instead, they are recruited by the independent Commission set up by the Government. However, the Government does not accept their views and has found some other experts, who have yet to submit their report to say whether they agree to the views of the previous batch of experts or otherwise. They have not come up with any report yet.

Moreover, the papers relating to the meetings between these experts and the Government are not made public. We have asked whether we can look at the meeting records, and the answer is that they cannot be shown to us. Is this an open and transparent Government? I have no idea whether the Government held video conferences with these experts or they were invited to attend meetings in Hong Kong. Are there any conclusions after the meetings? Why does the Government not give an account to the Legislative Council? After spending one year, why can it not tell us the reason for not taking the recommendation from the Report on retesting the drinking water of PRH estates by taking initial draw-off samples at present in order to clearly understand whether the drinking water of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7179

PRH estates is still being contaminated or not? I thus think that the Director of Water Supplies is procrastinating. By finding some other experts to fight against the previous batch of experts, he is actually delaying the retesting of water samples. I do not understand why he has to do that earlier. Perhaps during the Chief Executive Election in March, he did not want more PRH estates being found out with lead in drinking water. However, the Chief Executive Election has already come to an end. It has been one whole year and is now overdue. I think the Director of Water Supplies should give an account in public saying why he is unable to carry out the Commission's recommendation of taking initial draw-off samples for all PRH estates in the whole territory immediately.

We have already talked about the problems concerning the Director of Water Supplies, but there is no officer from the Development Bureau here. In fact, we are also very concerned about the issue of Dongjiang water. Recently, we have inspected the condition of Dongjiang water supply, on which the Legislative Council will conduct a motion debate. But since there is no officer from the Development Bureau here today, it seems pointless for me to go on with this subject. The situation is that we have some issues on the approach of price negotiation or the "package deal lump sum" approach concerning Dongjiang water.

With these remarks, Chairman, I support the amendment.

MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I would like to speak on head 158, in respect of which the amendment moved by Dr KWOK Ka-ki, that is, Amendment No. 169, seeks to deduct the estimated expenditure on the personal emolument of the Secretary for Transport and Housing from April to June.

I fully support this amendment, simply because the housing policy in the past few years was in a mess. Housing has come to be regarded as the gravest livelihood concern in Hong Kong. But finding a comfortable home is just a mere dream to Hong Kong people, or a vain hope far too difficult to fulfil, because the reality before us is that it is extremely difficult for young people to find a decent place to live in. What should have been our basic human right has become a mere dream. Members can thus imagine how absurd this city, or society, has become.

7180 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

LEUNG Chun-ying says that the housing issue is his top priority. We have heard him talk about a three-years wait for public rental housing ("PRH") and "Hong Kong property for Hong Kong residents". However, all we can receive so far are just his words, and all he has done is just giving lip service. To us, his words are never fulfilled, mere nonsense.

Over the past few years, he has never achieved any targets. We can see that increasing quantities of private residential units are put on the market, but prices also keep soaring. The production of PRH units, on the other hand, is stagnant. Many people are still waiting, on and on and several years after several years. As we all know, the number of households waiting for PRH allocation is already over 280 000. The three-year wait is an utter impossibility and just a laughing stock of people.

The Government tells us that in the five years from 2016 to 2021, that is, the first five-year period of the Long Term Housing Strategy ("LTHS"), the estimated housing production is 90 000 units only. But then, the Government also says that in the entire 10-year period of LTHS, the estimated PRH production should be 280 000 units. In other words, in the first five years, or the first half of the 10-year period, not even half of the target volume can be achieved. Then, how can it be possible to construct the remaining 200 000 units in the latter five-year period? It will be very difficult to attain LTHS the target, as everyone can know after simple calculation. That being the case, it is actually impossible for many Hong Kong people to receive any PRH allocation.

Nevertheless, I do not know how our Chief Executive, Secretary Prof Anthony CHEUNG, and other well-paid government officials perceive the housing issue. Maybe, they all think that housing should give them pleasure and enjoyment in life, and this may explain why their residences are all so comfy and beautifully decorated. Why do I say so? The answer is very simple. Over the past five years of his term, LEUNG Chun-ying has spent over 30 million on renovating Government House. Paul CHAN is not bad either, as he has still spent some $2 million on renovating his residence even though he will only live there for several months. In contrast, as I have just said, the common people do not even have a place to live in.

We must now ask for a housing unit somewhat like cadging alms from others, but housing is no alms. Rather, it is a basic entitlement. Sadly, many Hong Kong people, some 200 000 households, must now live in subdivided units LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7181 with less than 5.7 sq m per person, in stark contrast to the luxurious homes of rich people. Should housing be treated as a luxury to us? Or, should it be upheld as one of our basic entitlements? Has the Government ever told us the answer? Has the Government ever made any decision at all?

Property prices in Hong Kong have kept soaring year after year, at rates that are simply astounding. As the saying goes, bad news travels fast. For seven consecutive years, Hong Kong has been ranked the city experiencing the greatest housing unaffordability problem all over the world. Here, even a median-income family must stop spending any money on food for 35 whole years if it wants to buy a housing unit. You see, Hong Kong is indeed the world champion.

Over the years, the Government's main policy intent is to adopt various means to encourage people to purchase their homes. Chief Executive-elect Carrie Lam also thinks so, saying that she will increase the supply of flats under the Green Form Subsidised Home Ownership Pilot Scheme, and that "starter homes" for first-time buyers will be provided on top of the existing Home Ownership Scheme ("HOS") as an additional rung on the housing ladder. Actually, her ideas are not much different from LEUNG Chun-ying's thinking. It is of course very good that people can be allocated PRH units, and still better if they can purchase their own homes. But the problem now is that prices of private residential units are forever soaring, thus also boosting the prices of HOS flats to levels that are beyond the affordability of the common people. For this reason, what is the point of constructing more subsidized housing flats that are actually beyond the means of the common people? What is the point of doing so?

The Government also talks about the "two harsh measures" introduced to curb property prices. However, despite these "harsh measures", property prices have still kept soaring over the past few years. Property speculators simply continue with their speculative activities, while private properties continue to be unaffordable to the common people. We therefore think that instead of putting the focus on promoting home ownership, the Government should concentrate on increasing the supply of PRH units, so as to enable people who cannot afford private properties to have a decent place to live in. Increasing the supply of PRH units can resolve the housing problem and also work as the best way to reverse the current supply-demand imbalance and curb prices of private residential properties. I believe that with an increased supply of PRH units, 7182 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 prices of private residential properties will naturally drop. Therefore, I think the Government has simply got the wrong end of the stick. Its top priority should rather be the construction of more PRH units as far and as soon as possible.

It is admittedly very good that the Government endeavours to formulate a 10-year housing production target. But it must not engage in empty talks only. The Government often tells us that it is difficult to identify land sites. Is it really hard to do so? In Hong Kong, many land sites including brownfield sites, sites for small house development, and private club sites can actually be rezoned for public housing purposes. Many vacant school premises can also be used for housing development. Why does the Government refuse to take any actions? The Government and especially the Chief Executive have kept talking about rising up to challenges. Have they really done so? I fail to see how they have ever done so. In respect of public housing construction, I fail to see how the Government has ever risen up to the challenges. I can only see that he has been evading any issues that may affect the rich and powerful. For example, the Government has along refused to formulate an official definition of "brownfield site". Why? It simply fears that an official definition may well clash with the wishes of powerful rural forces and offend them. So, he dare not take any actions. He would rather leave all the brownfield sites idle and our housing problem unresolved.

The crux of the housing problem continues to be the persistent denial of people's hope of getting a PRH unit. And, we think there is an even more important aspect to this denial, one which concerns young people. If they apply for a PRH unit at the age of 20, then as computed under the existing Quota and Points System, they will have to wait 20 to 30 years before they can get a PRH unit. But by then, they will no longer be young and will be entering old age. Isn't that ironic? What is more, if you want to get a PRH unit as quickly as possible, you must realize that the waiting time of one-person applicants is the longest. So, you should get married as earlier as possible. Once you are married, you will be assessed differently under the points system when queuing up for PRH allocation. But can your marriage guarantee you the allocation of a PRH unit? Not necessarily, because the combined income of you and your spouse may exceed the income limit. In that case, you will no longer be eligible for PRH allocation. Eventually, if you are no longer eligible for PRH allocation and do not have the means to buy a private residential unit, you may end up remaining in a subdivided unit. Hence, young people honestly cannot see any prospects at all, which explains their disappointment and despair.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7183

We have kept urging the Government to tackle the public housing issue properly. But it has failed to do so, and the problem remains very serious. Anyway, we still hope that the Government can consider how best to solve the housing problem faced by people living in subdivided units. At present, many Government lands are used for temporary purposes such as car parking. There are also some brownfield sites which are either left idle, or used as container yards or for the deposit of waste. There are even some vacant school premises. We think we should really do a proper statistical collation of all these sites. As shown by statistics, the sites that are rented out under short-term tenancy measure at least some 800 hectares in total, roughly 42 times the area of Victoria Park. As for the outdoor car parks I have mentioned just now, they occupy 152 hectares of land. If the Government is committed to tackling the problem of subdivided units, it can build temporary housing or transitional housing on these sites to provide accommodation for the tenants concerned, so as to improve their living conditions. I think the Government should handle this problem seriously.

Besides, the Government also needs to tackle another issue, the issue of rent control. Sadly, LEUNG Chun-ying and the Secretary have all along refused to deal with it. As we can recall, rent control was imposed twice in Hong Kong, and the last rent control was lifted only as recently as 2004. Why was rent control imposed and then lifted previously? All was because when the Government saw the need for such control in the market, it put in place, and the measure was scrapped when the need no longer existed. Therefore, the imposition and lifting of rent control was actually found in the history of Hong Kong. Regrettably, the Chief Executive and the Secretary have only kept saying that rent control may result in a shortage of rental residential units and even do a disservice. But is it really the case? History tells us that the answer is no. Rent control can instead help arrest rent increases. Actually, the situation of tenants now is far worse than the situation in the past. Tenancy agreements no longer adopt any standard tenure as such, and some unscrupulous landlords may adopt any tenures they like, say, one year or half a year. Why? Because in that case, they can adjust rents more flexibly in response to market changes. But then, tenants of subdivided units all find it very difficult to cope and afford the soaring rents. If the Government does not impose any rent control to rectify this unreasonable situation, grass-roots people will honestly continue to suffer and fail to survive. As a result, more street-sleepers will emerge. In fact, we can see 7184 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 that street-sleepers have been rising in number and getting younger in age. Is the Government going to totally ignore all these evident problems, watching their continuation with folded arms?

Chairman, we can see that the supply of PRH units is now unable to cope with demand. Besides, we can also see a very grave situation. In the past, the shops in the shopping centres of PRH estates could be rented to small business operators, and this could help preserve the purchasing power of residents and make life a bit less difficult for them. But the Government's earlier divestment of its shopping centres to Link Real Estate Investment Trust ("Link") and the crazy rent increases of the latter have put a heavier burden on residents. I hope that at this very time when the Government possesses a fiscal surplus of more than $900 billion, it can consider the idea of buying back Link rather than spending all the money on "white elephants", so that the shopping centres can restore their past mode of operation and the common people can have greater livelihood protection.

Chairman, my only reason for raising all these problems is to point out that our top government officials all earn very high annual emoluments but they are unable to solve the various livelihood issues. This is why I support the amendments to cut their personal emoluments. I hope members of the public can understand that the salary cuts may sent a note of warning to our government officials, inducing them to make greater efforts to better safeguard people's livelihood.

I so submit.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I remind Members once again that according to the debate arrangement, this debate will end at about 10:30 am tomorrow morning.

I now call upon Dr YIU Chung-yim and Ms Claudia MO to speak. Then, I will call upon public officers to speak. After public officers have spoken, I will call upon Members who have proposed amendments to speak again. This debate will come to a close after the relevant Members have spoken. Dr YIU Chung-yim, please speak.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7185

DR YIU CHUNG-YIM (in Cantonese): I would like to speak on Amendments No. 113 and 170 concerning heads 138 and 159 in respect of subhead 000, which seek to cut the emoluments of the Secretary for Development.

As a matter of fact, the Secretary for Development has long been spared even if there are policy mistakes. The development policy formulated by the Government does not address the roots of the problems. It only tries to cope with the situation by continuously making use of the green belt areas or getting usable land sites in various districts, and by turning sports grounds or Government land sites into the development of high-density residential areas. Colleagues of the departments responsible for identifying land sites are extremely exhausted due to this kind of frenetic scrambling of land and they will strive to meet the target by hook or by crook.

The Government's way of snatching usable land sites in various districts has led to a reduction of open spaces, sports grounds or community facilities available to the public. This also results in destruction of green belt areas in the vicinity of residential districts, thus affecting the living environment of the residents. A lot of residents have already voiced their grievances and objection. However, the Secretary for Development insisted to raise its requests to the Town Planning Board for changing the use of the land sites, so that in the few years to come, there will be a large number of green belt areas being rezoned into housing construction areas. At present, the frontline professional civil servants in the government departments responsible for rezoning or identifying land sites are already burning their midnight oil, but their efforts fail to win the applause from the public. In the course of identifying land sites, they are forced to go against their own conscience, indirectly destroying the Hong Kong environment which they treasure and damaging the livability of Hong Kong. Although this approach of increasing land supply through frenetic scrambling of land sites has been fully used by the Government over the past five years, property prices do not come down despite the increase in land supply but rise drastically instead. The facts tell us that the Secretary for Development is wrong in using that measure of frenetic scrambling of land sites, which turns out to be detrimental to Hong Kong.

Let us learn the objective facts through some figures: Over the past five years, the property price index has risen from 192.2 to 319.8, with an increase of 66%, while the rental index has risen from 134.3 to 177.1, with an increase of 32%. Both the rental value and property prices have risen remarkably, without 7186 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 any trace of relief due to the Government's frenetic scrambling of land sites. Given the situation, why do we still allow the Government to continue adopting this kind of approach to destroy the environment and damage the liveability of Hong Kong such that Hong Kong is getting more unsuitable for us to live? The Secretary has never explained why he persists in adopting this approach. Demographia is an international research institute which conducts a housing affordability survey in different metropolitan cities every year, and for six years in a row, Hong Kong has been assessed by it as the least affordable city globally for home-buyers. However, the Secretary for Development has yet to respond or admit the mistakes in the policy.

Many colleagues have mentioned the latest figures released by Demographia. However, in the brief review that follows, we will see that the situation is getting worse. In the report of Demographia, it classifies a metropolitan city with a median multiple, that is, median house price divided by gross annual median household income, to rate housing affordability. And the median multiple of Hong Kong has risen from 13.5 in 2012 to 18 in 2016. What does this startling figure imply? This international research institute classifies any region with a median multiple of 5.5 as "severely unaffordable". Hong Kong, however, has been ranked first globally for six years in a row, and its median multiple has risen from 13.5 to 18, which has far exceeded the median multiple of 5.5 being classified as "severely unaffordable" by this international institute. It is strange enough that after the Secretary for Development has wrongly adopted this approach of frenetic scrambling of land and turned Hong Kong into the least affordable city in the world, neither is he being held accountable for that nor has he explained why his policy is getting ineffective. If Hong Kong can continue to tolerate such performance from the Secretary, this indicates that the accountability system for principal officials exists in name only.

I now quote another example to show that he is spared for making wrong calculations. Back then, the Policy Address said that the supply of first-hand private residential units for the coming three to four years would be 67 000 units. After four years, however, the total supply cannot reach even half of the target, and he has never given any explanation. Nevertheless, how could he further push up the figure in 2016 and exaggerate the projection to 87 000 units? Was he merely paying lip-service? How should we assess the performance of the Secretary? While he was spared from giving explanation for the wrong projection that he has made previously, he carried on with the inflated figure in the following financial year. This kind of administration will actually only help LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7187 build up public resentment against the Government, as it is getting difficult for the public to decide whether to start a family or whether to purchase a flat in Hong Kong. They really do not know which course to take.

As a matter of fact, I doubt whether the Secretary for Development has sincerely given some advice to the Chief Executive over the years, and told the Chief Executive about the feasibility of stating these figures in the Policy Address from the technical, logical and scientific points of view, so that he would not make any unscientific statements.

On the other hand, Hong Kong has been facing the problem of over development and the construction costs keep on rising. As pointed out by an international research report, this phenomenon is attributed to the fact that the Hong Kong Government has been launching far too many works projects. This is from the report titled "International Construction Costs 2017" published by Arcadis, an international engineering consultancy company. The report highlights that Hong Kong is ranked second globally in terms of construction costs, having moved up a place from last year. The report has clearly stated the reason for Hong Kong being ranked second globally in terms of construction costs is the launching of a number of government infrastructural projects concurrently, thus posing a challenge to the supply of local resources. For example, the gross construction output in 2015 has doubled from that of 2010, rendering the supply of various resources (including labour and professionals) unable to catch up with the demand within a short period of time.

As projected in the report, this kind of public works and infrastructural projects will go on for a long time in Hong Kong in the future, thus posing some pressure on the construction costs which will not be lowered so easily. According to the consultancy report, this is the main reasons for Hong Kong being ranked second in the world in terms of construction costs which remain at a high level and are ever increasing.

In fact the Government has admitted this fact. As highlighted in the Budget, "With a number of projects at their construction peaks, capital works expenditure is expected to remain at relatively high levels in the next few years." These wordings appear in the Budgets of 2015, 2016 and 2017. In other words, they are also aware of this. The Secretary for Development knows very well that capital works in Hong Kong are at their construction peaks.

7188 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

According to the information submitted by the Government on 3 January to the Legislative Council Finance Committee ("FC"), the expenditure on capital works has increased from $40 billion in 2008-2009 to $78.5 billion in 2016-2017, and is expected to increase year by year to $115 billion in 2020-2021. Within 10 years, the expenditure on capital works in Hong Kong has risen by 1.5 times, and this astonishing growth rate can hardly be seen in the world. After all, the Secretary for Development has not played well in his gatekeeping role in controlling the growth of capital works so as to prevent the construction costs from rising drastically in a continuous manner. Besides, he has never tried to resolve the problem of the ever-increasing labour and material costs. The introduction of far too many works projects by the Government has led to a shortfall in resources and manpower and an increase in material costs, and therefore budget overruns in various projects. When the projects were first launched, the Government did not expect that the material prices and workers' salaries would be pushed up to an extremely high level. The authorities thus applied for funding again from FC to deal with cost overruns in these infrastructural projects. As a result, a vicious cycle is formed and they are painting themselves into a corner.

The surge in infrastructural projects is actually a phenomenon which will continue in the coming few years. My working team has recently finished a statistical study on the approval of funding for project overruns by FC in the past few terms, and we found that all the applications were approved. Only when a funding application for project overruns was submitted, it would be approved very easily. The explanation made in the application was very simple: The rise in construction costs has gone beyond the expected growth rate; and the base for price adjustment was only a projected figure and was not accurate. However, the consultancy report has clearly highlighted that the ever-increasing construction costs which led to serious cost overruns in the projects of Hong Kong was due to too many works projects being launched concurrently by the Government. The Secretary for Development should thus be held accountable, as he has the obligation to contain and control the expenditure of government projects, so that the supply of workers, professionals and materials can meet the demand.

Over the past few years, in addition to the Secretary's failure to carry out these duties, he did not recognize the facts either, nor did he make any response to the vicious cycle of a rise in costs due to the overwhelming public works launched by the Government, which was being highlighted in the international consultancy report.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7189

Finally, I would like to raise a point, and that is, as prescribed in the Basic Law, the Hong Kong Government shall follow the fiscal principle of keeping the expenditure within the limits of revenues. Therefore, it is inappropriate for the Government to keep on increasing the volume of public works and the related expenditure, or to speed up the approval of funding applications of projects, especially when there is currently a shortfall in manpower and resources. Otherwise, the construction costs will be further pushed up and the Government will have itself to bear the consequences. The Secretary must play the gatekeeping role with all his efforts by adjusting properly the volume of public works for better digestion by the market and better adaptation by the sectors concerned.

Since the Secretary for Development has not discharged his responsibilities, I support the proposal to cut his salaries. I so submit. Thank you.

MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): I would like to speak on the same amendment proposed in respect of head 138. Major infrastructure projects in Hong Kong never cease, just like the emergence of one after another big "white elephant". Are these projects related to the Environment Bureau? They of course are, and the Bureau should review for us the waste produced and the resources wasted during the implementation of these projects, with a view to ascertaining their impact on the whole city. For example, the impact of the construction of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge on white dolphins should be ascertained. Nevertheless, I am going to talk about the Development Bureau now, particularly the Secretary's dereliction of duty and unwise decisions.

In Hong Kong, when discussing whether a person is rich, we should first of all ask if he is a property owner. Everything is just an illusion, because share prices can go up and down, financial investments can be highly risky, but it seems that making investment in property is the only way to secure only gain but no lose. A property acquired 30 years ago can create such considerable wealth for its owner today that all the money made by working hard for the whole life can never compare with the value of this property. Why must we study hard and work hard then? It turns out that with a property at hand, one will have nothing to worry about, and what kind of economy is this?

7190 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

The Development Bureau should of course not be completely blamed for the problems with the property market, but it must have something to do with the distortion to the economy of Hong Kong. For example, port business accounts for 22% of our GDP and is a big business, but I cannot recall since when have Ningbo, Singapore and even Shenzhen overtaken Hong Kong in world ranking in this respect. In the meantime, the Development Bureau has done nothing to help promote our port business, and all brownfield sites in the New Territories are occupied by containers. Anyone who makes a one-day tour to the New Territories will notice on the way that all brownfield sites along the roads are occupied by containers, and this can be attributed to the problem of "government-business-rural-triad" collusion.

In fact, operators of container freight businesses have also vented their grievances to us saying that they should not be driven away, since the enormous size of containers has made it very difficult to identify a suitable storage place for them. Should containers be placed in port areas instead? Why is it impossible to find a storage place there for containers? When brownfield sites are occupied by containers, the Government has conversely tried to lay hands on rural land which is obviously green land and worst still, there are houses for dwelling purpose on such land and the Government's actions have only aroused a huge uproar and dissatisfaction. In the meantime, some containers are converted for use as subdivided units, and beyond our wildest imagination, their monthly rent can be as high as nearly $3,000 to $4,000. As containers are metal structures, is it not tantamount to living in a tin-plate hut during the hot summer months? The air-conditioning fees must be incredibly high.

Although things have been very much distorted like this in our society, the Government still launches "white elephant" projects on the one hand, and continues with its "blind scramble for land" on the other. The Development Bureau should also be held responsible for this problem of "blind scramble for land", and it should at least conduct a review of the issues involved. With regard to the high land price policy, has the Secretary ever explained to the Government that the economy of Hong Kong has actually trapped in a vicious circle that even our environment has become overburdened, and the high land price policy is the root of the problem. Land put up for sale by the Government will always go to the bidder offering the highest price, but bid prices offered now are usually unreasonably high.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7191

Before 2011, the success rate of local developers participating in land tender exercises was nearly 90%. However, the rate has already dropped to only 40% in September 2015, and to even less than 10% today, and such exercises are now monopolized by Chinese enterprises financed by red capital. As all of us may recall, Mr FOK who is the right-hand man of the wealthiest man in Hong Kong has once asked: How are we to compete with those China-capital giant enterprises? Hence, nearly all successful bids come from Chinese enterprises offering record-breaking bidding prices, rendering them the most powerful landowners in Hong Kong other than the Hong Kong Government. When bids are won with such cost prices, how low can the sale prices become for property flats to be constructed on these sites, such as the new flats offered in One Kai Tak?

The Government often says that there is inadequate land in Hong Kong, as if this has become its pet phrase. It is suggested that many land sites in Hong Kong are fragmented and difficult to develop, and I concur that we do have a lot of examples to support the remarks. However, earlier discussions on the Loop also reveal that it covers a vast area of 87 hectares, and would it be possible to seriously consider launching development plans there? Yet, the Government said that an innovation and technology park would be developed in the area. There are also suggestions that consideration could be given to making use of land in Kai Tak Development Area, and the Government replied that planning has already been made to undertake public housing development in the area, but it must also be used for developing a sports park, which is another huge project. Very few people would object to the implementation of sports projects, but the design and other project details (such as an operating period of 25 years) proposed by the Government now are deeply worrying, yet this is another question.

As land resources are so valuable, people have to pay expensive rents in order to have their own space, and this has imposed a very heavy burden on operators of small businesses. I have a friend from the upper middle class who is rather well off and has once operated a noodle shop, but he was forced to close the business down because he found the rents really too high and unaffordable. Shop owners are absolutely free to ask for sky-high rental, and although he has initially signed a two-year lease at a monthly rental of $300,000, there was a demand for rent increase from the landlord upon expiry of the lease and the new 7192 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 rents would be $550,000 per month. Would it be possible for him to renew the lease? How could he continue with his business, and how many bowls of noodle would have to be sold for him to afford such a high level of shop rents?

Hong Kong is not a livable city, and it is completely because of the fact that everything here is hooked up with the term "property", thus bringing tremendously great pressure. It is said that the Treasury of Hong Kong is "flooded" with cash, we have no lack of money, and that the former Financial Secretary John TSANG is renowned for making wrong estimation, such as the huge discrepancies in Budget Estimates last year. However, we will no longer blame him for this when we take one factor I mentioned just now into consideration, and that is, the attempts made by Chinese enterprises to irrationally "scramble for land" in Hong Kong, which have suddenly generated an additional and totally inestimable revenue of billions of dollars for the public coffers. Could the additional revenue be used to benefit the people then? This may not be possible.

If my memory serves me correctly, there is a book entitled Poverty in the Midst of Affluence, which is an adaptation by Leo GOODSTADT from an old book. In this book, a former Chief Executive was quoted as saying that engaging in welfare businesses was just like pouring sand into the sea to reclaim land. What kind of mindset is this? I can cite an example to illustrate how the Secretary for Development has failed to fulfil his responsibility and do his job well, and how he has failed to make decisions after discussions.

There is a redevelopment project of 13 Streets in To Kwa Wan with which residents in the district should be very familiar, since they very much want to have the area redeveloped but discussions have been going on for more than 10 years and not much progress has yet been made. There are many old and dilapidated buildings in the area and such problems as rusty structures, water leakage and falling concrete have been plaguing residents living there. The Government basically agrees that the area should be redeveloped, so how come the project has been delayed for years and no progress can be achieved? According to the latest explanation, it was considered after detailed calculation that the plot ratio for the project has rendered it commercially not viable. A solution was then offered to delete some of the existing streets in the area, since the Chinese character "井" (meaning "a well") has been used in the design of the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7193 layout plan of all of the 13 Streets involved. Consideration could thus be given to deleting one whole street, such as Mok Cheong Street, to make way for housing construction and the setting up of a new community.

The proposal sounds good enough, so why did the Government not take it on board, commence discussions on the issue and have the project implemented? The housing problem is really very important because among the basic necessities of clothing, food, shelter and transport in Hong Kong, it is most difficult to meet the housing need. We are free to decide how much we should spend on clothing and what should we choose for food, and we can try our best to make do with different modes of transport, but it is never easy to tackle the housing problem. It turns out that nothing has been done to follow up the proposal mentioned above, since it would not be possible to rehouse all residents affected by land resumption and clearance arising from the redevelopment project of 13 Streets. What can we do when there are not enough vacant flats for rehousing these dispossessed residents?

Hence, the housing problem in Hong Kong is after all a vicious circle. An old housing block in Shek Kip Mei Estate was not redeveloped when all other old buildings in the same estate were cleared back then, and what was the reason for this? The Government explained that as no more quotas were available, there would be no place to rehouse the affected residents if the housing block was also included in the redevelopment plan, although it was also an aged building. If priority was accorded to rehouse them in new public rental housing flats, applicants on the Waiting List would consider it unfair to them, and so the aged housing block was finally not included in the redevelopment plan. What kind of a government is this? Such an explanation is just too tiring to hear, is it not?

Therefore, Hong Kong is to a very large extent not a livable city, and there may be a political factor: Since living in Hong Kong is so unacceptable and disagreeable, we might as well consider migrating to other places. I do not know if this is the attitude held by the Government, but I hope this is not the case. Many of us have received the latest tax return form recently, and it is again the time for us to file tax return. For those who own no property, paying tax is perhaps the only thing that they can do, and there is no room to plan for the future of their children or save up money for their university education when the imminent need is to take care of their life at present. In order to ensure that their children can continue to "survive" rather than "live" in Hong Kong, it may be necessary to consider acquiring a property on their behalf. This is why we consider it necessary to cut the emoluments of the Secretary for Development.

7194 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Cantonese): Chairman, with regard to certain amendments in relation to the fourth debate session, the response of the Government is as follows.

The Government rejects Amendment No. 42 proposed by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen in respect of "Head 44―Environmental Protection Department", which seeks to cut the annual estimated expenditure on the emoluments for the Assistant Director of Environmental Protection (Environmental Assessment) and the Principal Environmental Protection Officer (Strategic Facilities Development and Planning) of the Environmental Protection Department ("EPD").

As mentioned by Members, Assistant Director of Environmental Protection (Environmental Assessment) has the duties to direct the work of the Environmental Assessment Division, including assessing the environmental impact of various policies and programmes, handling applications in relation to environmental procedures lodged under the Environmental Impact Assessment Ordinance and formulate policies on Environmental Impact Assessment and environmental noise management. On the other hand, the Principal Environmental Protection Officer (Strategic Facilities Development and Planning) has the duties to manage integrated waste management facilities and oversee studies on long-term planning of waste management and transfer facilities.

Cutting the estimated expenditure on the emoluments for the above two posts under head 44 will render EPD incapable to continue carrying out the duties concerned, seriously affecting EPD's duties to protect Hong Kong's environment. Therefore, we do not agree to the proposal concerned.

The Government rejects Amendment No. 60 proposed by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen in respect of "Head 60―Highways Department" which seeks to cut the annual estimated expenditure on the operation of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Hong Kong Project Management Office ("Project Management Office") under the Highways Department under head 60.

The Project Management Office under the Highways Department has been assigned the duty to oversee the implementation of projects, namely the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge Main Bridge, Hong Kong section (that is, Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities and Hong Kong Link Road projects) and the Tuen Mun-Chek Lap Kok Link. The functions and duties of the Project LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7195

Management Office are important and necessary. Cutting the annual estimated expenditure on the operations of the Project Management Office will severely disturb its normal operation and the progress of the above projects, and society will bear the heavy cost of a failure to complete the projects as soon as practicable.

The Government rejects Amendment No. 61 in respect of "Head 62―Housing Department" proposed by Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, which seeks to cut the expenditure on the operation of the Housing Department under head 62.

Housing is an important livelihood issue affecting all strata of society. The Government has been working with hard effort to implement various policies and measures with an aim to resolve root cause of the housing problem. After public consultation, the Government formulated the Long Term Housing Strategy in 2014, affirming a supply-led principle, setting the new public and private housing supply at the ratio of 60:40 and rebuilding the housing ladder with a view to addressing the long-term housing needs of different sectors of the community at root.

In the case of public housing, the Government will continue increasing supply and roll out different subsidized housing programme to facilitate public housing circulation. In relation to private housing, the Government has introduced several rounds of demand-side management measures to address market exuberance, combat short-term speculation, curb local and external investment demand, and accord priority to local home-ownership needs.

If the amendment is passed, the Housing Department will not be able to maintain normal operation, seriously impacting the Government's tasks of supporting public housing construction and promoting the stable and healthy development of the private property market, and so on, thereby hindering the Government's continuous work to effectively deal with Hong Kong's housing problem in the long run.

The Government rejects Amendment Nos. 108 to 110 proposed by Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Dr KWOK Ka-ki and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen in respect of "Head 137―Government Secretariat: Environment Bureau" which seek to partially cut the estimated expenditure incurred by the Environment Bureau on operation and emoluments under head 137.

7196 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

The Environment Bureau is mainly responsible for developing policies and programmes in relation to energy supply, electrical and gas safety, as well as energy efficiency and energy saving, so as to promote sustainable development in Hong Kong and enhancing the quality of the people's living environment. The Environmental Bureau strives to encourage the entire community to participate in environmental protection, and work closely with relevant stakeholders, including the Mainland Government and international community, to establishing a more liveable environment. Cutting the estimated expenditure on operation and emoluments under head 137 will seriously obstruct the Environment Bureau's daily operation. Therefore, we do not agree to the proposal.

Regarding Amendment Nos. 111 to 115 proposed respectively by Mr Andrew WAN, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen and Dr LAU Siu-lai in respect of "Head 138―Government Secretariat: Development Bureau (Planning and Lands Branch)", which seek to cut the estimated expenditure on the emoluments for the Secretary for Development, Under Secretary for Development and the Political Assistant to Secretary for Development. These amendments will strip the Office of the Secretary for Development bear of resources necessary for carrying out the major tasks in 2017-2018. The Government therefore rejects the relevant amendments proposed.

Considering Amendment No. 70 in respect of "Head 82―Buildings Department", in 2017-2018, the Buildings Department will go on performing existing tasks including: first, taking enforcement action to remove unauthorized building works; second, inspecting subdivided units in target buildings and conducting rectification works; third, removing unauthorized building works in New Territories Exempted Houses constituting serious contravention of the law and posing higher potential risks to building safety; and fourth, reviewing various building regulations, standards and codes of practice, and so on. Passing the amendment proposed by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen seeking to cut the annual estimated expenditure on salaries under personal emoluments of the Buildings Department will affect the Buildings Department's work, thereby jeopardizing building safety and the quality of construction projects.

Regarding Amendment No. 73 in respect of "Head 91―Lands Department", the Lands Department has 4 180 posts in 2017-2018 incurring an estimated expenditure on personal emoluments of around $1,880.03 million in order to deal with the ever increasing workloads related to land administration and development. If the amendment proposed by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen seeking LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7197 to cut the annual estimated expenditure on salaries under personal emoluments of the Lands Department is passed, the Lands Department will have difficulty in providing various services concerning land administration and survey, and so on. The situation will give rise to a stagnation of lands and housing development, as well as the inability on the part of the authorities in taking enforcement action against irregularities in land use and handling compensation claims in relation to land resumption, severely affecting social development and the people's livelihood.

As to Amendment Nos. 90 to 91 in respect of "Head 118―Planning Department", passing the amendment proposed by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen seeking to cut the annual estimated expenditure on salaries under personal emoluments incurred by the Planning Department will render the Planning Department unable to pay staff salaries, resulting in a discontinuation of normal services and a failure to commence various major tasks, which will greatly hamper the supply and long-term development of lands and housing in Hong Kong.

The Government is inviting tenders for a sustainability assessment under Hong Kong 2030+: Towards a Planning Vision and Strategy Transcending 2030 ("Hong Kong 2030+"). If the amendment proposed by Mr Nathan LAW seeking to cut the annual estimated expenditure on assessment of sustainable development under Hong Kong 2030+ is passed, not only will this hinder the planning studies, but also delaying the achievement of the target to complete the Hong Kong 2030+ study by 2018.

Considering Amendment Nos. 170 to 172 in respect of "Head 159―Government Secretariat: Development Bureau (Works Branch)", if Members' amendments relating to cutting the estimated expenditure incurred by the Development Bureau (Works Branch) and its group of departments are passed, it will very much affect the operation of the departments concerned and the provision of public services at the expense of the people's quality of life and safety. Therefore, I request Members to reject these amendments. In connection with amendments seeking to cut the estimated expenditure incurred by the Architectural Services Department and the Civil Engineering and Development Department, the response of the Government is as follows.

Regarding Amendment Nos. 24 to 27 in respect of "Head 25―Architectural Services Department", passage of the amendments proposed by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Mr CHU Hoi-dick and Dr LAU Siu-lai 7198 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 seeking to cut the relevant estimated expenditure will mean that it is possible for the Architectural Services Department to add 23 permanent or time limited posts in 2017-2018, and will render half or over half of the Architectural Services Department's office unable to operate normally, which will further lead to a situation that it cannot offer professional and technical advice to Governmental and quasi-Government organizations, as well as not being able to oversee subvented, joint-venture and entrusted projects. Moreover, the Department can no longer maintain and repair government buildings and facilities or provide architectural and associated professional and project management services for the design and construction of government facilities. Finally, the Architectural Services Department will have no, or insufficient, funds to finance the maintenance and repair of government buildings and facilities.

In connection with Amendment Nos. 33 to 39 in respect of "Head 33―Civil Engineering and Development Department", the Civil Engineering and Development Department's work is conducive to the livelihood of local communities and economic development, so passage of the amendments proposed by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Mr CHU Hoi-dick and Dr LAU Siu-lai which seek to cut the estimated expenditure concerned will greatly impede the operation of the Civil Engineering and Development Department, and will deal a direct blow to the services offered to the public, as well as delaying the scheduled commence or completion of related projects. Therefore, I urge Members to reject these amendments.

The Government rejects Amendment Nos. 167 to 169 proposed by Dr KWOK Ka-ki and Mr CHAN Chi-chuen in respect of "Head 158―Government Secretariat: Transport and Housing Bureau (Transport Branch)", which seek to partially cut the estimated expenditure incurred by the Transport and Housing Bureau on operation and emoluments under head 158. Cutting an amount approximately equivalent to the estimated expenditure on three months' salaries for the Secretary for Transport and Housing in respect of subhead 000 will result that the Secretary for Transport and Housing cannot lead the Transport and Housing Bureau and its group of departments to provide the services and carry out their duties concerning transport and housing during the above period, which will then create major disturbance to the everyday operation of the Bureau and its group of departments and the progress of various transport and housing development projects.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7199

On the other hand, the Three-runway System ("3RS") is essential to preserve Hong Kong International Airport's status as an international and regional aviation hub, as well as ensuring Hong Kong's long-term and continuous development. The Transport and Housing Bureau (Transport Branch) has set up the Airport Expansion Project Coordination Office ("AEPCO") to oversee and coordinate the planning of the 3RS project. AEPCO is headed by a Principal Government Engineer (D3), who is supported by other staff including two directorate staff and eight non-directorate officers from different grades.

In the light of the commence of the 3RS project by the Airport Authority Hong Kong ("AA") in August last year, it is necessary for AEPCO to continue operating in order to oversee and assist AA in conducting a series of land reclamation and construction projects, including giving advice on tender documents and contract procurement strategies prepared by AA, while specifically focusing on the dispute resolution system in public works contracts and the avoidance of compensation claims from contractors, as well as advising on engineering and project management matters, so as to ensure the project's full compliance with the relevant statutory requirements, project administration procedures and technical standards.

Owing to the scale, cost and complexity of the 3RS, the Legislative Council hopes the Government can effectively oversee AA's project implementation work. The last-term Legislative Council established the Subcommittee to Follow Up Issues Relating to the Three-runway System at the Hong Kong International Airport which held 10 meetings, including two public hearings. The current term Legislative Council has also established the Subcommittee to Follow Up Issues Relating to the Three-runway System at the Hong Kong International Airport ("Subcommittee"). The Subcommittee hold totally four meetings since commencing operation in November 2016, discussing such topics as the latest progress of the 3RS, cost and financial arrangement, manpower plan and development, as well as progress of implementation of key Environmental Impact Assessment commitments, and so on.

AEPCO will continue striving to coordinate with the Subcommittee's work with a view to assisting the Legislative Council to effectively monitor the implementation of the 3RS project. Cutting the funding for the projects concerned will unavoidably impair the Government's roles and functions in monitoring AA's tasks in carrying out the 3RS project. So, we reject the 7200 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 amendments concerned, and earnestly call on Members to support the funding related, allowing the Government to monitor the implementation of the 3RS project.

The Government rejects Amendment Nos. 180 to 181 proposed by Mr CHAN Chi-chuen in respect of "Head 186―Transport Department", which seeks to cut the annual estimated expenditure incurred by the Transport Department on emoluments under head 186. The funding concerned will be spent on the salaries for almost 1 705 staff members of the Transport Department. If the amendments are passed, the Transport Department will no longer be able to make salary payments to all employees in accordance with contracts. Moreover, it will not be possible to ensure that offices and transport facilities under the Department can operation safely and normally, seriously affecting the services and public transport support provided by the Transport Department. Furthermore, the Government may be subject to legal liability for defaulting salary payments.

The Government also rejects Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung's amendment seeking to cut the estimated expenditure on procuring Rehabuses. Rehabuses provides point-to-point transport service for persons with disabilities who have difficulties using general public transport. Moreover, Rehabuses also offer regular Scheduled Route Service for needy persons with disabilities to travel between workplaces and schools, as well as for rehab treatment. Dial-a-Ride Service is delivered to persons with disabilities through advance booking on a first-come-first-serve basis so that they can travel to receive rehab treatment and participate in social activities, and so on.

Over the last five years, the Labour and Welfare Bureau has allocated funding to the operator of Rehabus for procuring 33 additional Rehabuses, thereby increasing the fleet size to 156 vehicles. The number of passenger trips served by Rehabuses increased from 759 900 in 2012 to 899 700 in 2016. The Labour and Welfare Bureau and the Transport Department have been closely monitoring the change in demand for Rehabus service and deploying additional resources according to actual service needs, so as to enhance and introduce additional Rehabus services. The funding in 2017-2018 will enable the operator to procure 8 new vehicles and replace 9 obsolete vehicles, further increasing the fleet size to 164 vehicles. The newly added buses will start serving 30 applicants on the waiting list for Scheduled Route Service in late December 2016 and additionally provide 25 400 passenger trips for Dial-a-Ride Service each LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7201 year. Therefore, cutting the funding to the Labour and Welfare Bureau for procuring Rehabuses will cause inconvenience to persons with disabilities who have difficulties in using general public transport.

With these remarks, Chairman, I urge Members to reject all amendments in relation to the fourth debate.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr CHU Hoi-dick, do you wish to speak again?

MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Cantonese): This is the last speech I will make today. First of all, I must point out again the absurdity of only having five hours to speak on the many amendments proposed by Members in this debate session. The amendments concern so many government departments and problems, so how can we possibly complete this session in five hours? I for one can speak for five hours. Now, in this last opportunity left in this session for me to speak, I can only briefly make my point on the amendments related to the Environmental Protection Department ("EPD"), Environment Bureau, Planning Department ("PlanD") and Lands Department ("LandsD").

My points are in fact very straightforward. The Government sometimes releases a work report to the public, naming 100 or even 1 000 projects that it has accomplished, and the list may be so long that we do not even want to hear. However, if the Government performs poorly in certain iconic projects, the public will put the blame on this or that government department or bureau. Later, I will name three disgraceful errors which must be rectified before the public can be convinced that the Government is on the side of public interests.

The first disgrace is related to the environment. A Japanese named Hiroshi HIRASAKA visited Hong Kong earlier. He is a tourist guru who likes to travel around the world in search of peculiar things. What did he find in Hong Kong? He came to Kam Tin, the place where I live in, and caught a large catfish in Kam Tin River, a heavily-polluted and foul-smelling river detested by the residents. Mr HIRASAKA cut the fish open and found its stomach filled with rubbish, including lubricating oil from vehicle scrapping operations and manures from livestock farms. No matter how he cooked the fish, its taste remained disgusting.

7202 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

EPD states in one of its programmes in the Estimates that "water and sediment quality is monitored extensively"; and under the Matters Requiring Special Attention, it states that it will, among others, "pursue various sewage treatment and sewerage projects"; and under the part on Indicators, it sets out a classification for the sampling points, and seven sampling points are classified as "bad" … I don't know whether this is one of the Targets, but the water quality of seven sampling points are expected to remain bad.

As the Secretary is here, I wish to say that the catfish is a disgrace to Hong Kong. Since as early as the 1980s, many people have been urging on banning the operation of livestock farms to address the river pollution problem. Thirty years have passed, and this Japanese can still find a stinky river in Hong Kong and catch a fish there. His catch is a disgrace to Hong Kong in 2017 or the 21st century. If EPD does not do something to tackle the long-standing problem of river pollution, we can never get rid of this disgrace.

Dr Helena WONG often discovers water problems. Water problems are not limited to the price of Dongjiang water or whether the water has been polluted with heavy metals in the transportation process. In fact, our rivers, the sea and groundwater are also important natural resources to us. I hope the Secretary can give some thoughts to how we can wash away this first disgrace.

The second disgrace is related to PlanD. In fact, many Members hold PlanD with respect because as a relatively small department under the Development Bureau, it nonetheless must shoulder very daunting duties. One of its duties is to take enforcement actions against unauthorized developments under the Town Planning Ordinance ("TPO").

But I have no alternative but to criticize it because the second disgrace is about them, about the massive construction soil fill in Tin Shui Wai heaped up over the past 10 years. In the past one year, the public showed very great concern about the condition of the soil fill and the enforcement actions taken. PlanD officials have made very great efforts, but due to the loose definition of "landowner" under TPO, they are unable to take any ultimate and strong enforcement actions against the massive soil fill after detecting it for more than one year.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017 7203

The definition of soil fill under TPO is rather loose. When the TPO was applied to Ping Shan in the New Territories in 1993, land uses existing before 1993 in the area were permitted to remain, and the site where the soil fill is located was zoned as a sand depot for open storage of sand for use in the development of Tin Shui Wai in the time before 1993.

The dumping of construction waste and other rubbish have been detected at the site of the soil fill since 10 years ago. According to PlanD, the dumping of soil and rubbish falls within the definition of a sand depot and thus the massive soil fill complies with the existing land use of the site before 1993. Do you think the public find this explanation convincing? Won't they find it absurd? It is zoned as a sand depot, but you can find scrap tyres, all sorts of construction waste and even toilet bowls in it. Can you still call it a sand depot? The way the authorities enforce the law has led to continued existence of this disgraceful massive soil fill in Hong Kong.

I have to mention also a staffing proposal for the Lantau Development Office (which is now called the Sustainable Lantau Office) under discussion by the Establishment Subcommittee of the Finance Committee. The Government often talks about conserving Lantau Island. But we have made it clear to the Government that there are many flytipping activities in Southern Lantau which are incompatible with the land uses prescribed in the outline zoning plan for the area. However, since a development permission area plan has not drawn up for Southern Lantau, PlanD cannot take any enforcement actions. The Government does not make any effort to plug this obvious loophole, which has encouraged the people to carry out flytipping activities there. The whole world is now able to see this massive soil fill next to Kingswood Villas in Hong Kong. It is just an international disgrace. How absurd!

The third disgrace is about LandsD. Hong Kong people may have very mixed feelings about this disgrace and it is about the HNA Group. The information with me here shows that this internationally-renowned state enterprise spent $27.2 billion in March this year on acquiring four parcels of land in the Kai Tak development area, and this means an accommodation value of almost $14,000 per square foot. While we were shocked by the news, another piece of news gave us an even greater shock. A HNA Group spokesperson says they plan to build staff quarters on the Kai Tak site.

7204 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 10 May 2017

LandsD is in charge of land administration and one of the duties is land sale. The public are quite powerless in this respect. All along they have no say in which site is to be or not to be put on sale, or which site is to be auctioned and which site is to be sold by private treaty grant. All these are decided by LandsD in a clandestine fashion. It is our tolerance of these clandestine land auctions over all these years that has brought this disgrace on Hong Kong shown here in the information with me. This is a big disgrace indeed.

Land is a precious public resource. Housing is obviously in great demand here in Hong Kong but the Government has not made any effort to find out how to provide affordable housing to Hong Kong people. Instead it continues with its clandestine operation and sell lands to enterprises like the HNA Group, whose money is of unknown origin. The enterprise may even be connected to the Political Bureau of the Communist Party of China and controlled by members of the Standing Committee of the Political Bureau. How dare they tell the people of Hong Kong that they will use the site for staff quarters? Secretary, how can we accept this? And how can LandsD take this?

The problem has obviously been worsening. But the answer to the problem is unexpectedly simple. As I said in the beginning, people would take the 100 projects the Government has accomplished for granted because it is supposed to serve the public. But any omission of duty of the Government will be discerned by the public. People will suspect whether the untouchable "tigers" are actually the owners of those open storage areas or livestock farms that have long been polluting the New Territories rivers, or the land owners or related people that make money by damaging the environment, or the enterprises that use Hong Kong, this land of freedom, as the place for money laundering or depositing their money of unknown origin. If the Government does not have the courage to beat these "tigers" despite knowing their existence, there is no way that we can get rid of these disgraceful examples. We want a courageous Government that will beat these "tigers" and rid us of such disgrace.

SUSPENSION OF MEETING

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now suspend the meeting until 9:00 am tomorrow.

Suspended accordingly at 7:55 pm.