OFFICIAL RECORD of PROCEEDINGS Thursday, 29

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 743

OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Thursday, 29 October 2020

The Council continued to meet at Nine o'clock

MEMBERS PRESENT:

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

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

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

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

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

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

744 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020

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

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

THE HONOURABLE CLAUDIA MO

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

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

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

THE HONOURABLE WU CHI-WAI, M.H.

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

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

THE HONOURABLE CHARLES PETER MOK, J.P.

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

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

THE HONOURABLE KENNETH LEUNG*

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

DR THE HONOURABLE KWOK KA-KI*

THE HONOURABLE KWOK WAI-KEUNG, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE DENNIS KWOK WING-HANG*

* According to the announcement made by the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Government on 11 November 2020 pursuant to the Decision of the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress on Issues Relating to the Qualification of the Members of the Legislative Council of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, Kenneth LEUNG, KWOK Ka-ki, Dennis KWOK Wing-hang and Alvin YEUNG were disqualified from being members of the Legislative Council on 30 July 2020. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 745

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

DR THE HONOURABLE FERNANDO CHEUNG CHIU-HUNG

DR THE HONOURABLE HELENA WONG PIK-WAN

THE HONOURABLE IP KIN-YUEN

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

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

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

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

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

THE HONOURABLE CHUNG KWOK-PAN

THE HONOURABLE ALVIN YEUNG*

THE HONOURABLE ANDREW WAN SIU-KIN

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

DR THE HONOURABLE JUNIUS HO KWAN-YIU, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE LAM CHEUK-TING

THE HONOURABLE HOLDEN CHOW HO-DING

746 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020

THE HONOURABLE SHIU KA-FAI, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE SHIU KA-CHUN

THE HONOURABLE WILSON OR CHONG-SHING, M.H.

THE HONOURABLE YUNG HOI-YAN, J.P.

DR THE HONOURABLE PIERRE CHAN

THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHUN-YING, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG KWOK-KWAN, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE HUI CHI-FUNG

THE HONOURABLE LUK CHUNG-HUNG, J.P.

THE HONOURABLE LAU KWOK-FAN, M.H.

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

DR THE HONOURABLE CHENG CHUNG-TAI

THE HONOURABLE KWONG CHUN-YU

THE HONOURABLE JEREMY TAM MAN-HO

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

THE HONOURABLE TONY TSE WAI-CHUEN, B.B.S., J.P.

PUBLIC OFFICERS ATTENDING:

THE HONOURABLE FRANK CHAN FAN, J.P. SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (am)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 747

DR RAYMOND SO WAI-MAN, B.B.S., J.P. UNDER SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING, AND SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (pm)

PROF THE HONOURABLE SOPHIA CHAN SIU-CHEE, J.P. SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH

THE HONOURABLE EDWARD YAU TANG-WAH, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

DR BERNARD CHAN PAK-LI, J.P. UNDER SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT

CLERKS IN ATTENDANCE:

MS ANITA SIT, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

MISS FLORA TAI YIN-PING, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

MS DORA WAI, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

MR MATTHEW LOO, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL

748 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020

GOVERNMENT BILLS

Second Reading of Government Bills

Resumption of Second Reading Debate on Government Bill

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, please speak.

FISHERIES PROTECTION (AMENDMENT) BILL 2019

Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 11 December 2019

IR DR LO WAI-KWOK (in Cantonese): President …

(Mr James TO indicated his wish to raise a point of order)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr James TO, what is your point of order?

MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): I request a headcount.

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

(The summoning bell stopped after ringing for 15 minutes)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): As the summoning bell has been rung for 15 minutes but a quorum is still not present in the Chamber, I now adjourn the meeting according to Rule 17(2) of the Rules of Procedure.

9:15 am

Council was adjourned.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 749

9:50 am

Council then resumed.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This Council was adjourned earlier today due to the lack of a quorum. I now resume the meeting under Rules 17(6) and 14(4) of the Rules of Procedure, and we will continue to deal with the unfinished business on the Agenda.

We now continue with the Second Reading debate on the Fisheries Protection (Amendment) Bill 2019.

Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, please speak.

IR DR LO WAI-KWOK (in Cantonese): President, on behalf of the Business and Professionals Alliance for Hong Kong, I rise to speak in support of the Fisheries Protection (Amendment) Bill 2019 ("the Bill"). The amendment proposed in the Bill is in fact simple and easy to understand. It seeks to: first, provide for the registration and the issue of provisional approvals for registration of local fishing vessels in respect of which there was no valid operating licence on 15 June 2012; second, provide for the issue of the certificate of eligibility for registration ("CER") in relation to former trawlers in respect of which there was no valid operating licence on 15 June 2012; and third, make related amendments to Cap. 171 and the Administrative Appeals Board Ordinance (Cap. 442). The object of the Bill is quite clear, which is to empower the Director of Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation ("DAFC") to exercise discretion within a confined scope to register fishing vessels with no valid operating licence on 15 June 2012 (or their replacements) and to issue CER for the registration of former trawlers with no valid operating licence on 15 June 2012 (or their replacements).

The date of the First Reading of the Bill was 11 December 2019, but we all know very well what happened at that time―owing to the delay in the election of the House Committee Chairman, the scrutiny of many Bills could not commence. At its special meeting on 8 May 2020, the House Committee agreed to set up a Bills Committee to study the Bill. However, since the number of Members who indicated their wish to join the said Bills Committee before the deadline for signification of membership was less than three, the Bills Committee could not be formed.

750 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020

Actually, why did Members seem to be rather uninterested in joining the Bills Committee? It is because the Bill is not controversial at all. It is simply an amendment which has come late. Regarding the various problems faced by the fisheries industry mentioned just now, the Government should have empowered DAFC to deal with them a long time ago. Hence, despite my previous remark that I would not guess the motives of Members of the opposition camp in making their speeches, I really disapprove of their lengthy speeches, including comments confounding right and wrong, which I have heard during this period.

As a matter of fact, when the Government submitted the Bill to the relevant Panel (i.e. the Panel on Food Safety and Environmental Hygiene) on 12 February 2019 for consultation, Members generally expressed support. Associations of fisherman groups also welcomed the proposed amendment because, as I said just now, the Bill is simply an amendment which has come late.

President, I have heard many lengthy and dull speeches. In particular, some carried specious arguments. In addition, other Members kept requesting headcounts. Not only would I describe this as staging a farce in the Chamber one after another, I believe our media friends outside the Chamber and members of the public who are concerned about the progress of the Legislative Council meeting would also feel terribly bored. So, I am going to look at the prospects of Hong Kong's fisheries industry from a lighter angle.

More than a century ago, Hong Kong was a small fishing village. After it has evolved into an international metropolis today, many people no longer attach importance to fisheries, agriculture and animal husbandry given the robust development of various industries and sectors. But actually, there is still a lot of quality seafood in Hong Kong waters, and our local fishermen have made admirably unswerving efforts in sustaining the fisheries industry one generation after another. For this reason, as suggested by these two words "fisheries protection" in the title of the Bill, I consider that even though the fisheries industry does not account for a significant share in our gross domestic product, this important industry should be well protected indeed.

I would like to cite some examples of quality seafood in Hong Kong waters. I believe many members of the public also know that in Hong Kong waters, there is quality …

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 751

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, please come back to the question of this debate.

IR DR LO WAI-KWOK (in Cantonese): Yes, I will come back to the question of the debate, but I see the need to mention why we support protection of fisheries. In Hong Kong, a broad array of seafood is available. For example, threadfin is among the popular types of seafood suitable for making different dishes. Regarding fisheries, agriculture and animal husbandry, the local black pork mentioned by DAFC is my favourite too. Hence, we can see that the Government needs to do their job properly with regard to policies, laws and measures for the development of the industry. My speech will not be long. Here I only wish to reiterate that we support healthy development of the fisheries industry. We also support the Bill. I hope the Legislative Council can expeditiously complete the legislative work on the Bill today. Thank you, President.

MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): President, the Fisheries Protection (Amendment) Bill 2019 ("the Bill") is a remedial bill. What does it remedy? Some of fishing vessel owners were unable to register before a certain cut-off date, and so they could lodge appeals. The law stipulates that they can lodge appeals with the Administrative Appeals Board ("AAB"). According to the Government, AAB dismissed all appeals. More than 4 000 fishing vessels had applied for registration, and approximately 500 applications, i.e. one tenth, were rejected. And among the rejected applications, about 70% to 80% lodged appeals, which were all dismissed at last. As the vessel owners had lodged appeals following the procedures and their appeals had been dismissed, there is simply no other way.

Having checked relevant information, I have not yet found anyone who considered AAB unjust or that it handled cases on an unreasonable legal basis. Otherwise they could file judicial reviews. President, AAB must make fair decisions. No one had filed judicial reviews probably for the reason that those having their appeals dismissed may not wish to do so, because if they eventually lose their cases, they will have to pay the Government huge sums of litigation fees. Vessel owners have to carefully consider whether or not to initiate legal 752 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 challenges. Looking back, no one among the 400 or 500 applicants rejected by the Director of Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation ("DAFC") had filed a judicial review.

(THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, MS STARRY LEE, took the Chair)

Here is the reason for introducing the Bill. In the course of appeal proceedings, the AAB Chairman expressed deep sympathies for some appellants although their cases were dismissed in accordance with the law. They could not register by 15 June 2012 due to some justifiable reasons rather than personal faults or negligence. Why did the Chairman sympathize with them? In the Legislative Council Brief, the Government gave an example, i.e. fishing vessels which underwent repair and could not be inspected by the Marine Department ("MD") could not possibly possess a valid operating licence on that date. To register a fishing vessel, of course an application had to be made but if the fishing vessel did not possess a valid operating licence, naturally in no way could it submit an application.

Fishing vessels require regular repair, so there must be a repair period. Among the 4 000-odd applications for registration, one tenth of them were rejected. And in handling the appeals, AAB expressed sympathy because those fishing vessels were under repair. I do not know if the one tenth of cases which were rejected all involved fishing vessels that were under repair. But that was the reason given by the Government. I can only say that those one tenth of fishing vessels might be due for repair. There is a cycle for repair. Everything needs repairs, so does the air-conditioner in my home. Fishing vessels are often out at sea weathering strong winds and waves, and are subject to wear and tear. In my view, DAFC should have initially considered the reason of repair, or the Government, when drafting the Fisheries Protection (Amendment) Bill 2011, should have duly conceived that fishing vessels might have to undergo repair and so naturally could not register during repair.

Now, the Government says that the legislative amendments have been introduced to give DAFC discretion for the sake of the few hundred applicants. In my opinion, for cases which failed to complete the registration under the law due to repair―indeed it applies to not only fishing vessels, but also other LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 753 registration schemes―on the grounds of repair, or other justifiable reasons, DAFC can exercise discretion to consider the applications for registration, or allow for an reasonable extended period of time in which the applicants can register after the fishing vessels have completed repair.

The Law Drafting Division of the Department of Justice ("DoJ") is responsible for the drafting various laws involving licensing, and ought to have the knowledge on how to deal with these few cases, to consider whether discretion should be exercised regarding applicants with reasonable grounds and to determine which situations are reasonable or which are not. I find it puzzling that it was so provided for in the Fisheries Protection (Amendment) Bill 2011. Back then, did DoJ not make the recommendation that DAFC could exercise discretion? Why did it not make such a recommendation? I can tell Honourable colleagues that the Law Drafting Division of DoJ has a set of standards or precedents―a checklist. I wonder why the provision drafted back then did not allow flexibility. Deputy President, it is a crucial point. Perhaps the policy at the time had got to be stringent rather than lenient. We might have to take into account sustainable development, marine conventions and the global conservation trends.

Nevertheless, as the Government had already conducted a survey to gauge the approximate number of fishing vessels and had set a cut-off date, I think the number of fishing vessels will not surge, not to mention the trawl ban and the cap on the number of additional non-trawler vessels. The Government will not have to worry about a sudden surge in the number of fishing vessels which makes it difficult to pursue sustainable development. And the Government does not want to limit the fishing efforts of each fishing vessel. Under the existing system, fishing vessel owners can fish as much as they want. Depending on the fishing skills of fishermen or the waters they operate in, there is no problem fishing however much. Yet, some places restrict the volume of capture each time by various types of registered fishing vessels, but Hong Kong has no such restriction. Therefore, I cannot figure out why it was the case back then.

In a nutshell, I find it strange that no discretion was provided at the time. Was there truly no discretion? Deputy President, I am now making a very technical analysis. I especially got a print-out of the Legislative Council Brief issued in 2011, and I find a point in the eighth paragraph very baffling. Back then, the Fisheries Protection (Amendment) Bill 2011 sought to introduce a new registration system for the first time in 2012. Fearing that such a practice would cause nuisance, the Government thus introduced a registration system with DAFC 754 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 as the authority for registration. The objective of the system is to regulate access of fishing vessels into Hong Kong waters for fishing purposes. The paper then reads: "[O]wners of local fishing vessels [will be required] to register their vessels, if they are to be used for fishing in Hong Kong waters. The registration will remain valid throughout the life span of the vessel and no renewal of registration will be required." It is the crux.

Taking the vehicle registration as an example, generally speaking, vehicles must register annually under all circumstances, i.e. renewal of vehicle licences. But it is mainly for taxation purpose. Vehicles must undergo examination once in six to seven years after manufacture, and then annually. However, under the new system introduced in 2012, the registration of fishing vessels remains valid throughout the lifespan and no renewal of registration is required. In other words, such registration remains valid throughout the lifespan, unless the vessel owner considers it not worthwhile to repair his or her fishing vessel and would rather purchase a new one. Even if a new vessel is purchased, replacement is possible because, as stated in the paper, "[r]eplacement of vessels will be allowed." If the replacement is to be made, the size and safety of the vessel certainly have to be considered. But the registration of the original vessel remains valid throughout the lifespan. If the vessel owner considers it worthwhile to repair the fishing vessel and it is under repair, and the registration of the fishing vessel remains valid throughout its lifespan without the need of renewal, why has the Government cited an example in the context of the Bill, namely "fishing vessels which underwent repair and could not be inspected by MD"? It can be a fairly technical question. I do not understand why it is worded in such a way, because the registration of fishing vessels remains valid throughout the lifespan and no renewal nor re-registration is required.

Lastly, with regard to the discretion to be conferred on DAFC, we have to ask: what is the scope of the discretion? From these 300-odd cases, we have learnt the general situations. Apart from these 300-odd cases, there were vessel owners who originally did not made applications for registration, for they might assume their applications would be rejected due to reasons such as requirements of the operating licences. In other words, fishermen intending to apply may exceed the approximate number of 5 000 as initially estimated. But I believe the difference will be small, and it is now quite impossible to find them. Actually, we are focusing on the 300-odd cases referred to in the brief.

Appellants who had lodged appeals with AAB had already expounded on their justifiable reasons that they should be afforded sympathy and illustrated that it was not due to their faults or negligence. In keeping with the spirit of the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 755 original legislation, the Government should set out a reasonable scope for the discretion so as to make known the reasons for those fishermen deserving sympathy. The scope should be narrowed. In saying so, I do not feel unsympathetic towards those fishermen, but rather, as we are amending the existing legislation, frankly speaking, we are making up for the Government's faults.

I cannot fathom why, in drafting the Fisheries Protection (Amendment) Bill 2011, DoJ, with such anticipation in mind, did not confer discretion on DAFC to deal with obvious problems that arise from processing registration as legally required and not reasonably extend the registration period on the grounds of compassion. To be frank, even the discretion is not conferred on DAFC, it should be given to AAB so that it can, in handling appeals, factor in such compassionate grounds. In this way, AAB would not have to say its hands were tied, and the Government would not have to present the Bill to the Legislative Council. I find this a bit strange. Having dealt with many matters involving licensing and rejections of licence applications, I find it really strange.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr IP Kin-yuen, please speak.

(Mr SHIU Ka-chun indicated his wish to raise a point of order)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr SHIU Ka-chun, what is your point of order?

MR SHIU KA-CHUN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I request a headcount.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr SHIU Ka-chun has requested a headcount.

Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.

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

756 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): A quorum is now present in the Chamber. The meeting now continues.

Mr IP Kin-yuen, please speak.

MR IP KIN-YUEN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the Fisheries Protection (Amendment) Bill 2019 ("the Bill") under debate today actually proposes some very simple amendments, the contents of which are not too controversial. But the Bill has reflected that the Government's policy making was far from comprehensive. As Mr James TO said earlier, the amendments proposed in the Bill are, to some extent, intended to remedy a past mistake.

Deputy President, this Bill originates from the registration scheme for fishing vessels introduced by the Fisheries Protection (Amendment) Bill 2011 nine years ago in 2011. This policy is originally intended to control the number of fishing vessels in Hong Kong, so that the marine ecosystem in Hong Kong waters can be protected against the threats of overfishing.

(Mr Steven HO indicated his wish to raise a point of order)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr IP, please hold on. Mr Steven HO, do you wish to raise a point of order?

MR STEVEN HO (in Cantonese): I have a point of order under Rule 45(1) of the Rules of Procedure. It is because many Members already made repetitions of the historical background and intent of the Bill, and they even spent four to five minutes talking about them. I think Rule 45(1) should be invoked, so that these tedious, meaningless remarks can be somewhat reduced. Thank you, Deputy President.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): While Mr IP has spoken for less than one minute, I have reminded Members many times not to repeat the arguments mentioned by other Members, nor should they extend the Second Reading debate on the Bill to cover other contents. Members please focus on the specific provisions of the Fisheries Protection (Amendment) Bill 2019 in your discussion LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 757 and avoid repetitions of the remarks made by other Members as far as possible because 20 Members have already spoken and we need to optimize the Council's time.

Mr IP, please continue with your speech.

MR IP KIN-YUEN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I think when we talk about the situation today, it is to a certain extent necessary to briefly review the past. I will not speak at length on the historical background but I think it is unreasonable to talk about only these amendments today but not the past situation. Every Member would need to express his or her views completely and clearly.

Deputy President, regarding the registration scheme for fishing vessels introduced by the Fisheries Protection (Amendment) Bill 2011, the original intent of this policy is to control the number of fishing vessels in Hong Kong, so as to prevent the marine ecosystem in Hong Kong waters from being jeopardized by overfishing, which would otherwise lead to the decline of the local fisheries industry following a reduction in fish catch. This policy and the relevant legislation are well-intentioned, and they had been discussed by the Committee on Sustainable Fisheries set up by the Government in 2006 as the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department ("AFCD"), Members of the Legislative Council, representatives of the fisheries industry, relevant scholars and experts came together to discuss how assistance could be provided to facilitate the sustainable development of the local fisheries industry while keeping the marine ecosystem in balance. Regrettably, while these are only minor technical amendments and the Legislative Council did not form a Bills Committee to examine them, they have reflected the loophole resulted from a lack of communication and poor policy coordination among government departments eight or nine years ago. This has eventually led to at least 300-odd cases of fishing vessels being rejected for registration, thus affecting the livelihood of the fishermen.

The amendments, which are very simple, serve to give the Director of Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation ("DAFC") discretionary power to allow fishing vessels that failed to register before 14 June 2012 to re-register within a period of time after the Bill is passed. Having said that, I do not understand why, for such simple amendments, the Government has to drag its feet and put 758 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 forward these proposed amendments only in February 2019, rather than taking actions at an earlier time. It is because the problem had already appeared, and it is nothing new that fishermen were unable to register their fishing vessels before the specified date due to time-consuming procedures of ship inspection by the Marine Department and the application for a licence. Many fishermen have encountered the same problem after the passage of the Fisheries Protection (Amendment) Bill 2011, and I believe the Administrative Appeals Board ("AAB"), after receiving these several hundreds of cases, should have noticed their homogeneity. As such, why should it take the Government some six years (as calculated up to when the papers on the legislative amendments were submitted) to plug this loophole which seems trivial but has affected the livelihood of many fishermen?

Today, eight years after the implementation of the registration scheme for fishing vessels, the affected fishermen can eventually see these proposed amendments to the scheme which enable them to re-register their fishing vessels. But for those fishermen whose livelihood was affected because of their failure to register their fishing vessels in time, can compensation be provided for the losses that they have suffered for eight years since the passage of the Bill? The Government proposed these legislative amendments for the first time at the meeting of the Panel on Food Safety and Environmental Hygiene on 12 February 2019. At that time, Mr CHU Hoi-dick, former Member of this Council, asked the Administration what remedial measures would be adopted to provide support for this group of fishermen who failed to register and hence had to sell their fishing vessels and switch to other industries. But it seemed that the Administration did not respond to this question. While Mr CHU Hoi-dick has already left his office, I still hope to take this opportunity to urge the Administration to give a response later on what remedial measures will be adopted and if no measures will be taken, the reason for that.

Deputy President, these fishermen had failed to register their vessels not because of their fault or problems with the standard of their vessels. It was the result of poor coordination among government departments in their work. Therefore, the Government is duty-bound to provide compensation for fishermen who currently engage in fishing operations as well as former fishermen who have switched to other industries due to their failure to register their vessels.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 759

Deputy President, as I said in the beginning of my speech, this registration scheme for fishing vessels aims to protect the marine ecosystem in Hong Kong waters while enabling the local fisheries industry to achieve sustainable development. In this connection, apart from controlling the number of fishing vessels through the registration scheme, it is also important to prevent non-Hong Kong registered fishing vessels from crossing the border to engage in illegal fishing activities. Under section 11 of the Fisheries Protection Ordinance, any person who is engaged in fishing in Hong Kong waters with the use of a vessel not registered under the Ordinance is liable on conviction to a fine at level 6, i.e. $100,000, and imprisonment for six months. However, in the past three years, regarding illegal fishing in Hong Kong waters, the number of successful prosecution by the Government was a mere single digit, with the offenders being fined no more than $5,000 the highest and imprisoned for only two months the most. As a lot of high-priced fish can be found in areas to the west of Shek Kwu Chau after the Government imposed a trawl ban in Hong Kong waters, a night's catch from fishing illegally can generate an income exceeding $5,000. The existing level of penalty does not have a deterrent effect, and we have even seen repeated cases.

Deputy President, in submitting the legislative proposals the Administration stated that even though the legislative amendments would enable unregistered fishermen to re-register their vessels, this would not lead to a substantial increase in fishing effort in Hong Kong waters. I agree with this observation of the Government but it is not adequate to control fishing effort through the registration scheme alone. It is equally important to combat illegal fishing from which substantial profits can be reaped.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr IP Kin-yuen, let me remind you that when a number of Members spoke earlier on, they already talked about the several points made by you just now, including an unduly long time being taken to propose the amendments, the need to compensate the fishermen, and the combat against illegal fishing being not vigorous enough. Please speak as concise as possible and put forward new arguments.

MR IP KIN-YUEN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I think when other Members speak, they speak on behalf of their political groupings. While Members from the same political grouping can certainly complement each other 760 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 in their arguments, I am the representative of the Hong Kong Professional Teachers' Union and an independent Member, and even though my views may be similar to those of other political groupings, it is still necessary for me to clearly state my views. I will be as concise as possible but …

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I would like Members to pay attention to Rule 45(1) of the Rules of Procedure which indeed provides that Members should not persist in tedious repetition of his own or other Members' arguments in the debate. I will strike a balance. Please speak concisely and put forward new arguments.

Mr IP, please continue with your speech.

MR IP KIN-YUEN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, even though AFCD said in the Panel on Food Safety and Environmental Hygiene of the Legislative Council last year that more than 1 700 patrols were conducted annually, this figure is, in fact, misleading because the number of patrols exceeded 1 700 only in 2019 whereas the numbers in the preceding few years did not reach this level. Moreover, the percentage of cases of illegal fishing found by AFCD during patrols and made arrests was rather low. In 2016-2017, AFCD found illegal fishing but made no arrest in 70% of the cases. In 2018-2019, the number of cases in which illegal fishing was found but no arrest was made even surged to 82%.

Regarding this situation, I do not wish to criticize AFCD because over the years, they have only 18 officers and three vessels responsible for conducting patrols against illegal fishing. It is naturally difficult to eliminate illegal fishing with this level of manpower and resources. If the Police can put in the same efforts and resources as those deployed for monitoring the movement of the 12 Hongkongers to assist AFCD in combating illegal fishing, I think the results would be more effective. In the long run, the Government should provide additional manpower and vessels for AFCD to conduct patrols, so that they can combat illegal fishing more effectively, and only in this way can it be fair to fishermen who have registered in accordance with the law.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 761

In fact, not only fishermen from the Mainland are now engaged in illegal fishing in Hong Kong waters, for there is even collusion and participation by local fishermen. Therefore, since the Government have reopened the registration of fishing vessels through the introduction of the Bill to allow eligible fishermen to engage in fishing operations through lawful channels, efforts should be stepped up to combat illegal fishing in parallel, so that local fishermen who have yet to register can get back on the right track.

Deputy President, on 19 October, Hong Kong Economic Times published an interview with the Chief Executive, Carrie LAM, who once again promoted Lantau Tomorrow, an issue of utmost concern among members of the public. She even said that …

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr IP, I think you have digressed from the subject. Please come back to the question under debate. This amendment is about giving DAFC discretionary power to consider applications for registration of fishing vessels. Please come back to the question under debate and speak on the general merits of this specific amendment.

MR IP KIN-YUEN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I think I have not come to my arguments yet. After I put forward my arguments, Deputy President, then you can see whether there is digression on my part. I think this point that I am going to raise is related to the theme.

Just now I said that Carrie LAM had once again promoted Lantau Tomorrow. She went on to say that XI Jinping attached great importance to environmental protection and that Hong Kong would take forward reclamation projects.

Deputy President, we have to look at the fundamental issue. The Long Title of the Fisheries Protection Ordinance reads (I quote): "To promote the conservation of fish and other forms of aquatic life within the waters of Hong Kong and to regulate fishing practices and to prevent activities detrimental to the fisheries industry." (end of quote) In other words, even when it comes to the registration scheme for fishing vessels under discussion, this is ultimately the objective of the scheme to impose restrictions on the activities of fishermen. But as reflected by this Bill, it is precisely because of poor coordination among 762 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 various government departments, poor coordination in policies, and the fact that AFCD and the Marine Department worked separately on their own in accordance with their respective procedures that a few hundred fishing vessels were unable to register in time as required by the law, thus explaining the need for legislative amendments. By the same token, Carrie LAM is again proposing a large-scale reclamation project with an area measuring as much as over 1 000 hectares. How immensely will the marine ecosystem be jeopardized? The reclamation management and control rules of the Mainland also emphasize strongly that stringent restrictions …

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr IP, I think you have digressed from the subject. I have repeatedly reminded you that a number of Members already made these arguments earlier. This is my last warning to you. If you further repeat the arguments made by other Members in their earlier speeches, I would ask you to stop speaking. Please put forward new arguments, speak on this technical amendment and discuss its general merits.

MR IP KIN-YUEN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I think even if Members mentioned the same issue, their views and perspectives may be different. Most importantly, this is my view on this issue. I hope that my views can be put on record in the Records of Proceedings, so that in future …

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr IP, I already exercised discretion in considering the right to speak of each Member, and I have allowed you to speak for 13 minutes. As Members all know, this Bill involves amendments which are very technical. The contents are concise and most clear. As 20 Members have already spoken, I must ensure that the Council's time is utilized reasonably and effectively. Mr IP, if you do not have new arguments to make, I will ask you to stop speaking.

MR IP KIN-YUEN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I now come back to my views. I think the Bill certainly proposes a technical amendment but apart from the fact that the amendment is technical, we can still look at this issue from a political or policy perspective and from the policy objective. The objective of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 763 this policy is actually most clear and that is, to ensure a healthy marine ecosystem and hence improve the livelihood of the fishermen, but the proposal of Lantau Tomorrow will precisely give rise to major uncertainties in this respect …

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr IP, I think you have digressed from the subject. Please stop speaking.

Mr SHIU Ka-chun, please speak.

MR IP KIN-YUEN (in Cantonese): How did I digress from the subject?

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): As I already pointed out earlier, you have spoken for 14 minutes and I already gave you reasonable time to make your points. But I must adopt the same standard, and I will use the same standard for Members who are going to speak later. Mr IP, I hope you can appreciate this and please sit down.

(Mr IP Kin-yuen spoke aloud in his seat and continued to raise queries)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr IP, I already answered your question. I am enforcing the Rules of Procedure with the power given to me in accordance with the Rules of Procedure. Please sit down.

(Mr IP Kin-yuen continued to speak aloud in his seat)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr IP, I am not debating with you now. Please sit down.

(Mr IP Kin-yuen remained standing and spoke aloud in his seat)

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

764 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020

MR SHIU KA-CHUN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I have heard your reminder clearly, so I will not repeat the background of and the reasons for the eight-year delay of the Fisheries Protection (Amendment) Bill 2019 ("the Bill"). Yet, according to the Legislative Council Brief (File Ref: FH CR 12/1/2576/07), if the Bill is passed, "there are no economic, productivity, gender and sustainability implications. Environmental and family implications of the proposal are considered insignificant given the expected small number of fishing vessels to be re-registered", and I would like to comment on this statement. As I consider that the present technical amendment will have certain policy implications, I will express some views on the technical aspect.

According to the content I quoted just now, the Government expects that the legislative amendment will almost have no significant implication on the overall development of the fisheries industry. More often than not, the Government will simplify all the bills which warrant discussion as trivial, technical and non-controversial amendments. In the Government's own words, this amendment exercise is regarded as trivial, technical and non-controversial. This is the stance of the Government. Although the present legislative amendment will almost have no implication on the overall development of the fisheries industry, as it will not reverse the decline of the fisheries industry anyway, we should review the decline of the domestic fisheries industry in the context of this legislative amendment.

Some Members have mentioned earlier that Hong Kong used to be a fishing port, which is known to all and indisputable. Yet, is Hong Kong still a fishing port today? We know the answer clearly and this is indisputable. I criticize the Government for reducing the legislative amendment to something that will not have any economic, productivity, gender and sustainability implications. As I have just mentioned, the Government stated in the paper submitted to the Legislative Council last year that 319 registration applications had been rejected. In other words, with the passage of the Bill, 319 vessels will resume fishing operations. The owners of those 319 vessels may not have switched to other industries due to the rejection of their registration applications. Yet, some of them may have switched to other industries for this reason. Though the number is not significant, it will mean an increase of nearly 10% amid the decline of the fisheries industries when 4 100 fishing vessels have already registered with the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department ("AFCD").

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 765

In fact, we should not regard the present legislative amendment as a technical amendment. Since Hong Kong is originally a fishing port, the Government should seize the opportunity of this amendment exercise to review the situation of the local fisheries industry, and it should not allow the decline of the fisheries industry and related industries to run its course. In 1980s, there were around 10 000 fishing vessels in Hong Kong, yet the number has reduced to 4 100 now. Even with the passage of the Bill, the number of fishing vessels will merely increase to some 4 400. While the decrease in the number of fishing vessels will give the local marine ecology of Hong Kong time to recover and restore, the decline of the fisheries industry may discourage young people from joining the industry. After the amendment of the Fisheries Protection Ordinance ("the Ordinance") in 2012, trawling activities have been banned. Fish ball manufacturers using marine fish for production, as well as shrimp paste manufacturers using local caught acetes, have switched to chilled fish from the Mainland and acetes procured from South East Asia, or have even closed their business in Hong Kong or relocated their operations to the Mainland.

Certainly, the Ordinance was amended to address the problem of over-exploitation over the years and to maintain fish production through the ban on trawling activities and restriction of vessel registration. Back then, the objective of the amendment was to restore the growth of fisheries produce so as to sustain the development of the fisheries industry in the long run. Yet, it instead triggered the decline of the shrimp paste industry and the fisheries industry. Hence, in this amendment exercise, apart from empowering the Director of Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation ("DAFC") to exercise discretion to grant approval for the registration of vessels involved in the 319 rejected cases, the Food and Health Bureau ("FHB") should formulate specific measures to revive the fisheries industry in Hong Kong. In view of this, the present amendment exercise should not fail to bring forth any economic, productivity, gender and sustainability implications as stated in the Legislative Council Brief. On the contrary, the authorities must highlight that issues on economy, productivity, gender and sustainability―particularly the gender issue which has not been mentioned by many Members―must be addressed by means of the present legislative amendment.

In the past, some local scholars had studied the role of women among local fishermen, yet I will not dwell on that, for I presume the Deputy President will consider this a digression. Nonetheless, in this amendment exercise, apart from increasing the number of vessel licences, the Government should also examine 766 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 the overall policy for reviving the fisheries industry in Hong Kong, including finding ways to encourage women and young people to join the fisheries industries and reviewing whether a comprehensive policy is in place to boost the fisheries industry and fisheries-related industries in Hong Kong, such as the fish product (including shrimp paste and fish ball) manufacturing industries which have been closely related to the fisheries industry in the past, with a view to promoting the productivity and sustainable development of the local fisheries industry. The Government should not just let the local fisheries industry and fish product manufacturing industry turn to the Mainland for development. In fact, the fisheries industry in the Mainland is also facing inadequate fisheries produce and Mainland fishermen will even come to Hong Kong to engage in illegal fishing. Hence, the legislative amendment this time around presents both a trigger point and a chance. FHB should seize this opportunity to look into the increase in the number of registered vessels resulted from the present legislative amendment from the perspective of the fisheries industry in Hong Kong more specifically.

I so submit.

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

(No Member indicated a wish to speak)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): If not, I now call upon the Secretary for Food and Health to reply. Then, the debate will come to a close. Secretary for Food and Health, please speak.

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): Deputy President, in December last year, the Government introduced the Fisheries Protection (Amendment) Bill 2019 ("the Bill") to the Legislative Council. The Bill seeks to allow owners of fishing vessels used for fishing up to the expiry of 14 June 2012 but did not possess a valid operating licence on issued by the Marine Department ("MD") on 15 June 2012 to re-submit applications for registration and to empower the Director of Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation ("DAFC") to excise discretion within a confined scope for the consideration of the relevant applications.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 767

In 2012, the Legislative Council amended the Fisheries Protection Ordinance ("the Ordinance") to, among other things, introduce a new registration scheme requiring all local fishing vessels to register with the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department ("AFCD") for conducting fishing operations in Hong Kong waters.

One of the conditions of registration is that the fishing vessel must have a valid operating licence issued by MD on 15 June 2012. During the registration period, a total of about 4 500 vessels were registered.

Of the 494 rejected applications, 319 were turned down on the grounds that the fishing vessels concerned did not meet the aforementioned requirement on operating licences. Among those rejected cases, the refusal may be due to some justifiable reasons rather than any fault or negligence on the part of fishermen. For instance, fishing vessels which were under repair and could not be inspected by MD would not have been issued a valid operating licence on 15 June 2012. Nonetheless, DAFC does not have any discretionary power under the Ordinance to handle such cases.

The Bill allows DAFC to exercise discretion to consider such cases. Moreover, some vessel owners whose fishing vessels did not possess a valid operating licence on 15 June 2012 might have already sold or disposed of their fishing vessels as they might think that their vessels could not be registered with AFCD for conducting fishing operations in Hong Kong. Therefore, the Bill empowers DAFC to exercise discretion to consider applications submitted by eligible vessel owners by granting a Provisional Approval of Registration to give them the right to register a local fishing vessel within a specified time frame.

In addition to the local fishing vessel registration scheme, we have banned trawling in Hong Kong since 31 December 2012. In response to the trawl ban, the Ordinance stipulates that former trawler owners may apply for a Certificate of Eligibility for Registration ("CER") to register a non-trawler. One of the criteria for applying for CER is that the former trawler must have a valid operating licence on 15 June 2012. AFCD has already granted 680 CERs. DAFC does not have any discretionary power under the Ordinance to grant a CER in respect of a former trawler without a valid operating licence on that day. In this connection, the Bill introduces provisions to allow DAFC to consider granting CERs to former trawlers which did not have a valid operating licence on 15 June 2012.

768 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020

Upon the passage of the Bill by the Legislative Council, we will announce the arrangement of the registration system to inform potential applicants and associations of the fisheries sector and allow applicants to submit their application within six months from the commencement date of the Bill. In response to Members' concern that the Bill will provide excessive discretionary power, which may result in a substantial increase in registered fishing vessels, we have to stress that AFCD will only accept registration applications from vessels which have been used for fishing up to the expiry of 14 June 2012 but did not possess a valid operating licence on 15 June 2012. DAFC will also consider exercise his discretion carefully, taking into account the reasons why the applicants did not have a valid operating licence on 15 June 2012. We estimate that only a small number of local fishing vessels will apply for registration after the legislative amendment, so there will not be a significant increase in local fishing effort.

Moreover, some Members are concerned about the reasons for the Government to introduce the amendment Bill to the Legislative Council only last year. As mentioned in the fifth paragraph of the paper, fishermen whose applications for registration had been rejected by DAFC due to non-compliance with the operating licence requirements may appeal to the Administrative Appeals Board ("AAB"). In 2014, AAB handed down the ruling for one of the appeal cases. After that, AAB with different composition of membership handed down a series of different rulings. The Government must clarify the point of law and carefully consider whether there are other possible ways to handle the issue before deciding to address the relevant cases by amending the Ordinance. In the meantime, the Government has suspended law enforcement against vessels which do not meet the operating licence requirement and have been refused registration by DAFC. We will resume the law enforcement work against these vessels after the legislative amendment and registration applications are completed.

Some Members are also concerned about how the Government will notify the industry of the registration arrangements. We will issue a press release and will approach major associations of the fisheries sector to brief the fishermen. Moreover, AFCD will write to those applicants whose applications for registration or CER of their local fishing vessels have been rejected on the grounds that they did not comply with the licensing requirements before the Bill comes into effect, informing them of the relevant arrangements.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 769

Regarding the concerns expressed by a number of Members on illegal fishing, AFCD has all along been committed to cracking down on illegal fishing. It will patrol and conduct law enforcement operations from time to time at black spots of illegal trawling and other illegal fishing activities, and adjust the patrol and law enforcement operations based on intelligence. AFCD also maintains close liaison with the Marine Police and relevant law enforcement units of the Mainland. Apart from exchanging information and intelligence on illegal fishing, joint enforcement operations are also conducted to combat illegal fishing. Moreover, to enhance the effectiveness of enforcement actions, AFCD plans to apply technology in its enforcement work, such as the use of real-time satellite data, to help identify fishing vessels.

The Government has all along supported the sustainable development of fisheries industry. In addition to the proper use of the $500 million under the Sustainable Fisheries Development Fund to promote the development of the fisheries industry, the Government has endeavoured to promote the mariculture industry in the direction of high value-added development. Since the beginning of this year, AFCD has resumed issuing marine fish culture licences, actively preparing for the setting up of new fish culture zones and supporting the industry to capitalize on the opportunity of developing deep sea mariculture cage business in the Greater Bay Area. In response to the extension of the annual fishing moratorium implemented by the Mainland authorities and the continued increases in operating costs, the Government obtained the approval of the Legislative Council in July 2020 to increase the approved commitment by $210 million under the Fishing Moratorium Loan Scheme to enhance the financial support to local fishermen. Members have also expressed other views on the development of the fisheries industry yesterday and today, and we will consider those views so as to further promote the sustainable development of the fisheries industry.

Deputy President, I move that the Second Reading of the Fisheries Protection (Amendment) Bill 2019 be resumed. I implore Honourable Members to support and pass the Bill. Thank you, Deputy President.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the Fisheries Protection (Amendment) Bill 2019 be read the Second time. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

770 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020

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

(Members raised their hands)

Mr Kenneth LEUNG rose to claim a division.

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

(While the division bell was ringing, THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair)

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

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

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Ms Elizabeth QUAT, Mr Martin LIAO, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Mr Wilson OR, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Vincent CHENG and Mr Tony TSE voted for the motion.

Mr James TO, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Prof Joseph LEE, Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr Alvin YEUNG, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Mr SHIU Ka-chun and Mr KWONG Chun-yu voted against the motion.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 771

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

THE PRESIDENT announced that there were 49 Members present, 35 were in favour of the motion and 13 against it. Since the question was agreed by a majority of the Members present, he therefore declared that the motion was passed.

CLERK (in Cantonese): Fisheries Protection (Amendment) Bill 2019.

Council became committee of the whole Council.

Consideration by Committee of the Whole Council

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): This Council now becomes committee of the whole Council to consider the Fisheries Protection (Amendment) Bill 2019.

FISHERIES PROTECTION (AMENDMENT) BILL 2019

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the following clauses stand part of the Bill.

CLERK (in Cantonese): Clauses 1 to 14.

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

(Mr James TO raised his hand)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr James TO.

772 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020

MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): Chairman, I want to speak.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr TO, I cannot hear you clearly, please speak louder.

MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): Chairman, I want to speak on clauses to stand part of the Bill.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr TO, please speak.

MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): Chairman, during the Committee stage, Members should debate on the details of clauses. As I said when discussing the principles of the Fisheries Protection (Amendment) Bill 2019 at the Second Reading debate, since the Director of Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation ("DAFC") does not have enough discretionary power, certain cases have been left out. According to the Legislative Council Brief, DAFC did not have discretionary power and the Administrative Appeals Board could not allow their appeal but could only express sympathy.

What is the discretionary power introduced under the Bill? Section 14B(2)(b) stipulates that "the applicant shows to the satisfaction of the Director that … (A) the applicant no longer owns the original vessel; (B) the original vessel has been lost or destroyed; (C) the operating licence in respect of the original vessel has been cancelled by the Director of Marine; (D) the original vessel is no longer designed and equipped to be used primarily for fishing".

Chairman, as the Bill mainly targets at the 300-odd cases of which the appeal has been dismissed, can subsections (A) to (D) cover the situations of the 300-odd cases? I do not want to see that subsection (E) has to be added in future due to a situation already known to us but has not been included in the Bill by the Government and of course, there is nothing to blame if we have no idea about the situation now. There are situations that we may not know or rather strange. For the 400-odd registration applications which are rejected, the authorities can hardly understand the situations if no appeal has been lodged. Yet, for the situations involved in the 300-odd cases being left out, which the authorities LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 773 already know, have they been fully covered in the Bill? Will the Government please confirm this point, for the passage of the Bill can only plug the loopholes if this is the case. Moreover, the Government has not provided a clear answer to the query I raised just now. As repair works are anticipated, why has not the Government taken this into consideration?

In a nutshell, Chairman, my short speech merely seeks to implore the Government to confirm whether or not the situations of the 300-odd cases have been fully covered by the situations set out in the provisions. When I talk about "fully covered", I do not mean that DAFC must approve all the 300-odd applications, as DAFC's approval is granted not merely according to the principles but also the evidence provided by the applicants. I worry that even if an application is alright in principle, yet the original evidence or evidence submitted during the appeal may have been lost after a long period of time. Hence, I worry that despite the passage of the Bill, it cannot achieve the original intent.

Chairman, with these brief remarks, I implore the Government to confirm whether or not the provisions have covered all the situations of the 300-odd cases.

MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Cantonese): Chairman, I have two questions and comments in respect of section 14A of the Fisheries Protection (Amendment) Bill 2019 ("the Bill"). First, section 14A stipulates the types of fishing vessels that may apply for renewal of permit, while section 14A(3)(c) includes "any other factor the Director considers appropriate". I hope the Administration will provide more guidelines upon the passage of the Bill as a piece of common law legislation in order to clarify the factors considered appropriate by the Director. This is the first point which is not quite proper.

Section 14A(4) stipulates that applications "may only be made within six months after the commencement date", which is a clearly specified date. However, under sections 14A(5)(a) and (b), permit may be issued even if an application is made after the six-month period under two circumstances: the late application "(a) … was not due to the applicant's default; and (b) the applicant exercised due diligence to ensure that the application would be made as soon as practicable after the commencement date."

774 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020

There are many uncertainties here. The sunset clause sets a time limit of six months. Yet, many exceptions are permitted. Does that mean the 319 fishermen may submit applications indefinitely? As Mr James TO has pointed out earlier, does the Bill apply to the 319 cases only? Furthermore, why did the Government not give a 12-month or 24-month time limit so that the various defences or discretion scenarios provided under section 14A(5) will no longer be necessary? For me, the Bill is not quite proper in terms of consistency or predictability in this regard.

Chairman, I so submit. Thank you.

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

(No Member indicated a wish to speak)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): If not, I now call upon the Secretary for Food and Health to speak again.

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): Chairman, some Members were concerned just now about issues such as the scope within which the Director of Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation ("DAFC") can exercise discretion under the Fisheries Protection (Amendment) Bill 2019 ("the Bill"). Pursuant to the Bill, the applicant must show to the satisfaction of DAFC that the vessel was used, or intended to be used, for the purpose of fishing up to the expiry of 14 June 2012. In deciding whether or not to be satisfied that the fishing vessel was used, or intended to be used, for the purpose of fishing up to the expiry of 14 June 2012, DAFC must take into account the following:

(a) whether there was a valid operating licence in respect of the vessel before 15 June 2012, and if there was, the validity period of the last valid operating licence in respect of the vessel before 15 June 2012;

(b) the reason why there was no valid operating licence in respect of the vessel on 15 June 2012; and

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 775

The provisions concerned enable DAFC to, subject to the original purpose of the registration scheme, examine the particular circumstances and facts of each application and consider the case thoroughly before approving the application.

The applicant might fail to possess a valid operating licence on 15 June 2012 for reasons such as that the fishing vessel was undergoing repair or the applicant was in poor health. As the reasons why the applicant failed to possess a valid operating licence varied, we have not listed all the circumstances in the Bill. However, we would like to stress that the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department will only accept applications to register fishing vessels that were used, or intended to be used, for the purpose of fishing up to the expiry of 14 June 2012 but did not possess a valid operating licence on 15 June 2012. We estimate that after amending the legislation, only a small number of local fishing vessels will apply for registration, and local fishing effort will not be substantially increased. Regarding a Member's query about whether the Bill needs to cover vessels that were "intended to be used, for the purpose of fishing", we believe that the wording of the Bill can cover more clearly all bona fide fishing vessels concerned.

Chairman, I move that the clauses of the Fisheries Protection (Amendment) Bill 2019 stand part of the Bill. I urge Members to support and pass the Bill. I so submit. Thank you, Chairman.

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

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

Mr WU Chi-wai rose to claim a division.

776 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr WU Chi-wai has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for five minutes.

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

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

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Ms Elizabeth QUAT, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Vincent CHENG and Mr Tony TSE voted for the motion.

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

THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 51 Members present, 37 were in favour of the motion and 13 against it. Since the question was agreed by a majority of the Members present, he therefore declared that the motion was passed.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 777

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): All the proceedings on the Fisheries Protection (Amendment) Bill 2019 have been concluded in committee of the whole Council. Council now resumes.

Council then resumed.

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, I now report to the Council: That the

Fisheries Protection (Amendment) Bill 2019 has been passed by committee of the whole Council without amendment. I move the motion that "This Council adopts the report".

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

In accordance with the Rules of Procedure, this motion shall be voted on without amendment or debate.

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

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

Mr Kenneth LEUNG rose to claim a division.

778 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020

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

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

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

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Ms Elizabeth QUAT, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr Jimmy NG, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr Vincent CHENG and Mr Tony TSE voted for the motion.

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

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 779

Third Reading of Government Bill

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Government Bill: Third Reading.

FISHERIES PROTECTION (AMENDMENT) BILL 2019

SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, I move that the

Fisheries Protection (Amendment) Bill 2019 be read the Third time and do pass.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the Fisheries Protection (Amendment) Bill 2019 be read the Third time and do pass.

Does any Member wish to speak?

(No Member indicated a wish to speak)

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

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

Mr Alvin YEUNG rose to claim a division.

780 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020

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

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

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

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

THE PRESIDENT announced that there were 51 Members present, 37 were in favour of the motion and 13 against it. Since the question was agreed by a majority of the Members present, he therefore declared that the motion was passed.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 781

CLERK (in Cantonese): Fisheries Protection (Amendment) Bill 2019.

Resumption of Second Reading Debate on Government Bill

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This Council resumes the Second Reading debate on the Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019.

Stand-over item: Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019 (standing over from previous meetings since 8 July 2020)

BROADCASTING AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS LEGISLATION (AMENDMENT) BILL 2019

Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 27 March 2019

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Elizabeth QUAT, Chairman of the Bills Committee on the Bill, will first address the Council on the Bills Committee's Report.

MS ELIZABETH QUAT (in Cantonese): President, in my capacity as Chairman of the Bills Committee on Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019 ("the Bill"), I would like to report on the major deliberations of the Bills Committee.

The Bill seeks to amend the Broadcasting Ordinance (Cap. 562) and the Telecommunications Ordinance (Cap. 106) to address the imbalance between the existing regulatory control over traditional broadcasting services and Internet media, facilitate the operation of the television ("TV") and sound broadcasting industries, and remove obsolete provisions relating to the repealed Television Ordinance.

The Bills Committee has held two meetings with the Administration and invited views from relevant organizations, including free TV and pay TV stations. The Bills Committee has considered thoroughly the various proposals in the Bill, 782 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 including relaxation of cross-media ownership restrictions, relaxation of foreign control restriction of domestic free TV programme service ("free TV") licensee, removing the prohibition against granting a free TV licence to a subsidiary of a corporation, and proposing similar relaxation measures in relation to a sound broadcasting licence.

Members in general have considered that the regulation of the traditional broadcasting industry should be further relaxed in order to provide a more balanced competitive environment for the broadcasting market, particularly with the recent growth of Internet media. The Administration has responded that apart from the proposals in the Bill, various measures have been adopted to facilitate the development of Hong Kong's broadcasting industry, including the revision of codes of practice to relax the regulation of indirect advertising in TV programme services and to lift the prohibition on the broadcast of advertisements for undertakers and associated services, and the implementation of other administrative measures.

Regarding cross-media ownership restrictions, the Bill proposes to amend Cap. 106 and Cap. 562 to relax cross-media restrictions against holding/exercising control of a free TV, pay TV or sound broadcasting licence/licensee. If the proposed amendments are passed, a non-domestic TV licensee, an other licensable TV licensee, an advertising agency, the proprietor of a local newspaper, a person who in the course of business supplies material for broadcasting by a sound broadcasting licensee, and a person who in the course of business transmits sound or television material, whether in Hong Kong or outside Hong Kong, will not be regarded as a "disqualified person". The existing legal requirement on a "disqualified person" is, in certain cases, also applicable to an "associate" of a disqualified person, a person who exercises control over a disqualified person, and an "associate" of a person who exercises control over a disqualified person. The Bill proposes to limit the definition of "relative" under the definition of "associate" to immediate family members only, namely spouse, parent, child, adopted child, stepchild and sibling.

Some members have been concerned about whether the Bill's proposed amendments, which would limit the coverage of "relative" to immediate family members only, would make it easier for investors to monopolize the media through owning different media companies by familial groups or conglomerates. The Administration has responded that the local media market has become highly competitive and multifarious and monopolization by any familial or business LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 783 group of any segment of the sector is highly improbable. The proposed relaxation in cross-media ownership restrictions would not undermine editorial plurality.

Some members have asked whether the Administration would introduce measures to prevent a company and its subsidiaries from owning or controlling several broadcasting licences or media companies, and avoid monopolization. The Administration has clarified that if a company or its subsidiary is already a free TV, pay TV or sound broadcasting licensee, or meets the definition of "exercise control" or "associate" under Cap. 106 and Cap. 562, the company and its subsidiary would still be "disqualified persons" and ineligible for holding/exercising control of a free TV, pay TV or sound broadcasting licence/licensee unless with the prior approval of the Chief Executive in Council. The Bill would not change these restrictions.

Cap. 562 currently imposes foreign control restrictions: an unqualified voting controller (i.e. a voting controller who is not ordinarily resident in Hong Kong) of a free TV licensee shall not, without the prior approval of the Communications Authority ("CA"), hold, acquire or exercise or cause or permit to be exercised certain percentages of the total voting control of such licensee. The imposition of such restrictions aims to ensure continuous control and management of free TV licensees by local individuals or companies who/which should be in the best position to cater for local interest, taste and culture. The Bill seeks to propose minor refinements to the threshold percentages of the total voting control.

Members have queried whether the relaxation can be conducive to attracting more foreign investment in Hong Kong's free TV sector, whether the relaxation would have any effect on how far a broadcaster caters for local interest, taste and culture in its productions, and whether the Administration would introduce other measures to achieve this policy objective. The Administration has indicated that the proposed relaxation would simplify the approval procedure and reduce the compliance burden on investors, thus encouraging foreign investment and facilitating injection of new capitals in the free TV market of Hong Kong. The proposed measure would not undermine regulatory control by CA. CA would ensure that a free TV licensee provides a diversified service to meet the needs of the local community in accordance with the licence conditions. The Administration has added that most of the foreign investors of Hong Kong's 784 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 free TV market are not interested in exercising direct control of the companies and their shareholdings are usually lower than the proposed threshold percentages.

Some members have been concerned about the fact that investors could have exercised influence on the operation of a licensee through associated persons. They have queried whether the proposed relaxation of the foreign control restrictions would make it even easier for investors to exercise control of the licensees. The Administration has explained that the majority of the restrictions on foreign control of a free TV licensee, such as residency requirement on a licensee, residency requirement on a licensee's directors and principal officers, residency requirement on quorum at directors' meetings, and attenuation of voting rights exercised by non-Hong Kong resident shareholders at general meetings, would remain unchanged.

Members have also raised questions and views on other policy issues concerning telecommunications and broadcasting, including whether the regulatory frameworks of TV and sound broadcasting services should be aligned and be included under one ordinance; shifting the authority of approving free TV, pay TV and sound broadcasting licences from the Chief Executive in Council to CA; lowering the licence fees for TV programme services; and strengthening the protection of copyright by amending provisions under Cap. 562 or under the Copyright Ordinance (Cap. 528).

During the scrutiny of the Bill, some deputations that attended public hearings considered the licensing requirement to broadcast Radio Television Hong Kong's ("RTHK") programmes unfair. The Administration has explained that free TV licensees should have the social responsibility to broadcast RTHK programmes and announcements in the public interest in appropriate designated time slots. However, the Administration had introduced rescheduling flexibility for relevant free TV licensees in broadcasting RTHK programmes in 2015. That said, the Administration has agreed to convey the relevant views to CA for consideration.

The Bills Committee has raised no objection to the resumption of the Second Reading debate on the Bill. Nor will the Bills Committee move any amendments.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 785

President, next I will express my views on the Bill. President, as the world enters a multimedia era, free TV broadcasters face an increasingly difficult operating environment, fierce competition and narrower room for survival. The Bill proposes to relax various restrictions on investors, including cross-media ownership restrictions and voting control restrictions. I think the proposed amendments are made in response to a competitive free TV broadcasting market and the development trend of multimedia on the Internet. This keeps pace with the times and is conducive to encouraging investors to participate in our free TV broadcasting market and facilitating injection of new capitals. At the same time, as the amendments are actually mild, they will not undermine the regulatory power of CA. And CA would still ensure that a free TV licensee provides a diversified service to meet the needs of the local community in accordance with the licence conditions. As such, the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong supports the Bill and the resumption of the Second Reading debate on the Bill.

President, in order to do a good job in managing and promoting the development of the TV broadcasting industry, the Government and CA must grasp actual social conditions and development trends, particularly the trend in technological development. Policies, initiatives and even legislative amendments proposed by them must be far-sighted. This year CA announced the revocation of directions issued to free TV broadcasters on the requirements to broadcast programmes of RTHK. Only because RTHK did not have its own TV channel were free TV broadcasters previously required to broadcast its programmes. However, given the commencement of three digital terrestrial TV channels of RTHK in 2014, and the gradual increase of its fill-in stations, its network coverage has been extended to around 99% of Hong Kong's population. Members of the public have long been able to watch some TV channels of RTHK through its website and mobile applications. As such, I think the authorities should have long made this decision, so that domestic TV broadcasters can be relieved of their restraints earlier and expend their resources on the provision of more diversified programmes and the increase of revenue. This has no impact on members of the public watching RTHK programmes. In my opinion, a review needs to be conducted as the decision of the authorities is still a bit conservative and belated.

A present concern of the public is, as RTHK has three digital terrestrial TV channels and the TV ratings of its programmes are rather low, whether RTHK and the Government have put such valuable TV resources to proper use. Is there 786 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 a need to conduct a review again? How can the Government introduce more competition, so that TV programmes in Hong Kong can be more multifarious? In this regard, I think the Government very much needs to conduct a review and study as soon as possible.

Many people complain that Hong Kong, as an international city, should naturally have diversified TV programmes, but compared with the Mainland or other neighbouring cities, the number of TV broadcasters in Hong Kong is really small. Furthermore, many members of the public complain that the contents of our programmes are not diversified. The Government also needs to conduct a review in this regard.

In addition, the Government has noted that as Internet media platforms are commonplace nowadays, online radio, TV and platforms have been widely accepted, free TV broadcasters are facing an extremely difficult operating environment. This legislative amendment exercise was thus initiated. However, we are aware that online radio and TV stations are basically subject to no regulation. In other words, licensing requirements currently applicable to radio and TV stations are actually not applicable to online radio, TV and platforms. In this connection, we have received complaints from many people, who say that hosts of such online radio and TV programmes often use obscene language, spread hate speech, or even advocate violence. Worse still, they even disseminate false information and fake news. Situation of this kind is actually widespread. People's views on social issues may come under the sway of such online programmes. However, the regulatory control over traditional TV broadcasters is basically not applicable to these online radio and TV stations. I consider this situation very undesirable. The negative impacts on our next generation are particularly worrisome. For this reason, I think the Government needs to actively study how to regulate these online radio and TV stations in terms of contents of programmes or operation, so as to safeguard the overall broadcasting ecosystem. The Government should not evade tasks in this regard.

Nowadays CA can invoke the Generic Codes of Practice for Television to regulate TV stations, and there is also the Radio Codes of Practice that regulates radio stations. These codes basically ensure the accuracy, impartiality and fairness of programmes, and set out detailed requirements on use of violence, promotion of violence or protection of children. However, the Government has basically imposed no requirements on online radio and TV stations. President, we have observed that many pieces of fake news and false information were constantly posted online and malicious rumours were created in Hong Kong over LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 787 the past year or so. The dissemination of false information has become an important means of the "mutual destruction camp" to instigate and create social dissension. The Internet has facilitated the widespread dissemination of such false information, which even succeeded in inciting certain people to commit illegal acts. Regarding an avalanche of such false information online, the Government should consider regulation by legislation to prevent the dissemination of false information on the Internet.

It is our observation that the dissemination of false information on the Internet is a universal problem. The Internet is flooded with untrue information and deceptively edited videos and images. This seriously damages the reputation of individuals and organizations falsely accused, and brings profound impacts on national security, public security and important social issues. The Government must not be indifferent. Many countries and regions around the world have successively passed various pieces of legislation to combat false information online. The United States was the first country to enact legislation to combat fake news. In 2016, the United States introduced the Countering Foreign Propaganda and Disinformation Act, and the State Department established the inter-agency Global Engagement Center to assist reporters, think tanks, civic organizations and non-governmental organizations in discerning political propaganda by foreign forces. In addition, Germany has enacted the Network Enforcement Act, which came into effect in January 2018 and requires influential online platforms, including Facebook and Twitter, to remove untrue information and inflammatory speech. Offenders are liable to a maximum fine of €50 million or around HK$450 million …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Elizabeth QUAT, you have mentioned a lot about the regulation of online radio stations.

MS ELIZABETH QUAT (in Cantonese): President, I have got it. In fact, online radio …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Your speech has deviated from the content of the Bill that this Council is now discussing. Please return to the subject of the debate.

788 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020

MS ELIZABETH QUAT (in Cantonese): President, why would I talk about the regulation of online radio and TV stations? In the scrutiny of the Bill, the Government indicated that as TV and radio stations face competition from Internet media platforms, certain legal restrictions need to be relaxed to allow room for their survival. Exactly for this reason, I would like to remind the Government that not only should it regulate traditional TV and radio stations, but it should also consider how to regulate online radio and TV stations. As such, President, I have referred to the United States, Germany, France, Russia and Singapore as examples. They have all enacted various laws to counter online false information and online manipulation. This is vital to the overall development of Hong Kong in the future. For this reason, I would like to remind and urge the Government that, in order to safeguard public security and national security in Hong Kong and the future stability of Hong Kong, it should not evade the study on how to regulate online radio and TV stations. There are already many cases in other countries that can be cited for the reference of the Government. Apart from the enactment of legislation, we can also make reference to other approaches, such as introducing measures to raise people's media literacy, adopted by countries such as Finland.

President, I very much hope to see that media outlets in Hong Kong, whether they be radio and TV stations or online media, can develop in a wholesome and sustainable direction. For this reason, I support the Bill. And I hope the Government will heed our viewpoints and expeditiously enact legislation to regulate online radio and TV stations as well as online false information.

President, I so submit.

MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): President, today is 29 October 2020. Following the resumption of the Second Reading debate on the Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019 ("the Bill"), I would like to provide some historical background for Members' reference.

As a matter of fact, this subject has been under discussion for more than 20 years. Before 2000, in the wake of the dot.com boom, the Government already proposed to merge the regulatory frameworks for broadcasting and telecommunications and study how to combine the Broadcasting Ordinance LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 789

("BO") and the Telecommunications Ordinance ("TO"). At that time―already some 20 years ago―it was a very timely approach, but this matter was delayed incessantly. Let me recap some history. In early 2006, Joseph WONG, the then Secretary for Commerce, Industry and Technology, released a consultation document, proposing to set up the Communications Authority ("CA") first and then deal with those two ordinances. What he said at that time was the same as the proposition in 2000, that is, technological convergence had been blurring the boundary between telecommunications, broadcasting and information technology, and it was only natural that convergence at the technological and market levels should be matched by restructuring at the regulatory level. He also mentioned that such had been the international trend with examples in the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia. Hence, Hong Kong must deal with the convergence issue. It was necessary to establish a unified regulator and amend the legislation to enhance regulatory efficiency and further promote consumer benefits. At that time they proposed to set up CA first and then deal with the two ordinances.

President, the amendment work for the two ordinances has in fact dragged on for years. Initially, the industry was given to understand that the two ordinances would eventually be combined. However, more than 20 years have passed. What has the Government done? Let us leave the two ordinances aside for the moment and only talk about the merger of the then Telecommunications Authority and Broadcasting Authority into CA. The Government launched the consultation in 2006 and procrastinated until 2012, six years later, when it finally established CA. President, concerning the combination of BO and TO, it has been handled by seven Directors of the Bureau and dragged on for over two decades, during which the arena of science and technology has been rapidly changing. Simply put, it is like you told someone that you wanted to buy an iPhone from him in the iPhone 1 era. Yet you were kept waiting until even the launch of iPhone 12. Only then did he give you a discontinued Nokia mobile phone. This is exactly our present situation.

In the .com era, i.e. before 2000, the Government already started consultation. At that time the Government clearly indicated its intention to study the two ordinances and combine them ultimately. Over the years, we have seen the authorities repeatedly seek funding from the Finance Committee and the Establishment Subcommittee for creation of posts to conduct consultation relating to the legislation. However, after the work has gone on for such a long time, what the heck has been done? During this period, as we can see, 790 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 telecommunications networks have developed from 1G to 5G. As regards free-to-air television services, we have experienced a lot. For instance, Asia Television Limited folded its free-to-air television channels, followed by the refusal to grant a licence to Hong Kong Television Network Limited ("HKTV"). Then people's habit of watching television changed from using television sets to using OTT services, that means watching it online. After so many things have happened, I can only say that the greatest obstacle faced by the telecommunications, broadcasting, information technology and communications sectors is in fact the out-of-date Hong Kong legislation.

The Government has carried on the work for a decade or two. Initially, it wanted to review the development of the whole industry, but eventually, this Bill, as we have heard, has its scope reduced significantly. I remember that back then, the Government proposed to amend the two ordinances so as to regulate broadcasting and telecommunications matters. The main purpose of consolidation was to protect consumers. Simply put, if a consumer was deceived by a "street rogue" in the street, it turned out that the handling of the case and the penalties differed in the two domains. It needed to be addressed, but nothing was done in the end. Regarding takeover and merger, the practice in the two domains turned out to be different. At that time we felt concerned. The industry certainly did not wish to see the more open approach in telecommunications tightened. Yet these important issues were not addressed at all. After almost 20 years, eventually what remains in the present Bill is only relaxation of cross-media ownership restrictions and foreign control restrictions, as well as abolition of the existing requirement that a free television or sound broadcasting licence must not be granted to a company which is a subsidiary of a corporation. This is a rather technical amendment, just like arguing who can be considered as a relative. Only these issues remain in the Bill. However, the major issues, including takeover, merger and particularly protection of consumers' interests mentioned by me just now, are yet to be addressed.

Certainly, the scope of issues which the present Bill submitted by the Government seeks to tackle has eventually been narrowed down to a minimal. It merely deals with the challenges from OTT (i.e. over-the-top) services faced by the traditional broadcasting sector. That is, we can watch video programmes directly on mobiles or computers. It is of course vastly different from the mode of traditional television stations setting which programmes to be broadcast at what time a couple of decades ago. But now we have already got used to it. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 791

The Government's justification is that since the traditional broadcasting sector is currently subjected to stricter control, it is necessary to remove their obstacles so that they can become more competitive. That said, as the President can also see, to fight for survival, the method on which the sector mainly relies is not to wait for the Government's relaxation of requirements. Nowadays in Hong Kong, no matter which traditional free-to-air or pay television broadcaster it is, the best method to compete with OTT service providers is to provide OTT services too itself. Hence, the sector has its own way. If the Government now claims that the approach of removing obstacles can readily resolve the problem, I think it has got it wrong. Furthermore, we need to pay attention to whether the so-called removal of obstacles in the Bill as mentioned just now will actually lead to other consequences or problems. The two main points mentioned just now are relaxation of cross-media ownership restrictions and that of foreign control restrictions. As we can see, in the past, when such restrictions were in place, various investors, consortiums or broadcasters would find different ways to bypass the restrictions. In short, in the past we might consider these restrictions "toothless tigers". The restrictions in law were not strong enough. However, the Government's present approach is not to put in metal teeth. Rather, it is to extract all the teeth by lifting the regulation in the future. How can we comprehend such logic? I think the Secretary has got to explain it.

I have looked through the information. The Bill was submitted to the Legislative Council in early 2019. After the Bills Committee was set up, discussions were held from April to May last year. Almost a year and a half have passed now. Frankly, after Hong Kong has experienced this past period, looking back at our state of mind in the Bills Committee, the background of our discussions in the Bills Committee and the social environment at the time, I really feel as though I am living in a different world.

(THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, MS STARRY LEE, took the Chair)

I wish to raise some specific questions on the Bill. First, the problem about the requirement that the granting of free television, pay television and sound broadcasting licences must undergo a two-tier vetting and approval scheme has not been addressed. That is, CA's recommendations on the granting of licences shall be subject to the final decision of the Chief Executive in Council.

792 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020

We still remember the incident of HKTV in 2014, in which the Executive Council, for some unknown reason, imposed its own approval criteria and interpretation at will. The Chief Executive, having mighty power, may decide whether or not to grant a licence out of political consideration. This is a grave problem, but it has not been addressed by the legislation. Not even was there any discussion. Why is the decision making power in respect of the granting of licences not vested in the professional CA? Despite our observation in recent years that there seems to be an increasing number of cases of CA being controlled or taking additional political factors into account, the granting of telecommunications licences is not bound by any two-tier scheme. Now please do not, on the contrary, make telecommunications adopt such an approach too. Why is the situation like that? This issue has not been addressed. In my opinion, the power of the Chief Executive in Council to make the final decision on whether or not to grant a licence should be abolished. At present, the Chairman and members of CA are all appointed by the Chief Executive. The Executive Council already enjoys paramount influence. Why should the mighty power to make the final decision still be given to the Chief Executive?

The second point is about foreign control restrictions. Similarly, after a year and a half, I really feel kind of living in a different world. I remember that during the discussion at that time, I wondered whether this amendment would encourage more foreign investors to consider investing in Hong Kong's broadcasting industry. However, it is obvious that the direction of development in Hong Kong over the past two years would not bring more foreign investment into Hong Kong. Only red capital would exercise further control in Hong Kong. This is not something members of the public wish to see. Regarding the development of the industry, do Members think that so long as there is incoming capital to make investment, it will do? I am afraid it will only expedite the demise of the industry.

Red capital has penetrated into Hong Kong's media to take up control, undermining, among others, the quality and direction of programmes and press freedom. This is a public concern. Now it is October 2020. The present circumstances may no longer be the same as those we considered in April 2019. After the enactment of the Hong Kong National Security Law, we really find that the scope of the "red line" for the production of programmes by television and radio stations has become increasingly narrow. Take Radio Television Hong Kong ("RTHK") as an example. In the past, we seldom saw such a situation, but now the authorities have already made use of certain decisions of CA to influence LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 793

RTHK's programmes or inflict punishment on them. In the past, usually only commercial television stations would be criticized for doing this and that wrong, such as airing too many advertisements or making product placement, but now RTHK's public broadcasting service can blatantly be enlisted. Hence, if the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau now still opines that relaxation of the regulatory framework will attract more foreign investment, I think such a view is absolutely self-deception. I cannot see how the present amendment will really make the industry more open and attract foreign investment more easily.

Let me briefly respond to an argument put forward by Ms Elizabeth QUAT just now, which is quite interesting. She complained that there is only a small number of television stations and the programmes are not diversified enough due to impacts from OTT and network television. For this reason, it is necessary to step up the regulation of network television and online comments. Will such an act indeed make the programmes more diversified? Will it indeed lead to an increase in the number of television stations? I have not a clue how her logic came about. Deputy President, piecemeal amendment work, I am afraid, is unable to resolve the current problems genuinely faced by the broadcasting sector. It may only speed up the demise of the sector anytime.

MR ALVIN YEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I must state at the outset that the Civic Party will oppose the Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019 ("the Bill") today. Not only is it because objectively speaking, the Bill will allow more red capital to enter Hong Kong's media and airwaves. A more practical question is that the Bill seeks diversity, but we do not see how this amendment exercise of the Government can achieve this objective at all.

Certainly, I will take time to spell out and expound the relevant arguments in a while, but first I would like to relate the speech made by Mr Charles Peter MOK just now to the relevant logic. As a matter of fact, 2021 is coming soon. But now the Government still advances its view on attaining diversity in the industry through development of the traditional media. While traditional media organizations already exist, the Government must never stifle them. On the contrary, it hopes they can do better. This is absolutely right. However, if anyone, seeing that the performance of traditional media is undesirable whereas that of online media is outstanding, intends to regulate the one which is doing a 794 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 good job, forgetting that he himself lags behind the times, he certainly lacks logic and wisdom. The person who advances such an argument is like living in the prehistoric age.

In fact, during the amendment exercise of this Bill, the Government did not deal with the problem properly. As Mr Charles Peter MOK clearly pointed out just now, the Government wishes that the market can be more diversified, but the Government is exactly the one who has obstructed diversity. The incident of Hong Kong Television Network Limited ("HKTV") remains fresh in our memories. Back then, with a host of factors which came from nowhere, the Government stifled a television station to be founded in Hong Kong―in particular, it was wholly-owned by Hongkongers and the participants were all Hongkongers―Was that diversity? Or was the Government precisely the one who obstructed and stood in the way of diversity? This Bill neither tackled nor directly responded to the relevant issue. I wonder if Secretary Edward YAU would be open-minded and bold enough to respond later. Certainly, when we talk about the incident of HKTV now, it is like something which happened a lifetime ago. The investor concerned has already moved on to another business which he is doing quite successfully. Now the Government talks again about its wish that traditional television services can be diversified and obstacles can be removed. Is it a bit too late?

Deputy President, when we discuss this topic of the media, we must pay attention to one point: What is the media? The definition of the media given by the law enforcement agencies, especially the Police, seems to be quite narrow. In fact, in the eyes of the Government, is it that only those accepted and allowed by them can be regarded as the media? If this is their sole definition, of course it will become an international joke. This time the Bill proposes relaxation of cross-media ownership restrictions. The Government puts forward a series of measures to relax the regulation over traditional media and restrictions on qualification, and suggests maintaining only the restrictions on licensees of free television, pay television and sound broadcasting services. In practice, that means allowing the proprietor of a local newspaper or an advertising agency to concurrently hold a free television or pay television licence. We need to ask: Can this really enrich the broadcast content? Can it really enable television broadcasters to do better and have more courage to challenge or play their role as the fourth power? Deputy President, speaking of whether television broadcasters have enough courage, an example popped up on my mind. Recently, a television station invited the Deputy President to host one of its LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 795 television programmes. Of course, now it has fizzled out. But they originally thought that since the Deputy President was held in high regard by many people, she could invite guests who would not have accepted their invitations in the first place. For this reason, they asked the Deputy President to be their host. However, objectively speaking, it was precisely because of the Deputy President's identity that some people who were originally interested in receiving an interview changed their minds afterwards and did not want to do so. It was of course a great pity. Eventually, the television station withdrew this decision. I understand that the television station wished to find different people to host its programmes. It was originally a demonstration of courage. Yet the final conclusion is that perhaps they made a courageous but unwise decision.

Deputy President, I appreciate that the original intent of the Bill is to allow media organizations to have more shareholders and thus get more input of resources, with a view to achieving the effects of diversity and plurality as mentioned by the Government. It was not formulated for the sake of propaganda or falsification by a small bunch of people. The Civic Party opposes it because we have no idea whether these people who wish to join the media as licensees actually know what is meant by press freedom. Do they know the elements of development of cross-media creation? If they are introduced to the media, we cannot help worrying whether, as the spokespersons of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of China often carry on their lips, it is tantamount to "shooting oneself in the foot". As a matter of fact, there are relevant examples here and there. Some media heads did not defend reporters targeted and driven away by the Police. As such, will there be effective protection of media development and respect for press freedom? If relaxation is merely made to allow entry of people who serve their own personal interests or other purposes, will it be conducive or detrimental to society in the end? I believe we know it well in our hearts.

In this era, if people have any discontent, of course they may stop watching the television station concerned or switch to another channel. We also know that nowadays, it is indeed a big challenge to run a television company. As mentioned by Mr Charles Peter MOK just now, we know our own living habits. Actually, is the removal of obstacles as stated by the authorities still meaningful today? In fact, the media which we now watch most often and the channel through which we obtain most information may no longer be the traditional television. Instead, it is the online media. As soon as we click open a social media platform, we can browse the news. At home, now many digital television sets can be connected to the Internet. By simply pressing a button, we can 796 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 watch videos on Youtube or other streaming platforms, that means OTT mentioned by Mr Charles Peter MOK. That is to say, we have already transcended to a new era. We will select and obtain information in our own ways according to our own needs. Now a point we need to make is, if we stick to the past approach to regulate the traditional media, can such a practice catch up with the times?

A further query we need to raise is, individual media organizations having the heart and the will to do a good job, such as Radio Television Hong Kong, are actually subjected to more restraints than before. Be it "Headliner" or "Pentaprism", the objective fact is that they are permanently suspended because of the presence and regulation of the Communications Authority ("CA"). After all, is it the composition of the media or the mindset of its regulator that should break away from the obstacles? Is CA itself competent and wise enough to face the present time in the 21st century? If all the works created by the media ultimately sing the same tune with the Government, can such media capture people's attention or garner their support? Finally, if the Government only wishes to see a city with only one voice, can it genuinely achieve diversity as claimed by itself? I believe this is simple logic which Secretary Edward YAU must be very clear.

In reality, as also mentioned by Mr Charles Peter MOK just now, under the gloom of the Hong Kong National Security Law, will there be a rise or a drop in the inflow of foreign investment in Hong Kong now? Being frequently accused of "crossing the red line", creators of media texts and journalists doing news coverage are concerned that they may be prosecuted. In addition, the enforcement standard of the Police has drawn more and more criticisms. After all, has the environment of the media become more friendly or worse today in 2020 in Hong Kong? This is most obvious.

The basic components supporting the existence of the media are definitely the creators, creative teams and journalists. Their standards are certainly the fundamental factors attributing to the success and popularity of their organizations. However, let us look at the number of students enrolled in the Department of Journalism and Communication of Chu Hai College of Higher Education, Hong Kong this year. It is zero. How come the number of students enrolled in the widely-acclaimed, highly-respected and long-established Department of Journalism and Communication be zero? What does it LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 797 objectively reflect? Is it because the department has performed poorly, or young people who originally aspired to join the relevant industries have become hesitant? These are questions which the Government should ponder.

Deputy President, regarding relaxation of foreign control restrictions, we must give it some thoughts. In determining whether such an approach is good or bad, we cannot but draw reference from other organizations which have introduced foreign capital. Objectively speaking, did Cathay Pacific Airways Limited, which had introduced Mainland capital, turn out to be better or worse? Of course, we know there has been a pandemic, but has the management culture become better? I believe we should make an objective judgment.

Let us not talk about other industries and come back to media organizations. Take Asia Television Limited ("ATV") as an example. Back then, the business of ATV was terrible. Hence, after it was sold, there came another new buyer, and after the new buyer took over, it was put up for sale again. Finally, we saw that before it ended its free-to-air broadcasting service, among the relevant senior management as well as staff on and behind the scenes were a large number people from places outside Hong Kong. If my memory does not fail me, many had connections with the Mainland. There was no local production of drama programmes. All the drama series were bought from the Mainland. Perhaps at that time they thought if the target was changed to Mainland audience, the television station could be brought back to life. However, what is the objective fact? If the Mainland audience wanted to watch Mainland drama, they could simply watch it on the Mainland television stations. They had no need to watch Hong Kong's ATV, did they? With a lack of one's own characteristics, one would be unable to survive in the end. Hence, if Mainland capital―or to be fair, capital outside Hong Kong―is introduced but there is a lack of local characteristics, it is just useless.

Certainly, as I have mentioned earlier, now it is already the 5G era. Watching television at a fixed time on a fixed channel of a traditional broadcaster is already out-of-date. We are well aware that at present, all the traditional media organizations in Hong Kong have set up their own websites with OTT services. But now the question is, if they do not make good efforts themselves and the programmes produced fail to cater for local audience or suit the traditional taste of Hong Kong from the perspective of entertainment or newsworthiness, then no matter how many restrictions are relaxed, it will be of no use.

798 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020

In January every year, the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism of the University of Oxford would conduct a global survey on the use of the Internet, and Hong Kong is one of the regions under its study. According to the survey, traditional media no longer enjoys the influence it used to have. This is actually a phenomenon which all of us have noted. During the social movements over the past year in Hong Kong, people often received news and information from social media. In the survey in 2020, the percentage of respondents who indicated that they would obtain news from social media rose from 57% in the previous year to 66%. As pointed out by an earlier survey of the Hong Kong Public Opinion Research Institute, owing to continuous decrease in the overall credibility of traditional media in journalism in Hong Kong, people concerned with the situation in society have shifted their attention to the news reports and comments on social media. Objectively speaking, such a situation has indeed caused losses in audience and ratings of traditional media. Now we need to ask, why should the power of the airwaves for dissemination and broadcast of information be given to more organizations or people without credibility and culture of communication?

Deputy President, Secretary Edward YAU said that in the information age, obstacles need to be removed such that traditional media can be more competitive. In terms of logic, it may be correct, but in reality, is that the case? The new media are popular not because they are rich. Deputy President, as a matter of fact, now many online media organizations may merely operate like a home factory. What is more important is quality and content. If the Government intends to improve the situation through this exercise of removing obstacles but does not do so at the root―as I mentioned just now, the problem with CA is where the problem really lies―and even vainly wishes to accept the advice of certain Members of the pro-establishment camp on monitoring online information too in the future, in the end it definitely will not promote the further development of the media. Rather, it will only drive people away. Deputy President, I hope the Secretary will think more deeply.

I so submit.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Claudia MO, please speak.

(Mr WU Chi-wai indicated his wish to request a headcount)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 799

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WU Chi-wai has requested a headcount.

Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.

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

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): A quorum is present in the Chamber. The meeting now continues.

Ms Claudia MO, please speak.

MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): First, I will make it loud and clear that I will certainly oppose the Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019 ("the Bill"). The reason is that while the Bill superficially allows cross-media ownership, it has other overt or covert motives and leeway. An overt motive is obvious to everyone, that is, further opening up Hong Kong's traditional media market to red capital. This is undeniable. No others will ever come and invest here. Furthermore, it paves the way for enacting legislation to regulate and suppress Internet freedom. This should have been still arguable, but having heard the speech made earlier by this fake doctor―sorry, but it should be "Dr QUAT"―I realize that the intention is so overwhelming and obvious that even a blind person can discern it.

I would like to respond to "Dr QUAT", who said that online television ("TV") and radio stations are flooded with fake news, false information, and messages that encourage people to commit illegal acts. She urged the Government to expeditiously introduce regulatory control. Her remarks made by way of the Bill indicate that the Bill is a precursor to regulating freedom of expression on the Internet. She has opened a door in making her speech, and we are now only following her in making our speeches. She even touched on national security, saying that freedom of expression on the Internet is dangerous. But the superficial way in which she substantiated her arguments is simply laughable. She cited other countries as examples, including the United States, Germany, France and certainly "Russia" and "Singapore". She said that 800 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 regulation of the Internet exists in other places, but why did she not mention that there is a separation of three powers in those places? In those places, the executive authorities, the legislature and the judiciary keep a check and balance on each other's functions; traditional media, which are called the fourth estate, are vibrant; and Internet media, which are called the fifth estate, are even more vibrant. This "doctor" was simply talking nonsense.

In fact, regardless of how free Hong Kong's free market is, this market is still full of hypocrisy. The invocation by the Government of an applicable ordinance depends on who comes to ask for a favour and who is in power. The Government now says that it is opening up cross-media ownership, but may I ask whether the boss of the Apple Daily, Jimmy LAI, can apply for a free TV licence? Pursuant to the Bill, the answer is yes. But will he get it? Just look at Ricky WONG and you will know.

The Government is so hypocritical. The law previously did not allow cross-media ownership, that is, one could not be the boss of two labels. Surprisingly, as we can see, Richard LI basically owns not only one TV station but also one newspaper. Why can he do so? The newspaper is what used to be known as the leading newspaper for the intellectuals, Hong Kong Economic Journal, and the TV station is what has been the most credible among electronic media, Now TV. You do not understand it, right? Why can he do so? Originally the entry into our TV stations of non-local capital, namely red capital, should not be allowed, but why are we all saying "red TVB"? Is it because that TV station has red capital? Do Members have a big question mark? There is an answer. We know it tacitly.

MS CLAUDIA MO: Now I am afraid I have to carry on my sayings in English because that is what I had prepared my observations on this particular Bill originally.

I was saying that the Bill is so full of false sincerity, fake sincerity. It is phoney; it is nothing but phoniness. The Commerce and Economic Development Bureau gave us this Legislative Council Brief, claiming that, "Oh, previously, we would not allow cross-media ownership because we need to have plurality of views in society." To get that from a government bureau is quite nauseating. Plurality! They are talking about the past when they do not even allow students to discuss "Hong Kong independence" in classrooms.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 801

The second point is that previously we were terrified of having editorial uniformity in society because one person or one big owner would prevail in a radio station, newspaper or magazine. That would not be very desirable for society as a whole. And so they came up with the Bill. It sounds all well-intentioned, you would think, but it is just fake. This is just full of what I would call ulterior motives.

I think it must be more than 10 years or a longer period ago that our top magnate, LI Ka-shing, once expressed his interest in buying up the then Asia Television Limited ("ATV"). Correct me if I am wrong, but at that time, there was this huge uproar in society that a top tycoon could not be allowed to own a TV station, or else he would be owning Hong Kong. This was wrong, right? And that uproar spread to the point that I remember Mr LI actually publicly scoffed and sulked, asking Hongkongers, "Do you want me to invest in Hong Kong or do you want me to quit?" See? It was a big deal previously about ownership of this sort of nature. Nothing much happened after that. I would assume Mr LI just dropped his bid for the ATV purchase.

We are essentially talking about qualifying disqualified persons ("DPs") to own broadcasting labels. I refuse to say "DP" because, to me, "DP" stands for the Democratic Party, OK? And here it is a disqualified person for you. The Government would even allow an associate of disqualified persons to own this sort of electronic labels, because there is too much competition from the Internet. That is the major reason, if not excuse, for this new Bill. I do beg your pardon. I just have no trust in not just the explanation or the reasoning behind. I think this is going to be, on the whole, a very bad thing for Hong Kong. The argument goes that Internet media have been or has been―"media" is actually a plural word, so it should be plural "have" but most people take it as a singular now―Internet media has been thriving. The Government says so in the section titled JUSTIFICATIONS.

But there are too many disparities between the regulatory arrangements, i.e. the government controls, over these two types of media, namely Internet media and the conventional type of broadcasting media. And the Government says that traditional media actually faces very stringent, if not draconian, statutory and licensing controls, while the Internet is all free. It is all very free. The Government seems to suggest it; it does not say it in so many words. It says that 802 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020

Internet media are only liable to sanction against repulsive contents. I should assume it is all about the sort of indecent kind of contents, right? Unlike that fake―not fake―doctor who said that something could be all levelled up to the …

(Mr Holden CHOW indicated his wish to raise a point of order)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Claudia MO, please hold on. Mr Holden CHOW, what is your point of order?

MR HOLDEN CHOW (in Cantonese): I have been listening to Ms Claudia MO's speech attentively. She has been using insulting or offensive language to offend our colleague time and again. I hope that the Deputy President can at least remind her to refrain from using such offensive language in this Chamber. She has been doing so time and again.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): A Member shall use expressions in his or her speech in compliance with the Rules of Procedure, and shall not use offensive language toward any Member of this Council. Ms MO, please pay attention to the expressions in your speech. Have you offended any Member of this Council?

MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): I pay close attention to the act of collusion.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Please continue with your speech, but please refrain from offending any other Member in a roundabout way.

MS CLAUDIA MO: Thank you. That is what you say. Never mind. Now, let me carry on. The Government says that the Bill is needed to seek to provide a more balanced competitive environment for the broadcasting market. Broadcasting market? Where does the capital come from? Red capital from the Mainland of China, as the proprietor of a local newspaper would be allowed to own a TV station. And they tell us not to have previous worries that there LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 803 could be disproportionately influential or powerful ownership that would come up as a result. I do not know if you call that monopoly or oligopoly. But it is kind of a way of monopolizing the media labels in a way.

The Government says that we do not need to worry about that because there is so much competition from the Internet. Anyway, that is not going to happen. This influential and powerful alliance of media force may not be borne out under the circumstances today. Today is such a different time. That is the suggestion. But I really get rather put off by the language, because it says that "it is rather unlikely that an alliance of broadcasting licensee(s) and newspaper(s) could dominate public opinions". "Rather unlikely"! Who are you to make such a conclusion? If a particular person owns everything anyway, if there is no limit to numbers, who are you to suggest that there would not be any such alliance of influence as a result?

And what is even phonier is the next line, "The availability of choices will effectively guard against possible editorial uniformity." Guard against uniformity because of this availability of choices? So, in Hong Kong, we do uphold a sort of plurality. We uphold a sort of choice …

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms MO, would you please point out how the content of your speech at this moment is related to the Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019?

MS CLAUDIA MO: Of course. I am reading this damned document from the Government. It is signed by the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau. Have you read your document or done your homework? I beg your pardon. Ridiculous!

I would just have one last line. You really have not seen this document? It is in English, by the way. It is in English, OK? It is signed by the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau on 13 March 2019.

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The Honourable Member only needs to raise your arguments rather than repeat the content of the document. Please continue with your speech.

804 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020

MS CLAUDIA MO: You are being ridiculous, I think. Now, one last line. According to the Bill, the boss of the Apple Daily, Jimmy LAI, can easily go and apply for a free TV licence, cannot he? Of course he can. Will he get it? It is up to everyone's guess, is not it?

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I would like to remind Members again that the scope of the Second Reading debate on the Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019 is to debate the specific amendments proposed under the Bill and its general merits.

(Ms Claudia MO spoke loudly in her seat)

DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I urge Members to focus on discussing the specific amendments proposed under the Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019 and its general merits.

The President has decided to suspend the meeting from 1:00 pm to 2:00 pm. As I believe that the remaining meeting time is not sufficient for the next Member to finish his speech before 1:00 pm, I now suspend the meeting.

12:54 pm

Meeting suspended.

2:00 pm

Council then resumed.

(THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr MA Fung-kwok, please speak.

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

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 805

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

MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): I request a headcount.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WU Chi-wai has requested a headcount.

Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.

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

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr MA Fung-kwok, please speak.

MR MA FUNG-KWOK (in Cantonese): President, in view of the differences between the regulatory arrangements for the traditional broadcasting industry and online media, the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region ("SAR") launched a three-month public consultation in February 2018 to make recommendations on removing obstacles for the traditional broadcasting industry. The consultation exercise has mainly made four recommendations, which include relaxation of cross-media ownership restrictions, foreign control restrictions to be remained unchanged, abolishing the requirement of a licensee being a non-subsidiary company, and retaining the current licensing system for domestic free and pay broadcasting services. This Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019 ("the Bill") introduced by the Government seeks to implement the first three recommendations that I have mentioned above.

True enough, following the rise and popularization of the Internet, the recreational activities and channels to receive information of the public have become more diversified and this has dealt a great blow to the traditional broadcasting industry. While free TV broadcast remains a major and influential media locally, the old past-time of family members sitting in front of a TV set, chatting and laughing happily while watching TV programmes or drama series at the scheduled time after school or a day's work has long ceased to be part of the usual daily life of the general public.

806 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020

In an era where the Internet and mobile phones are popular, there is no longer a limit in time and space. Viewers can choose to watch their favourite programmes anytime with any device as they wish. What is more, over-the-top ("OTT") service platforms have abounded, offering for viewers' selection a wide array of programmes. They are sorted into categories from drama, sports, to news information, virtually encompassing all kinds of programmes to suit all tastes. As the programmes are produced in different countries and regions, viewers can find whatever they like, be it Korean drama series, Japanese drama series, Mainland drama series or those produced in Europe and the United States. Compared with traditional broadcasting services, Internet-based TV services are no doubt more attractive to viewers.

According to the statistics provided by the consultation paper in 2018, both the number of hours and the number of people watching free TV programmes per day have been dropping. The number of hours per day dropped from 3.2 hours in 2009 to 2.3 hours in 2017, whereas the number of viewers who watch free TV programmes was also down from 85.6% to 71.8%.

President, operators of local free TV services have to go through stringent and lengthy licensing procedures on the one hand, and on the other hand, after obtaining a licence, they are required to comply with a myriad of licensing conditions, the Broadcasting Ordinance, and various codes of practice issued by the Communications Authority ("CA"), whereas Internet media is not subject to such a lot of requirements and restrictions. Therefore, in recent years, there have been calls from the industry for the Government to relax the regulation on the traditional broadcasting industry to allow for a more balanced playing field for the market.

In this connection, the Government introduced amendments to the Broadcasting Ordinance and the Telecommunications Ordinance, with a view to relaxing the existing regulatory arrangements. The industry generally welcomes and supports it. For example, with respect to cross-media ownership restrictions, in the past the Government has imposed restrictions on media ownership to prevent monopolies in order to promote competition, forestall concentration of media ownership and control, conflict of interest and editorial uniformity across different media platforms, and encourage plurality of views and programming diversity.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 807

However, as the public can access information through a diversity of channels nowadays, the division between sound broadcasting and TV broadcasting has been blurred and most of the printed media have also operated media services online in tandem. Multifarious opinions and positions can be expressed through various channels, and the risk of programme uniformity is thus lowered. For this reason, the Government will relax the regulation, so that six groups of people who were formerly disqualified from holding a licence, such as proprietor of local newspaper, non-domestic TV licensee and advertising agency will be allowed to hold a licence for free TV and pay TV broadcasting after the passage of the Bill. It is hoped that this will promote cross-media cooperation and achieve a synergy effect, thereby providing the traditional broadcasting industry with more business opportunities and revenue from advertisements to support the sustainable development of the industry. I think the Government's approach is reasonable and has responded to the general trend of media development.

As regards foreign ownership, prior approval of CA is currently required when shareholding by a non-Hong Kong resident in a free TV licensee reaches 2%, 6%, and 10% or above. The Bill proposes to increase the threshold percentages to 5%, 10%, and 15% or above. There are concerns that following this relaxation, non-local capital, especially red capital, would have greater clout over the local media and would exert an influence on local TV productions. In that case, TV programmes to be produced may ignore the interests, culture and tastes of local people and local TV broadcasters would then lose the characteristics of Hong Kong.

In fact, following the reform and opening up of the Mainland, the rapid economic development and policies for relaxing the regulation on the media, the Mainland media has made advancement at high speed over the past period of time. We have seen numerous creative contents as well as innovative programme formats and technologies in many areas. Whether you accept or resist it, the Mainland media has been influencing Hong Kong and even the whole world through the Internet at all times. TikTok and WeChat are the best examples. I personally think that this trend, which is giving play to the positive effects of media development, is irresistible and unstoppable. Hong Kong, being a free society, should face this competition with an open mind and an embracing attitude. Better still, these media can provide Hong Kong people with more opportunities to understand the Mainland society more 808 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 comprehensively. The industry should better seize the opportunity to produce programmes with Hong Kong characteristics to satisfy the needs of Hong Kong society and at the same time enhance the competitiveness of Hong Kong, rather than just seeking to take protective measures to keep the local media at a standstill.

President, the Government's relaxation of the approval threshold of shareholding in a free TV licensee is in line with the requirement for disclosure of shareholding of 5% or above for listed companies under the Securities and Futures Ordinance. The restrictions on local free TV licensees, such as the residency requirement on a licensee, voting control of non-Hong Kong resident shareholders at general meetings, etc. would remain unchanged. I believe the Government, in putting forward this proposal, has taken into account the needs of local programme productions as well as the tastes and needs of local viewers, which is crucial. The approval threshold is relaxed only with the objective of attracting foreign investors for the local traditional broadcasting industry, with a view to bringing in capital to promote the sustainable development of the industry.

As I said earlier, the Broadcasting Ordinance aside, local free TV broadcasters are required to comply with a plethora of licensing conditions and codes of practice. In this connection, the Government has relaxed some restrictions, such as relaxing the regulation on product placement in July 2018 and lifting the prohibition on the broadcast of advertisements for undertaker and associated services, to enable free TV broadcasters to generate more revenue from advertisements. In recent months, CA has revoked the requirement for free TV licensees to broadcast programmes of Radio Television Hong Kong and educational television programmes in order to provide more room for TV broadcasters to produce and broadcast other programmes to meet the different needs of viewers. Moreover, CA is currently conducting public consultation on proposals to relax the restrictions on local and overseas real property advertisements, advance the broadcast of adult programmes to 11:00 pm, and allow the inclusion of advertising materials in sports programmes. It is hoped that the compliance burden and operational pressure on TV broadcasters can be reduced and they can have greater flexibility in their programmes, business operation and programming, thereby opening new sources of income.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 809

I am glad that the Government and CA can respond to the aspirations of the industry by relaxing some restrictions relating to the licensing conditions and codes of practice for free TV licensees, thereby providing flexibility and room for the operation of the industry. Having said that, the Government should be able to take a few more steps forward. For instance, just as the industry consistently proposed, the requirement that free TV broadcasters must provide an English channel should be relaxed in order to reduce the operational cost of the industry. In fact, according to the 2016 population census, the number of population whose usual spoken language is English accounted for only 4.3% of the Hong Kong population. Added to this is that local pay TV services and OTT platforms online already offer a large number of English channels and English programmes for viewers' choice. If the Administration continues to rigidly require free TV licensees to spend a great deal of efforts and resources to operate an English channel, it would appear that the Administration has not fully taken into consideration the actual situation of the operation of the industry and the market. Alternatively, consideration can be given to requiring free TV broadcasters to provide English news and this, I think, will suffice.

President, as technological development continues over times, media competition is set to become more intense. It is not easy to reverse the unequal footing in competition between the traditional broadcasting industry and online media. The Government must keep abreast of the times and must not lag behind the situation. I support the Administration in introducing amendments to the Broadcasting Ordinance and the Telecommunications Ordinance to the effect that some restrictions can be relaxed to facilitate the operation of the traditional broadcasting industry and attract investment. I hope that these amendments can be implemented as early as possible. I also hope that the Government can continue to listen to the views of the industry and further relax restrictions relating to the licensing conditions or codes of practice, so as to allow the industry to have more flexibility in producing and broadcasting programmes and achieve sustainable development.

Lastly, I wish to point out that unregulated sound and video broadcast online have led to problems other than of business competition, such as the truthfulness of the information provided, the accuracy and impartiality of news, proliferation of negative information, and so on. These problems have posed a series of negative impacts and threats on Hong Kong society, and this situation is not unique to Hong Kong. The Government should keep abreast of the trends of international development. It should consider and look into ways to respond to 810 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 these trends and also how some reasonable regulatory measures can be implemented to enhance the ability of Hong Kong society to respond to these problems, with a view to protecting the overall interest of society.

With these remarks, President, I support the Bill.

MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): President, today, the discussion is about the Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019 ("the Bill"). The most important point of the entire amendment is to remove hurdles and obstacles, while the most important basis of consideration is the hope that cross-media ownership restrictions can be relaxed with a view to addressing the current so-called unequal competition.

Yet, if Members have paid attention to the present situation in Hong Kong, the television broadcasting industry, in particular, is facing a critical circumstance, that is, the regulation and control of broadcast content. Of course, we understand that given the strong dissemination power of the media, it will be subject to certain statutory regulation, a practice passed down from the British-Hong Kong government era. The practice and perspective that we have been adopting seek to subject the broadcasting content of media under certain statutory regulation. This should be traced back to the situation in the early years, particularly when the television broadcasting industry as a whole was highly monopolized. Be it the Commercial Television in the early years or the Asia Television at a later time, they could not reverse the monopolistic situation despite adopting various approaches and investing a lot of resources. Against this background, the basis of discussion on the entire television licensing system is to enhance competition in the television broadcasting industry. Regrettably, in the incident of the licensing of the Hong Kong Television Network Limited ("HKTV") in 2014, we saw how the Administration had rejected the licence application of HKTV on the basis of the decision of "one man".

The problems arising from the historical elements of the incident have rightly revealed the double standards held by the Administration all along in removing hurdles and obstacles for the benefit of the television broadcasting industry. Among all the criteria applied, the most important one is to ensure that broadcasting content will be subject to stringent restriction. Regulation is imposed on the pretext of ensuring public interest. Yet, the reality is that these industries are subject to very stringent regulation by the Administration.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 811

Today, I have heard a number of Members from the pro-establishment camp emphasizing time and again in their speeches that contents on the Internet are biased, undesirable, and may even affect people's state of mind, and they call for stepping up regulation. Certainly, I notice that in the course of this discussion, the Administration has indicated that it has no intention to further regulate the contents on the Internet. Yet, I do not know if Members from the pro-government camp are forewarning in their speeches the approach to be adopted in future to further restrict part of the core values of Hong Kong, that is, our freedom of speech.

Some people often say that freedom of speech is not unrestricted, yet this is a fundamental contradiction to the interest of the industry. Today, the Internet world brings intense competition to traditional broadcasting services. The core of competition lies in the ability of the Internet world to provide interesting content on a peer-to-peer basis. What does it mean? It means that every person can choose the content in which he or she is interested on the Internet, perhaps by circulating or sharing information with each other. More importantly, there is a wide variety of content on the Internet, and people can get what they want just like shopping in a department store. Against this background, how can the broadcasting and telecommunications legislation keep abreast of the times? Whether the direction to achieve this will be to further strengthen control or to remove hurdles and obstacles to genuinely enhance competition? I think it warrants serious consideration of the Secretary to decide where our objectives should be placed. As the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development in particular, I think his consideration should not be based on ideological control. He should instead think about ways to enable the broadcasting industry in Hong Kong to flourish and even mushroom once again, so that everyone can find a suitable arena for competition to give full play to their respective strengths.

There is a big difference between the Internet world today and that in the past, and that is the way to generate revenue …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WU Chi-wai, I have allowed you to state the various problems concerning the Internet, so please return to the subject on the Second Reading debate of the Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019.

812 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020

MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): President, I am returning to the subject …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): When other Members digress from the subject, I have also reminded them to return to the subject of this debate.

MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): Alright.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I allow you to state your point briefly, yet you have to return to the subject of this debate.

MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): I understand. I would like to focus on pointing out that the current proposal of the Government mainly involves relaxing cross-media ownership restrictions. When it comes to the relaxation of cross-media ownership restrictions, it will surely involve relaxing the restrictions on traditional broadcasting services providers. Yet, I merely want to point out that this relaxation is insufficient to enhance the operation of the traditional broadcasting service industry as a whole and increase the proportion of competition. The relaxation is insufficient to facilitate the industry to face squarely the present changes in the entire market. As I have pointed out repeatedly just now, the way services and contents are provided on the Internet today differs significantly from the way services are provided by traditional broadcasting services.

Another point which I want to raise is that if traditional broadcasting services are to be treasured and valued by the public, it is necessary to note that the SAR Government, the Legislative Council or the institutional framework of society also value the different content preferences of individuals. Yet, I have noticed that recently, there have been incidents such as the withdrawal of broadcasting contents by Now News and the suspension of the programme Headliner of Radio Television Hong Kong ("RTHK"), and even the renewal of appointment of RTHK reporters has become news. In fact, this reflects that some people in Hong Kong society look at broadcasting services from a different perspective. They are concerned about ways to control the choices of content made available to the public by service providers, and this is the crux of the problem.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 813

In respect of the present Bill, many discussions are focused on the whether there is an intrusion of red capital. In this connection, the relaxation will naturally make it easier for red capital desiring to control public opinion in Hong Kong to achieve this purpose. Yet, I agree with the analysis of some colleagues that the relaxation will not bring about fundamental changes. Indeed, all along, even without relaxation, they have their ways to control the television stations or the traditional broadcast media if they desire to do so. They may also control the editorial direction through hard or soft approaches with the control they have. I think this phenomenon is obvious and not uncommon at all.

In fact, there is a lot of self-censorship in the media today. As Mr MA Fung-kwok has just asked, in respect of competition in broadcasting services in Hong Kong and the Mainland, why has this led to booming development in the Mainland and a downhill trend in Hong Kong? Regarding the reason involved, Mr MA Fung-kwok has put forth a valid evidence that the Mainland is relaxing its control over the content provided by broadcasting services, leading to a boom in diversity in the broadcasting industry. Yet, the case in Hong Kong is just the opposite. We have to ask ourselves whether there is more or less room for broadcasting content in society today than there was before 1997. I am definitely referring to the traditional broadcasting services and the filming industry but not the Internet. In fact, this aptly reflects that broadcasting content is the basis on which the competitiveness of the industry is determined. The basis of competition in the broadcasting industry of Hong Kong is built on the freedom of speech and the freedom of expression in Hong Kong which is protected under the Basic Law. This special protection has enabled us to speak freely without worrying that certain content of broadcasting may violate the Hong Kong National Security Law at any time. Nonetheless, it seems that we often emphasize the need to be politically correct these days. Political correctness has stifled and limited the room for free expression in society as a whole.

President, the other part which I wish to point out is the Government's constant emphasis on removing hurdles and obstacles. According to our observations, more often than not, the Government has failed to grasp the opportune time and is lagging behind the times in addressing certain side issues and end-streams. This phenomenon is obvious in this Bill. When we see that even the licensing of HKTV is subject to political interference, are there any investors who are willing to stay in Hong Kong and take the risk of further 814 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 investment in the cross-media industry at a time when the market is shrinking? If they are unwilling to invest, who are they serving by removing hurdles and obstacles, and providing room for them to enter the cross-media industry and acquire ownership of such cross-media? What are the owners thinking behind the scene?

As we all know, in the Mainland under "one country", the most important thing is ideological restriction and control and the firm grip on the control of various broadcasting organizations must be gripped firmly. Today, we still have not seen the direct presence of party committee secretaries in broadcasting organizations. Yet, in reality, we have seen many persons-in-charge are already convinced and willingly forgetting that, as broadcasting service providers, they are not only market-oriented in nature but also have to bear a moral responsibility in broadcasting.

Finally, I have to reiterate that the content of traditional broadcasting services is subject to various restrictions and constraints. If these restrictions and constraints do not involve political censorship, then all practitioners may express their views in their own way according to the law. The most straightforward and simple example is the question raised by the RTHK reporter to the Deputy Director-General of the World Health Organization, and the content of which is very professional indeed …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WU Chi-wai, the subject under the present debate is not about RTHK but the licensing of television stations …

MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): I know and I am just citing an example. I will finish soon …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Please return to the subject of this debate. I remind Members that the Bill seeks to amend the Broadcasting Ordinance and the Telecommunications Ordinance in respect of the restrictions on cross-media ownership, eligibility of licence holders and foreign control with a view to facilitating the operation of the television and sound broadcasting industries and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 815 removing obsolete provisions. As Members have pointed out, the authorities have decided to maintain the practice of excluding Internet television and radio programme services from the regulation of the broadcasting licensing mechanism. Hence, I implore Members not to dwell on issues that are irrelevant to the Bill in their speeches later, in particular, they should not shift the subject to such issues as complaints lodged by certain people against RTHK. Please return to the subject of this debate.

MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): President, I have not shifted the subject. I am just stressing that the Government has placed considerable emphasis on removing hurdles and obstacles in this paper. Yet, the problems faced in the course of removing hurdles and obstacles are far greater than those which can be solved by mere relaxing the restrictions on cross-media ownership. One of the most important point is the importance attached by the Administration to the freedom of the press and the freedom of speech to which society is entitled. Such interference of freedom should in fact be professionally monitored and supervised internally instead of being dictated by the Administration. For we will handle the relevant issues according to our professional judgment on the basis of what needs to be handled and faced up to under the existing legislation. Yet, what we see is that the Administration has too many tricks up its sleeve, distorting the process to suit their own needs, but objectively it denies and dodges such accusations. I do not think such practice will help to improve the industry as a whole and provide a basis for further upgrading of the industry …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WU Chi-wai, please stop speaking immediately.

Mr Tony TSE, please speak.

(Mr Andrew WAN indicated his wish to raise a point of order)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Andrew WAN, what is your point of order?

816 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020

MR ANDREW WAN (in Cantonese): I request a headcount.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Andrew WAN has requested a headcount.

Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.

(While the summoning bell was ringing)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I have to remind Members once again that, as I have just said, the Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019 seeks to amend the Broadcasting Ordinance and the Telecommunications Ordinance, and does not involve other matters. If Members keep on digressing, I will direct them to return to the subject of this debate. If Members do not revert to this subject, I will direct them to stop speaking.

(A mobile phone rang inside the Chamber)

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

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

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Tony TSE, please speak.

MR TONY TSE (in Cantonese): President, I withdraw my request to speak.

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

(No Member indicated a wish to speak)

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 817

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): If not, I now call upon the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development to reply. Then, the debate will come to a close.

Secretary, please speak.

(Some Members thumped the desk)

SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, first of all, I have to thank the Chairman of the Bills Committee on Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019 ("the Bill"), Ms Elizabeth QUAT, as well as other members of the Bills Committee for providing a lot of valuable input during the scrutiny of the Bill and for their assistance which facilitated the smooth completion of the scrutiny of various proposed amendments.

With the blossoming of online media in recent years, the differences in regulatory arrangements between the traditional broadcasting industry and online media have become increasingly apparent. In May 2018, the Government completed a three-month public consultation on Review of Television and Sound Broadcasting Regulatory Regimes. Most stakeholders supported the relaxation of obsolete statutory requirements and the rationalization of some regulatory arrangements for the operation of online media and the traditional broadcasters. The Bill has also taken into consideration the views of the stakeholders and implemented the relevant proposals to remove obstacles for the traditional broadcasting industry in a timely manner, with a view to facilitating the development of the industry.

The Government introduced the Bill to the Legislative Council for Second Reading on 27 March 2019. The Bills Committee subsequently held two meetings in April and May 2019 respectively and invited members of the industry to attend a public hearing to express their views. In the course of scrutiny, members of the Bill Committee and the industry expressed support for the Bill, and the Bills Committee accepted all the amendments proposed by the Government. In this connection, I thank members of the industry and Members for their participation which enabled the scrutiny work to be conducted smoothly.

Some Members said earlier that the Bill was outdated and that there had been delays over the years. The current term Government has, in less than two years from 2018 to 2019, tabled the Bill to the Legislative Council for Second Reading. In the meantime, we have not been standing still. We have adopted 818 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 various administrative measures, and through the revision of codes of practice, as mentioned by Members who spoke earlier, the administrative measures and operational conditions of the industry have been relaxed to bring greater convenience for its operation.

The Bill proposes three relaxation measures which are all technical in nature. The objective is to revise the obsolete requirements by, among others, relaxing cross-media ownership restrictions, relaxing foreign control restrictions and removing the requirement of a licensee being a non-subsidiary company.

Firstly, with regard to cross-media ownership restrictions, the Bill proposes to amend the Broadcasting Ordinance (Cap. 562) and Part 3A of the Telecommunications Ordinance (Cap. 106) by removing obsolete categories from the definition of "disqualified persons" and duly narrowing the scope of "relative" under the definition of "associate" to immediate family members only, so as to bring the provisions more in line with the realistic circumstances and promote cross-sector synergy to achieve economy of scale, thereby enabling the industry to avail itself of positive development.

The second amendment is to relax restrictions on foreign control by slightly raising the threshold percentages of shareholding in a free TV licensee by non-Hong Kong residents requiring prior approval of the Communications Authority ("CA") from the present 2%, 6%, 10% and above to 5%, 10%, 15% and above under the Broadcasting Ordinance.

Most Members and stakeholders are concerned about whether this relaxation would make it easier for non-Hong Kong residents to increase their control in a free TV licensee. They are, therefore, worried about whether the licensee's programmes can cater for the local audience's interests, tastes and culture. In this connection, I wish to emphasize that under the Bill, the regime for regulating foreign control will by and large remain unchanged to ensure that the control of broadcasters, including free TV broadcasters, will continue to be vested in local hands, thereby protecting the interests, tastes and culture of local audience. The fine-tuning proposed in the amendment is a minor modification in the light of past experiences in implementing the legislation, and allowing shareholding in a free TV licensee by non-Hong Kong residents subject to prior approval of CA will encourage investment and facilitate new equity injections into the free TV market. Therefore, the Bill has not proposed any major amendment to foreign control in local broadcasters.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 819

The third proposal concerns the removal of the existing requirement that a free TV or sound broadcasting licence shall not be granted to a subsidiary company. This will enable a licensee to raise funds for its business more easily and hence providing it with greater flexibility in operation and development.

Regarding the suggestions made during the public consultation and the scrutiny of the Bill, which include devolving the authority of approving free TV, pay TV and sound broadcasting licences from the Chief Executive in Council to CA, after careful consideration and studies, we are of the view that free TV, pay TV and sound broadcasting services have remained a most pervasive, influential industry and therefore, the current scrutiny system for licence applications should remain in force. Under the current system, licence applications and renewal applications have to be made to CA first and then CA will make recommendations to the Chief Executive in Council for the latter to make a final decision. We consider that the existing mechanism can best meet the present needs.

President, in view of the rapid development of the broadcasting market, it is necessary for us to update legislation and obsolete requirements at an appropriate time to keep pace with the development of the industry. I urge Members to pass the Bill expeditiously in order for these improvement measures to be implemented early.

President, I so submit. Thank you.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019 be read the Second time. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

Dr Fernando CHEUNG rose to claim a division.

820 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Fernando CHEUNG has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for five minutes.

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

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

Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Ms Elizabeth QUAT, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr Jimmy NG, Dr Junius HO, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan, Mr Kenneth LAU, Mr Vincent CHENG and Mr Tony TSE voted for the motion.

Mr James TO, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Mr Dennis KWOK, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Dr Helena WONG, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr Alvin YEUNG, Mr Andrew WAN, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Mr HUI Chi-fung, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr KWONG Chun-yu and Mr Jeremy TAM voted against the motion.

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

THE PRESIDENT announced that there were 51 Members present, 34 were in favour of the motion and 16 against it. Since the question was agreed by a majority of the Members present, he therefore declared that the motion was passed.

CLERK (in Cantonese): Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 821

Council became committee of the whole Council.

Consideration by Committee of the Whole Council

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): This Council now becomes committee of the whole Council to consider the Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019.

BROADCASTING AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS LEGISLATION (AMENDMENT) BILL 2019

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the following clauses stand part of the Bill.

CLERK (in Cantonese): Clauses 1 to 15.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, please speak.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Chairman, I speak against clauses 1 to 15 standing part of the Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019 ("the Bill"). As we all know, Hong Kong is currently faced with an extremely difficult situation where the fairness and impartiality of the press is deteriorating. In many ratings around the world, Hong Kong's press freedom and the public's trust in the press have dropped to the lowest point since the reunification. Just now, I noticed some Members from the pro-establishment camp saying that both the government-owned television station and the conglomerates, such as the current owners of licences for wireless television broadcasting, and even some network television stations, have to be controlled by a "visible hand". Therefore, if we let clauses 1 to 15 stand part of the Bill, it is tantamount to agreeing with the wrong direction currently taken by the Government. Why do I say so? We know that the biggest predicament facing Hong Kong now is how to enable all members of the public to get correct information and news reports without screening. However, what is happening now? Let us take a random television programme as an example. For example, the extremely popular television programme on Radio Television Hong Kong ("RTHK") …

822 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, let me remind you that this Council is now in committee …

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Alright, I will get back to the subject of this debate. I just want to quote an example.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Please focus your discussion on the clauses of the Bill instead of repeating the arguments already made during the Second Reading debate or commenting on the general merits of the Bill.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): I will not mention the arguments made in the Second Reading debate.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Please focus your speech on the content of the Bill.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Alright, Chairman, I did not speak in the Second Reading debate, so I will not repeat my own arguments.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): The Second Reading stage and the Committee stage are distinct from each other in terms of scope for debate. Just because you did not speak during the Second Reading debate does not mean that at the Committee stage you can …

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Alright, Chairman, no problem, I will speak in accordance with the Rules of Procedure.

Chairman, I repeat, I oppose to clauses 1 to 15 standing part of the Bill, which is tantamount to our support for the Bill to allow the Government to go in the wrong direction. Instead of propelling Hong Kong to a better position in terms of press freedom and fairness of the broadcasting laws, such a direction would only lead to retrogression in Hong Kong, as can be seen in many places. If we support the inclusion of clauses 1 to 15, it is tantamount to allowing the implementation in Hong Kong of legislation for a totalitarian, backward … government LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 823

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, please point out which clause of the Bill allows the existence of a totalitarian government in Hong Kong.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): I am commenting on clauses 1 to 15 as a whole.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): This Council is now in committee. If you do not return to the subject of this debate, I will stop you from speaking.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Chairman, I will get back to the subject of this debate. I am explaining my reasons for opposing the inclusion of the relevant clauses.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Please focus your speech on the content of the Bill.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Clauses 1 to 15 make it very clear that the first amendment to stand part of the Bill is related to television. We oppose to the inclusion of the first amendment, i.e. "Section 8 amended (to whom licence may be granted) Section 8―repeal subsection (3). It is very clear here that it refers to someone "to whom licence may be granted" rather than an ordinary person. The referents may be some owners of large consortia. Those "to whom licence may be granted" may have a lot of capital behind them. When we sometimes talk about red capital, blue capital and so on, we also refer to such persons "to whom licence may be granted". Therefore, allowing these people to be granted licence means that these people "to whom licence may be granted" are granted permission under the Broadcasting Ordinance to own licences no matter what background they have, or even if they control many different media organizations. This is unfair.

Some people have said that allowing those "to whom licence may be granted" to have cross-media ownership means that they can exercise control across media, including the print media, newspapers and so on, which have been mentioned prior to the amendment of the Broadcasting Ordinance. The current practice is one that leaves those "to whom licence may be granted" virtually free of restrictions.

824 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020

Under the present circumstances, when we discuss the Broadcasting Ordinance, in particular the practice of wireless television broadcasting, we all know that it requires a huge amount of capital to operate. As we can see, if the Ordinance is amended to include the new provisions, some people with ulterior motives―by "people with ulterior motives", I mean those "to whom licence may be granted" and who do not really want to improve wireless television broadcasting in Hong Kong―will be specially allowed to have cross-media capability. This is the reason why we are in dire need to reject it. Rejecting the inclusion of clauses 1 to 15 is, to me, tantamount to putting wrongs to rights, because it is both dangerous and unacceptable for the Government to, by means of the current amendment, allow a person who is originally disqualified under the current legislation to become a qualified person.

Chairman, this situation is equivalent to what we call a "chicken coop without a flap", where unparalleled preferential treatment is given to these people "to whom licence may be granted". Frankly speaking, regardless of the annual loss, whether it be $1 billion, $800 million or whatever, it is still necessary to …

(Mr Andrew WAN indicated his wish to raise a point of order)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Andrew WAN, what is your point of order?

MR ANDREW WAN (in Cantonese): I request a headcount.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Andrew WAN has requested a headcount.

Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.

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

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, please continue with your speech.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 825

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): In my speech just now, I expressed my opposition to the inclusion, particularly of "Section 8 amended (to whom licence may be granted)". As we all know, in today's Hong Kong, these people "to whom licence may be granted" are not the general public. At a closer look, it is not difficult for us to find that many of those who have validly obtained majority shareholder status to own these licenses are Mainland businessmen, who have multiple identities and investments in Hong Kong, and are owners of multiple cross-media licences.

Allowing the inclusion of "Section 8 amended …

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

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, do you have your mobile phone around you?

(Dr KWOK Ka-ki moved his mobile phone away)

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Excuse me, Chairman. Allowing the inclusion of "Section 8 amended (to whom licence may be granted)", a wholesale change, is one of the most pernicious aspects of the Bill. As the amendment to section 8 will expand the status of those "to whom licence may be granted", which seems inappropriate and disproportionate to me, I oppose its inclusion.

If today we do not oppose this situation, particularly the amendment to section 8, some day when we look back at the amended Broadcasting Ordinance, we will find that many major plutocrats, whether they have a red or blue background, have more influence than they did before the amendment.

Ms Elizabeth QUAT said just now that online stations should also be regulated. In other words, if we allow the inclusion of this amendment concerning persons "to whom licence may be granted", what will happen in future is that the faces of these persons "to whom licence may be granted" will already be completely different from what we see now. These people, such as Mr LAI of TVB and Mr CHIU of Cable TV, are all known to us. Of course, it is difficult for us to guess the motives behind the licensees and why they have to hold on to these licences even though they are suffering heavy losses, but if we allow these people "to whom licence may be granted" to have dual, or even multiple identities, there are indeed underlying causes for concern. 826 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020

Allowing the inclusion, especially of the amendment to section 8, is tantamount to allowing the Bill to go against the public interest, as if releasing a tiger back into the mountain. It is tantamount to us allowing these cross-media people―licensees―to wield unparalleled influence, which has got me seriously worried.

When we see that RTHK, the public radio station, among others, is being mercilessly suppressed, many …

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, you are repeating your argument and has strayed from the subject.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Chairman, I am speaking on clause 8 of the Bill. I will also speak on the amendments made by several other clauses.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): If you continue to repeat your argument, I will stop you from speaking.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Alright, Chairman, I will not repeat my argument.

Apart from speaking on clause 8, I would also like to discuss the amendment to Schedule 9, which is part of this inclusion. We can see that Schedule 9 is also moving in this direction, allowing ample flexibility―unnecessarily in some aspects―so that, in future, holders of these licences can have greater power under Schedule 9 to control different media, especially television and radio stations, etc.

I cannot allow this inclusion. Another reason for my opposition to the inclusion is that the amendment to Schedule 9 has great implications. I do not know if the Secretary can put forward new ideas in his response. If this inclusion is fortunate enough to be rejected, I hope that the Government will ruminate anew on the matter.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 827

As we all know, the circumstances were different from now when the Bill was first introduced. Hong Kong is no longer the same after experiencing the "extradition to China bill" and being put under the National Security Law for Hong Kong. At this critical juncture today when, as we all know, the investment environment in Hong Kong is mired in difficulties, should the Government―I know that the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau is responsible for this amendment―not ponder how to convince other investors to still trust Hong Kong's system, including the openness of information, freedom of the press and soundness of the legal system …

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki, I am warning you for the last time. If you continue to repeat your argument, I will stop you from speaking.

DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): Alright, Chairman, I will not repeat my arguments. I will continue to speak on the relevant clauses. I just wish to explain why I oppose the inclusion of the amendment to Schedule 9. Lastly, I have to mention here the risk of "Section 8 amended (to whom licence may be granted)". Chairman, although I was not in the Chamber at that time, I heard Secretary Edward YAU elaborate on the arguments for amending section 8 in his opening speech. I do not agree with his arguments.

Up to now, we still do not agree to opening a gap for those "to whom licence may be granted", because we are already on the ropes. The room for survival of the broadcasting industries (e.g. radio), independent reporting by journalists and the public's right to information will all be further restrained after the amendment of the Broadcasting Ordinance, especially after the amendment of section 8.

Once again, I sincerely implore Members in this Chamber to join hands in opposition to this inclusion because our agreement to it is tantamount to, as I said just now, conniving at the Government's creation of a lot of grey areas on the pretext of amending the Broadcasting Ordinance, which will leave many people, particularly those "to whom licence may be granted", free of restrictions to do whatever they want with their money, regardless of the source of funding, and let them take control of Hong Kong's dwindling broadcasting industries, particularly several free television stations.

828 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020

I do not know if the Government will accept my views. I hope that those Honourable colleagues who are going to speak will continue to join us in opposing this inclusion, so that the Government can get back on the right track. Instead of stifling the broadcasting industries in Hong Kong, it should set the right direction for their development. It should not let plutocrats take control of Hong Kong's dwindling broadcasting industries. (The buzzer sounded)

I so submit.

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

Mr Andrew WAN, please speak.

(Mr Kenneth LEUNG indicated his wish to raise a point of order)

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Kenneth LEUNG, what is your point of order?

MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Cantonese): I request a headcount.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Kenneth LEUNG has requested a headcount.

Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.

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

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): As regards the scope of deliberation of the committee of the whole Council, I would ask Members to note that according to the Rules of Procedure, at the Committee stage, Members should neither debate again the principles of the bill nor repeat the arguments already mentioned in the Second Reading debate.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 829

At the Committee stage, Members should focus their discussion on whether to support the clauses concerned (i.e. clauses 1 to 15) standing part of the Bill. The general merits and demerits of the Bill should have been discussed during the Second Reading debate and not be considered at the Committee stage. Members should make the best use of time.

Mr Andrew WAN, please speak.

MR ANDREW WAN (in Cantonese): I thank Chairman for reminding me, and I will try my best to follow your advice. However, when I raise my opposition, there is always a reason. I may briefly mention the reason and try not to go into details, which I will only elaborate during the Third Reading.

Chairman, I speak to express my views towards the question of clauses 1 to 15 standing part of the Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019 ("the Bill"), and I am against it. I agree with the spirit just mentioned by Dr KWOK Ka-ki, which is the reason for our opposition to those clauses standing part of the Bill. In fact, our opposition at this stage is part of our entire opposition procedure. Since we were unable to raise our opposition at the first stage, we hope that at this stage with the question of certain clauses standing part of the Bill, we can express our opposition and expound the reason of our opposition. At this stage, if we are lucky enough to succeed in our opposition―which sounds like a tall tale though―we hope that the Government will have a chance to consider whether there are any technical problems or minor problem with particulars in certain provisions under our discussion which render the legislative proposals unjustifiable, or whether there are any technical loopholes in certain provisions which render them incompatible.

Chairman, concerning the amendments, including clauses 1 to 15 mentioned earlier, the long title confines the scope of the Bill and clause 1 sets out the short title. I am not going to mention the contents of other clauses. There are a few main points in my discussion and one of them is clause 5. Chairman, clause 5 amends Schedule 1 to the Broadcasting Ordinance. It contains three main parts which are also the most controversial parts in this amendment exercise. According to the Legislative Council Brief, firstly, it is to "remove the restriction that the following persons may not become the holder of a domestic free or pay television programme service licence or exercise control of the holder of the licence". The following are the few categories: a non-domestic television programme service licensee, an other licensable television programme 830 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 service licensee, an advertising agency, and a proprietor of local newspaper. In brief, it aims to relax certain cross-media ownership restrictions. In paragraphs 6 to 18 of the Legislative Council Brief, the Government explains its amendments to clauses 1 to 15, but I beg to disagree with it.

Secondly, it is to revise the definition of "relative" so as to narrow the scope of "associate" in that Schedule. And thirdly, it is to adjust the limits of voting control held by unqualified voting controllers in a domestic free television programme service licensee that are subject to prior approval of the Communications Authority. In short, as regards the second point, the paper has also mentioned avoiding monopolization by any familial group. The third point is about ownership restrictions, and it mentions the adjustment of such percentages as 2%, 6% and 10%. In regard to these provisions, the Government certainly needs to explain why it has to make such amendments. An explanation is given in paragraphs 6 to 18 of the Legislative Council Brief, but since certain arguments are contradictory, I think it is necessary for me to raise opposition at this stage.

Chairman, paragraph 6 of the Legislative Council Brief is about cross-media ownership restrictions and the scope of "disqualified persons" under the legislative proposals. It mentions "the policy objective of cross-media ownership restrictions". What is it? We need to be careful. It is "to promote competition" and forestall "concentration of media ownership and control … across different media platforms". Chairman, this is the legislative intent which is also known to the Government, and I have to highlight how contradictory the Government is. The policy objective is also "to encourage plurality of views and programming diversity by forestalling … conflict of interest and editorial uniformity" …

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Andrew WAN, your present argument should have been raised during the Second Reading debate. Please return to the subject of the Committee stage and speak on the provisions of the Bill.

MR ANDREW WAN (in Cantonese): Chairman, I am speaking on the question of certain clauses standing part of the Bill, and explaining the original intent of the amendments. I am not talking about my views. Am I also not allowed to mention the Government's views?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 831

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): This Council is currently not discussing the legislative intent but the provisions of the Bill. Please return to the subject of the Committee stage.

MR ANDREW WAN (in Cantonese): All right, Chairman, I am not going to give a lengthy explanation, but only a slight touch of it. I accept Chairman's advice. As stated very clearly in the paper, the original objective is to promote competition as well as to encourage programming diversity by forestalling monopolization and concentration of media ownership and control, and editorial uniformity across different media platforms. However, I find it very weird, Chairman. As I just mentioned, the first part of clause 5 is about cross-media ownership. But it is laughable that according to the Government, non-domestic television licensees mostly provide satellite television services which do not primarily target Hong Kong, and thus they would neither influence the editorial views nor affect the income of Hong Kong programmes. I find it very strange, Chairman, as it does not make sense. Under the current trend of globalization, frankly speaking, the information accessible to us is actually different from what he now describes. Besides―I may digress slightly, but only for one sentence―a number of colleagues also mentioned the issue of red capital earlier on. We are all cognisant of the situation of Hong Kong. How can it not be affected? Therefore, this argument is not valid―I am now responding to the content of the paper―the argument stated in the paper is not cogent.

Chairman, moreover, concerning "proprietor of a local newspaper", it is stated in the paper that "the concern over the possibility of the news and broadcasting media joining forces, rendering them disproportionately influential, and powerful enough to dominate public opinions may not be borne out by the circumstances today." This has in a way changed the original policy objective of promoting competition as well as forestalling editorial uniformity. Why does the Government say so in the paper? Because given the existence of a large number of alternative information sources, it is rather unlikely that an alliance of broadcasting licensees and newspapers could dominate public opinions.

Chairman, this point of view is definitely wrong. The platforms that we are talking about or the platforms in the paper are licensed platforms. Licensed platforms and non-licensed platforms are not mutually exclusive. If a platform licensee has the capability to monopolize cross-media platforms, his influence will be overwhelming. And at the same time, non-licensed platforms can also 832 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 participate. Does Television Broadcasts Limited ("TVB") not have a channel called "See See TVB"? Chairman, the English spelling of this word "See" is S-E-E, and this title is given by TVB itself. As TVB has so many channels, its influence will be greater. Hence, why would the Government have such a line of reasoning?

Chairman, if parts one to three of the amendments in clause 5 of the Bill are carried, the situation will be very serious. As I just explained, this policy objective of the Government goes against its original objective of forestalling monopolization of media, and its analysis and arguments are in a complete mess, basically not sensible at all. If broadcasting licensees can join together to form an alliance and become a single super cross-media owner, why can it not be influential and powerful enough to dominate public opinions? I thus find it very queer. If this was written by government officials, they should even be criticized more severely as this is tantamount to slapping the persons-in-charge in Beijing in the face, who have spent so much money but in vain, eventually unable to achieve what they want.

Chairman, coming back to the second part of clause 5, the provisions concerned are also very terrifying. We have already witnessed the saga of Asia Television Limited ("ATV"), an actual example. The licensee of ATV was not Mr WONG Ching, who was actually the major shareholder. When he was leading ATV, he even danced in front of the camera. Why was it so strange that a non-Hong Kong resident could have the control over ATV? It turns out that Mr WONG Ching is a distant relative of Mr WONG Ben-koon, whose wife is Ms SHING Shing-wai, also a distant relative of Mr WONG Ching. They could do so because she was holding 52.41% of the shares at that time. This is an actual example. It is surprising that the Government would put forward this amendment in respect of the second part of clause 5, to the effect that the definition of "relative" will be limited to immediate family members only. This will provide an enormous legal loophole for the coming up of these examples of malevolence. Chairman, this surely is an example of malevolence, right? Back then when such a serious broadcaster farce happened, the Government also found it regrettable and expressed its dissatisfaction, saying that the incident was not properly handled. Why has it not learnt from the experience? How could the Government retrograde by further amending the Ordinance so as to relax the restrictions? If more people are given the permission, it will be impossible to stop them in future.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 833

I am not going to quote other examples similar to TVB's lest Chairman would say that I am digressing, but there are really a lot of such examples. Hence, I would like to point out that if at this stage, we fail to prevent clause 5 from standing part of the Bill, so that the Bill can continue to proceed to Third Reading and be even passed, there will be dire consequences.

Finally, Chairman, concerning the power of control―let me first take a look, as there is a lot of information in the paper―it is related to the third part of clause 5. The amendment is to "adjust the limits of voting control held by unqualified voting controllers in a domestic free television programme service licensee that are subject to prior approval of the Communications Authority". In fact, this can be called "removing barriers" if nicely put. Nevertheless, in my view, this is not genuinely removing barriers but is, on the contrary, diverting the established legal restrictions towards the original legislative intent of the Ordinance: forestalling editorial uniformity and monopolization, encouraging plurality instead of uniformity of views. At present, it seems to be facilitating the infiltration of red capital into the media of Hong Kong. Under the new ecology, is that the genuine objective of the Government? In other words, it is actually removing barriers for certain people but not for other people.

Under the current political environment and atmosphere, will there be capital with genuine competitiveness coming to Hong Kong from the rest of the world? Who will eventually be served by this exercise to remove barriers? Is the measure implemented for the sake of political objectives? At the end, instead of trying to genuinely remove barriers, will the risk of monopolization be increased, leading to further uniformity in the field and less healthy competition?

Chairman, in respect of the three parts' amendments in clause 5 to the Schedule of the Ordinance, I speak to express my disagreement. Therefore, I object to clause 5 standing part of the Bill.

I so submit. Thank you, Chairman.

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Honourable Members, I have already reminded Members at the last meeting that deliberation of bills is not the only function and duty of this Council. Given the limited meeting time of this Council, the committee of the whole Council, which is different from the Bills Committee, cannot spend a lot of time deliberating individual clauses of the Bill.

834 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020

As President of the Legislative Council, I am constitutionally obliged to ensure that this Council will finish its deliberation work within a reasonable time frame. Members also have the obligation to make optimal use of the meeting time and deliver speeches in a focused and concise manner.

I will invite the Public Officer to speak before 5:00 pm, and then the question that the clauses read by the Clerk stand part of the Bill would be put to vote. Members who wish to speak should press the "Request to speak" button as soon as possible and speak in a concise manner.

Mr Jeremy TAM, please speak.

MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): Chairman, some Members have already stated just now that they mainly wished to discuss the definitions prescribed in clause 5 of the Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019 ("the Bill"), but I consider the use of some words requires deliberating, and it may be necessary for us to have some discussions on the inclusion of this clause.

The Bill proposes to amend the definition of "relative", which originally has a very wide coverage including (paternal or maternal) aunt (covering aunt-in-law whom I do not even know how to address in Chinese); moreover, (paternal or maternal) uncle (covering again uncle-in-law); cousin; niece and nephew; (paternal or maternal) grandmother and grandfather; sister-in-law and brother-in-law; mother-in-law and father-in-law; and daughter-in-law and son-in-law. However, these will be removed from the definition of "relative".

First of all, from a logical point of view, have the authorities made reference to other ordinances to ascertain whether similar provisions are formulated correspondingly for the scope of definition of "relative"? There are many ordinances in Hong Kong, and there may be a large number of legal provisions containing the definition of "relative", but has a consistent approach been adopted in providing for the scope of this definition? This is the first point I would like to raise.

Secondly, it seems quite reasonable to replace the original definition with the proposed one, which limits the coverage of "relative" to immediate family members. So, what is meant by "immediate family members"? It is stipulated LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 835 in the clause that the term includes a spouse or a parent of an individual, and this should pose no problem. Moreover, the term also covers a child, an adopted child and a stepchild as well as a brother or sister of an individual. It seems that the provisions fit the definition of "immediate family members", but on second thoughts, I consider them not quite reasonable. Why do I say so?

I would particularly like to talk about the issue of adopted children and stepchildren. Adopted children were not born to their adoptive parents, and they were adopted when they were orphans or due to certain reasons. As for stepchildren, they were born to one of their parents and his/her former spouse, and there should also be no problem with their inclusion in the definition, but there is something tricky about brothers or sisters. Should brothers or sisters not related by blood or related by half blood be included?

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr TAM, these are points within the scope of discussion of the Bills Committee. Please return to the subject of the debate at the Committee stage of the whole Council.

MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): Thank you Chairman for your reminder, but I am speaking on the inclusion of clause 5, which contains the definition of "relative", and this exactly is the reason why I do not support the inclusion of the clause. I am trying to explain my viewpoints in this respect, so please give me some more time to elaborate because I am after all speaking on clause 5.

Why do I raise objection? If adopted children and stepchildren can be accepted as immediate family members, there is no reason why brothers or sisters who fall into the category mentioned just now cannot be accepted as the same. It is because stepbrothers or stepsisters, be they brothers or sisters having the same father but different mothers or vice versa, should actually be regarded as siblings too and be included as immediate family members. However, this has not been specified in the proposed provision.

We should not forget that there is another possibility in which the father or mother or both parents of an heir die early, thus making it necessary to have his/her immediate family line traced back to the previous generation, i.e. his/her grandparents. Under such circumstances, the grandchild concerned may have to depend on his/her grandparents since childhood, and although this is by no means 836 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 a form of adoptive relationship, the grandparents are guardians of the child and their relationship is even closer than that between an adopted child and his/her adoptive parents.

Should there be such an unfortunate case in which both parents of a child passed away, under the proposed definition, his/her grandparents would not be very definitely or genuinely accepted as immediate relatives. Some may think that paternal or maternal grandparents should not be regarded as immediate relatives, and it is therefore proposed to remove them from the relevant definition. However, consideration has not been given to the aforementioned situation where a child has been taken care of by his/her grandparents since childhood, and their relationship is even closer than that between stepchildren and stepparents. I therefore consider that the current legislative proposal has failed to take this point into account.

I hope the Secretary can correct me if I am wrong and clarify that the problems with stepbrothers and stepsisters have been resolved in the definitions for brothers and sisters in other ordinances, I will then have no more to say. Nevertheless, the other problem mentioned just now has still not been resolved, because should there be an unfortunate case in which both parents of a child passed away and he/she had been taken care of by his/her grandparents since childhood, how come it was not possible to include such a relationship which is actually as close as that between stepchildren and stepparents? This is the first point I would like to raise about the Bill.

The second point is about the proposal to repeal sections 6 and 7 of Schedule 1, and what does this mean? It involves some proposed changes to the percentages prescribed, and to be precise, the proposed deletion of a series of … I am sorry, Chairman, I need some time to find out that page as there is too much information. In short, the part proposed to be repealed is "2% or more but less than 6%, or 6% or more but not more than 10%, or more than 10%,". Simply put, three progressive percentages of 2%, 6% and 10% are adopted in the original provisions, but the Government now proposes to replace them with "5% or more but less than 10%, or 10% or more but not more than 15%, or more than 15%,".

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

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 837

This is just a mathematical problem. According to the progressive percentages previously prescribed, the rate of 2% should first be raised by three times to 6%, and then be further increased about 70% to 10%. It seems that this can also be interpreted as adopting a cumulative percentage of 4% to effect an increase from 2% to 6%, and then further from 6% to 10%. However, by amending these progressive percentages to 5%, 10% and 15%, the rate of 10% is proportionally speaking two times of 5%, while an increase by 50% is effected when the rate of 10% is raised further to 15%. In that case, can a continuity be maintained with the adoption of the amended progressive percentages so as to achieve more or less the effect comparable to that under the three previous progressive percentages of 2%, 6% and 10%? It seems that the answer is in the negative, but the authorities have offered no explanation, and this is at least my impression.

Why exactly should the percentages be amended to 5%, 10% and 15%? If the Bureau considers it necessary to adopt the rate of 4% as a unit to effect a cumulative increase, the prescribed percentage of 5% at the first level should be increased by 4% to 9%, which should then be increased by 4% again to 13% at the highest level. By doing so, the logic of adopting the rate of 4% as a unit to effect a cumulative increase at each level can be duly reflected, but this is not the approach adopted in the proposed provisions. Under the amendments proposed to section 22(1)(e) of Schedule 1, the Government has even suggested repealing "2%" and substituting with "5%". An increase from 2% to 5% represents an upward adjustment by 1.5 times, but this is not the case when the rate of 6% at the second level is amended to 10%, and the increase is even more than doubled when the rate of 6% is raised to 15%. I am therefore not quite sure about the logic behind the determination of these progressive percentages.

In fact, we all consider that when it comes to the Bill as a whole, efforts should be made to minimize the impact brought about by homogeneity or monopolization of consortia, and this is also a point illustrated in paragraph 10 of the Legislative Council Brief. There is a sentence in the paragraph which reads: "Hong Kong's broadcasting market is highly competitive", but I simply cannot agree with this because as we all know, what kind of fierce competition do we really have in this market? When the market is after all dominated by only one major television station, where is the fierce competition? I hope the Bureau would not crack a joke by telling us that the Asia Television Limited has strong competitiveness.

838 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020

As for the remarks which go, "monopolisation by any familial or business group of any segment of the sector that would undermine editorial plurality nowadays is rather improbable", I wonder if the Bureau has got it wrong when it considers that monopolization of the market is improbable nowadays. According to advertisements frequently aired by the Television Broadcast Limited ("TVB"), TVB is still boasting today that it has the highest market share, and is this not market monopolization? As for the possibility to "undermine editorial plurality", I think even without monopolization of consortia, it is a blatant fact that editorial plurality has already been undermined.

Mr IP Kin-yuen has merely said a few words about the candidate for appointment as Vice-President and Pro-Vice-Chancellor of the University of Hong Kong, and sought clarification from the University about whether the candidate is a member of both the Chinese Communist Party and a party committee, but why did Now TV have to withdraw a news report about this after it had aired it? What has actually gone wrong? He had found something wrong and raised his queries about the matter, which was covered in a news report. It turned out that reporting a piece of news like this could be regarded as a crime today. No one said that this was a piece of fake news, and Mr IP Kin-yuen had made no fabricated statement. He only asked for an explanation from the University of Hong Kong, which indeed had subsequently made a clarification, but the media organization concerned chose to withdraw the news report.

Let us not go too far and focus more on our discussion. The problem with the market now has little to do with familial relations and more to do with red capital, which has made it no longer possible to express views or report news from a diversified perspective. In a nutshell, a news report must be withdrawn as long as its contents have deviated from the policy of "our great Party" or the usual practice of the Government. Has the new Head of the News Department of Now TV managed to join the television station because of familial relations? It certainly has nothing to do with this. He himself is not a licensee or director, and it should therefore have nothing to do with this either.

The Government has also mentioned something about foreign control restrictions in the Legislative Council Brief, and pointed out that these are needed to ensure "continuous control and management of … pay TV and sound broadcasting licensees to be held by local individuals or companies who/which should be in the best position to cater for local interest, taste and culture". LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 839

However, a problem arises here and have these individuals or companies still striven "to cater for local interest"? I do not think so, and it seems that they have only catered for the interest of Beijing rather than local viewers or listeners. Regarding taste and culture, as we can all see, so many Mainland terms and expressions have been used nowadays to describe various things and matters, and the use of the Chinese term "素質" instead of "質素" to refer to "quality" is just one example often mentioned by Ms Claudia MO.

(Ms Claudia MO cited the Chinese expression "方方面面" (meaning "in various aspects"))

Such expressions as "方方面面" have never been in use in the past, and what is "方方面面"? Is it a new brand of cup noodles? No one knows what exactly is meant by " 方方面面", and why is it necessary to use word reduplication? Should we follow the practice of naming pandas as "Ying Ying" and "Le Le" to adopt reduplication of Chinese characters in everything we say? If so, should we address the Deputy Chairman as "慧慧" or "琼琼" since her Chinese name is "慧琼"? These sudden changes have definitely altered the taste of Hong Kong people, and yet the authorities still shamelessly say that they would strive to cater for local taste and culture.

I therefore object to the inclusion of clauses 1 to 15 in the Bill, because based on the reasons mentioned above, I first of all think that a more suitable scope should be provided for the definition of "relative". Secondly, the Bureau has failed to elaborate on the rationale for determining various percentages set out in the Bill. Thirdly, as mentioned earlier, television stations no longer cater for the taste and culture of Hong Kong people, but are seeking to eliminate local taste and culture.

I so submit.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): I would like to remind Members that the Chairman has already decided to invite public officers to speak at about 5:00 pm. As there are still several Members who have indicated their wish to speak in the current session, I would like to ask Members to focus their discussion on the specific details of the Bill, and whether they will support the question that the clauses just read out by the Clerk stand part of the Bill. I also wish to ask Members to be as brief and concise as possible when they speak, so that more Members will be given a chance to speak.

840 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020

MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, in this debate on whether we support the inclusion of all the clauses in the Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019 ("the Bill"), what I intend to discuss is mainly … First, I am not going to discuss the general merits of the Bill from the policy perspective. Nor am I going to discuss the specific details of each clause. I will only talk about why I support or oppose the inclusion of clauses 1 to 15 in the Bill. So, my discussion is neither from a micro nor a macro perspective, but somehow in-between.

(Mr HUI Chi-fung indicated his wish to raise a point of order)

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Kenneth LEUNG, please hold on. Mr HUI Chi-fung, what is your point of order?

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): I request a headcount.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr HUI Chi-fung has requested a headcount.

Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.

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

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): A quorum is present in the Chamber. The meeting now continues.

Mr Kenneth LEUNG, please continue with your speech.

MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, as I mentioned just now, I am going to look at whether clauses 1 to 15 … I am going to discuss whether I support the inclusion of clauses 1 to 15 in the Bill, and I think the most LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 841 important point is that we have to see whether the amendments proposed in these 15 clauses will be conducive to the achievement of the relevant policy objective, i.e. promoting competition. I am not going to discuss these 15 clauses one by one, but instead dividing them into four main groups in my discussion. As I noted, a few Members are waiting for their turn to speak, so, Deputy Chairman, you can rest assured that I will not use up my speaking time.

In Schedule 1 … The first group of proposed amendments seeks to relax the restrictions against cross-media ownership. The specific recommendations include: removing the restriction that a non-domestic television programme service licensee; an other licensable television programme service licensee; an advertising agency; and a proprietor of local newspaper may not become the holder of a domestic free or pay television programme service licence or exercise control of the holder of the licence; and amending the definition of "relative". These are the amendments in the first group, but … Certainly, Deputy Chairman, I think the front part can achieve the policy objective related to the Bill, but―I will not talk about the definition of "relative" which Mr Jeremy TAM has touched upon in his speech again―I must point out that the definition of the term "relative" in the present amendment is actually too narrow. Also, I can say in response to a query raised by Mr Jeremy TAM that the definition of the term "relative" is not consistent among the legislative provisions in Hong Kong, and depends on the purpose of the ordinances concerned.

Now, the Bill seeks to amend the definition of "relative" as: "[I]n relation to an individual, means a spouse, parent, child, brother or sister of the individual, and for the purposes of this definition [including] an adopted child … and a stepchild". Members may think that this definition becomes more concise and clearer upon amendment, unlike the old definition which lists everyone in the extended family. But the problem is that this amended definition is too narrow. Had the authorities added two more words while drafting it, the definition of "relative" would have been widened. In fact, the wider the definition is, the easier the achievement of the objective of promoting competition will be. So, which two words should be added? Secretary, obviously, the authorities have not done so. If the spouses of the aforesaid group of relatives and their children (including stepchildren) are encompassed in the definition of "relative", the scope of the definition can already be a couple of times wider. Therefore, I have a little reservation about the first group of amendments.

842 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020

The second group of proposed amendments concerns section 20 of Schedule 1 to the Broadcasting Ordinance, and aims at relaxing the restriction against foreign control of domestic free television programme service licensee. The Bill proposes refining the limits of voting control held by an unqualified voting controller in a domestic free television programme service licensee that are subject to the approval of the Communications Authority from the original "2%, 6%, 10% and above" to "5%, 10%, 15% and above". Of course, I will not repeat Mr Jeremy TAM's point about the issue of raising the limits by some odd or inconsistent amounts. I am not going to talk about this. I just intend to say something about the definition of the term "voting controller". I am not sure whether the Secretary or the Under Secretary can provide me with a clear explanation about this point later in his reply. Deputy Chairman, please remind him of this.

A voting controller, as we call it, undoubtedly refers to a legal owner of the voting rights, and can also be a beneficiary who does not have legal ownership of the rights. Apart from these types of persons―just one more point―I am not sure whether the Ordinance originally covers what we call "shadow controller", i.e. the person whose voting instruction is binding on the legal controller. Deputy Chairman, this is not a new concept, but I am uncertain whether this point has been set out in clear terms in the Broadcasting Ordinance. It is the "shadow controller", rather than the legal controller or the beneficiary, who is the de facto controller. So, if the amendments here have not covered this point, I will oppose the inclusion of the clauses concerned in the Bill.

The third group of proposed amendments concerns amending section 8 of the Broadcasting Ordinance by removing the requirement that a domestic free television programme service licence must not be granted to or held by a company that is a subsidiary of a corporation. Regarding this amendment, I do not have much to dispute.

Deputy Chairman, the last point that I wish to point out is that overall speaking, I have a mixed opinion about the amendments proposed in these 15 clauses, but to conclude, I think that these amendments are inadequate. If the Government intends to promote competition, investment and innovation in the broadcasting industries, the market concerned has to be genuinely opened up. To achieve this, it is necessary to change the existing regime under which approval of licence applications is determined by the Chief Executive in Council, replacing it with a truly fair, transparent and publicly credible licensing authority LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 843 for vetting and approval of the relevant licence applications and renewal applications. This licensing authority cannot refuse to grant a licence based on any political consideration after it has conducted due diligence on the applications. Deputy Chairman, as you know, much controversy arose back then when the application for a domestic free TV licence by the Hong Kong Television Network Limited was rejected.

Regarding these amendments under clauses 1 to 15 of the Bill―surely some are good―on the whole, I do not think they can really achieve the objective of promoting competition. Despite strenuous efforts by the authorities in this respect, unfortunately, I cannot support the inclusion of clauses 1 to 15 in the Bill.

Deputy Chairman, I so submit. Thank you.

MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, I speak in opposition to the inclusion of clauses 1 to 15 in the Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019 ("the Bill"), and I wish to express my view and justification. Let us start from the structure and the drafting aspect of clauses 1 to 15. With reference from the government paper, clauses 1 to 15 reflect three major directions of the Bill, that is, to relax the restriction against cross-media ownership, relax the restriction against foreign control and remove the requirement that a licence holder must not be a subsidiary of a corporation. The rationale behind is clear.

If we look at the inclusion of clauses 1 to 15, clauses 3 and 6 seek to respectively repeal section 8(3) and Schedule 4 section 2 of the Broadcasting Ordinance regarding the restriction against a subsidiary. This is a major amendment of this legislative amendment exercise. Clause 5 of the Bill seeks to amend Schedule 1 of the Broadcasting Ordinance … I will not read out all the details … it is mainly about the four types of persons, including the proprietor of a local newspaper, who are disqualified from holding a free or pay television licence.

Next, clause 11(1) and clause 11(2) of the Bill seek to amend section 13A(1) of the Telecommunications Ordinance to relax the restriction against sound broadcasting, such as relaxing the restriction against advertising agents. Clause 12 of the Bill seeks to amend section 13F of the Telecommunications Ordinance, and the amendment concerns a corporation that 844 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 is a subsidiary, and this is interrelated to clauses 3 and 6 of the Bill. The remaining clauses basically make corresponding amendments, such as clauses 4, 7 and 8 of the Bill, and also clauses 10 and 13 are also making corresponding amendments. In principle, I will not oppose the above clauses which seek to make corresponding amendments. However, I will oppose, as a matter of principle, the amendments concerning three major aspects, including clauses 3, 5, 6, 11(1) and 11(2), and also clause 12 of the Bill.

First of all, I wish to explain the reason and I will start from clause 5 of the Bill. This is also my major argument. Clause 5 seeks to amend Schedule 1 of the Broadcasting Ordinance. At present, four types of persons are disqualified from holding a domestic free or pay television licence, and these include persons who exercise control of disqualified persons. However, this restriction will be removed under the amendment. In other words, these four types of persons will become qualified persons under the Broadcasting Ordinance.

The reason the Government has given for relaxing the restriction is very vague. It says that it wishes to promote competition and attract more investors. However, I wish to raise an argument. In allowing the inclusion of clause 5, has the Government considered that, apart from promoting competition and attracting more investors, this amendment will lead to a counterproductive outcome that is contrary to the policy intent, and thus clause 5 should not be included? The counterproductive outcome is that clause 5 will give domestic free or pay television licensees or disqualified persons, including advertising agents, a strong incentive for media and corporate merger and integration. Just now at the Second Reading debate, very few Members mentioned this point. My argument is that, Members think that removing these restrictions can remove the barriers … since many Members said that the Government wanted to remove the barriers through this amendment … but this will actually attract such media merger and integration.

Speaking from the perspective of the media ecology and from a journalistic point of view … maybe Miss MO, i.e. Ms Claudia MO will have a better understanding in this respect … this may not be a good thing. When we talk about corporate merger and media integration, it refers to different media organizations seeking to make more profits and increase viewership through acquisition. Does the inclusion of clause 5 mean that the proprietor of a local newspaper, for example, will be allowed to become a domestic free or paid television licensee?

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 845

Certainly, we know that under the existing mechanism in Hong Kong, we are subject to many restrictions. And when we talk about removing the barriers, we are not saying that we want to remove the restrictive provisions under Schedule 1 of the Broadcasting Ordinance. In other words, I am not talking about the restrictions which disqualify certain persons from becoming a licensee. The restrictions we are subject to are some political requirements. Hence, we do not think Jimmy LAI, the proprietor of a local newspaper, can successfully become a domestic free television licensee. Right? Even his business group or companies will not be allowed to do so as he is under Police investigation and has been prosecuted. And Ricky WONG … I do not want to promote him … but why was his application for a domestic free television licence unsuccessful? He was not an advertising agent, nor was he a non-domestic television licensee, or other licensable television licensee or the proprietor of a local newspaper. But his application was not approved.

I thus want to point out that the restrictions on them do not come from the present ordinance, but from the political scrutiny of the Government. The Government does not trust these people and the contents of their news reports … Deputy Chairman, I will not digress too much from the subject. I am talking about clause 5 which is proposed to be included as part of the Bill. This clause will allow newspaper agencies or non-domestic television corporations to integrate with existing domestic media corporations providing on free and pay television services. But the Government does not seem to have mentioned this in its policy or its paper. It only says that its objective is to attract foreign competition.

I wish to point out that the objective effect of clause 5 of the Bill is that it may lead to internal integration, acquisitions and mergers. Deputy Chairman, please remember that this is a very serious subject. Many scholars say that the integration and merger of media corporations hinge on whether the laws governing such activities allow them to do so. The Government's standpoint is thus very important. A scholar points out that only a totalitarian country would seek to amend its legislation on media ownership. This is almost the same as exercising direct or indirect control on information. So, when clause 5 stands part of the Bill, some media corporations specializing in other domains may merge with domestic free or pay television corporations and become a single company to operate businesses of a similar nature. A negative impact is oligopoly. I mean large companies may eliminate their commercial competitors 846 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 by acquiring small companies. Will this actually result in anti-competition effect rather than promoting competition? Is the inclusion of this clause in line with the original policy intent?

I believe that in its prior consultation or in our speeches made just now at the Second Reading debate, the Government has not come across anyone mentioning media credibility, which is an important factor in media integration and enterprise mergers and acquisitions. Media credibility is about how media can win credibility and people's faith. A media corporation that values its credibility will help fortify the media market against control by a company or individual in the process of integration or merger. Media credibility refers to a media corporation which is more than a company that makes profits or aims at profit maximization; it is also a company that has the responsibility to serve public interests, democratic values and procedures, etc. A role of the media is to act as resistance against bureaucracies and corrupt systems.

There is an English journalistic term call "clientelism" … Perhaps I should ask Miss MO whether I have pronounced it correctly. It refers to the relationship between the media and the political power and whether the media has become a servant for serving the execution of a certain power, to such an extent that political interests override the general public's interests and democratic values. This is very much an academic theory, but this precisely concerns what this clause, which will be included in the ordinance, is all about. For example, clause 5 of the Bill may incentivize media corporations to acquire, merge or integrate with enterprises, and this may in turn generate a negative outcome. And this outcome precisely runs contrary to one of the three original policy intents of the Government, which I mentioned in the beginning.

Moreover, I wish to talk about clauses 3 and 6 of the Bill. The clauses are about removing the restriction on companies' subsidiaries. Clause 11(1) and Clause 11(2) of the Bill are about the amendment to section 13A(1) of the Telecommunications Ordinance. Put simply, the clauses seek to restore the eligibility of subsidiaries for holding a domestic free or pay television licence. This will allow more small companies to join the competition. But like the argument I just mentioned, although these small companies will be allowed to join the media market, what are their parent companies? And how transparent are these companies? This concerns clauses 3, 6 and 12 of the Bill.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 847

As I have said just now, are these amendments promoting competition or integration, or do they result in anti-competition effect? If subsidiaries are allowed to enter the market to promote competition, but it is found that these companies lack transparency and have numerous interpersonal connections … certainly, the Bill sets out the restrictions on the persons exercising control of disqualified persons and the associates … but if it is found that the subsidiaries belong to the same corporation, consortium or enterprise, the increase in market players will only be notional rather than material. Is this in line with the original policy intent of the Bill? Or is it contrary to the policy intent? Or does the amendment only seek to cover up the anti-competition intent?

If the amendment ends up generating an anti-competition effect, people will feel that editorial plurality will be directly affected. This is the negative impact that will be generated if clauses 3, 6 and 12 are included. We do not want to see that the policy will create a situation in which the viewpoints, or editorial viewpoints, of domestic free televisions and those of cross-media platforms or subsidiaries reflect those held by the same corporation or media enterprise that is financially or politically connected with them.

A Member also mentioned a point just now, and I wish to briefly talk about it, and that is red capital. In the end, this is the same as allowing more subdivided Mainland companies or subsidiaries to enter the Hong Kong market to intensify competition … this will promote competition indeed. But such competition is among the media enterprises whose viewpoints are permitted or controlled by the Government or 100% under its grip. This will eliminate media enterprises that are dedicated, creative and want to promote pluralistic editorial viewpoints in Hong Kong in the hope of allowing positive competition among enterprises in the media market. The inclusion of these clauses will directly run contrary to the original policy intent stated in the document. And thus I cannot support the inclusion of these clauses.

I will end here. Thank you, Deputy Chairman.

MS CLAUDIA MO: I certainly have plenty of strong reservations and objections regarding clause 5 in particular. Now, clause 5, it says the aim basically is to remove the restriction that the following persons may not become the holder of a domestic free television ("TV") or pay TV licence, or exercise control of the 848 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 holder of the licence, that sort of legalese is very difficult to understand, because you read, you heard … I read, you heard, just now, it is double negative, remove the restriction of the following persons because they may not become something, it is quite painful, isn't it?

Okay, so, clause 5, this is a particular provision that says let's remove "advertising agency" from the list, from the disqualified persons list. This has seriously bothered me, because sometimes it called an agency―advertising agency; agency is definitely a firm, a company, a label, a sort of an object, right? A dead thing. But, sometimes it is called an "advertising agent". Normally speaking, agent and agency are … you know, they mean the same thing, but then, an agent could be a person, right? A person vis-à-vis a firm that is, and I hope they would be more careful with this sort of wording … what exactly do they mean, because this person or this company from … after the passage of this Bill, of course, this is going to be passed, our number of Beijing loyalists in this Chamber, right? They can apply for both free TV and pay TV licences, that is really an open door policy of sort.

We need to be extremely careful, because these days we can see China's Cultural Revolution tactics and duels have revived in Hong Kong―"Hong Kong 1984" style, the Police will welcome any of us to snitch on our friends and neighbours and colleagues.

Okay, to come back to clause 5, another curious thing is in English, it says the advertising agency or advertising agent, but in Chinese, on top of advertising, it does mention the word "宣傳", meaning "propaganda", I beg your pardon? This is quite not the same, right? Advertising agency equals in Chinese "廣告宣傳代理商", where does that "宣傳" come from? Or you mean "marketing", right? If you could be quite … I am not being nitpicking, I am not being frivolous or petty, this is very important. Advertising propaganda is one thing; political propaganda is very much something else, and don't you pretend they are all about the same, and you just look the other way.

Why are advertising agencies or agents very important? We are talking about … we have been talking about free press and free media in Hong Kong. Oh, free press, we have got this halo above our head …

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 849

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Ms Claudia MO, please come back to the specific question of this motion debate of the Bill. Please point out which provision are you discussing?

MS CLAUDIA MO: Pardon me? I am telling you why I object to the removal of this particular category called "advertising agency". Could you listen? Or do you fail to understand?

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Please continue with your speech.

MS CLAUDIA MO: This is ridiculous! Of course, I will continue. You are just making a fool of yourself.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Ms MO, I am duty bound to ensure that Members are making good use of the speaking time and focusing on the question in their speeches. Please continue.

MS CLAUDIA MO: Free press, the self-censorship is caused by two things, one is political suppression … never mind, I am not going into that, another thing is advertising revenue. Let's be honest, with our halo above the head, our media practitioners would still need advertising money to carry on that you think "Oh, I am supporting this newspaper, I pay … I do not know, 20 bucks to buy a newspaper, and I am supporting it." You could be actually making it bleed even further.

A journalistic operation definitely needs advertising money or it can go bye bye. Advertising revenue―a lifeline to its operations, and so we all know money talks and money has no conscience, right? You all agree money has no conscience. And so, advertising agencies or agents can now become the licensees, very curious, and if you do not have that advertising resources, you could be quite dead meat.

850 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020

Again, let's be honest, in journalism, people might think "Oh, we talk about the people's right to know and we protect the public interest and so on." But the ultimate goal, the ultimate function of a media label is to inform and to entertain. The word "entertain", many would think that would make it sound a bit low, no, it is not low; it is your duty, too. Your supposed function is to entertain the public, and so, I do not know, with this advertising business included in this clause 5, what are you trying to achieve? Why did you not just forget about this advertising thing? Why don't you just let―what they would say―sleeping dogs lie, just leave it, right?

And knowing this Government and the people who have all become very sort of Teflon-like, they are so slippery, but they talked and they claimed that they have replied to your questions, why did they bother about this particular advertising business? So, I could not help thinking that it is the money that is involved in this particular sector. And, I thought the Government could have told Hong Kong people: Let us all learn to detest online media, all social media, just the junk platforms for those people who are not just the self-important ones but who think they are truly great? And they pretend they lead some sort of life which they do not actually lead. Right? Never mind, social media. Your cell phone is just for making calls. Do not use it for Facebook or Twitter or anything. But no, they cannot because this is the universal trend.

All the amendments introduced under clause 5, you would say that they are all technical. And, as the Government keeps saying, "We want to make things … we want to loosen up things. We want to make both the pay and free TV market more competitive. We help to boost the influence that would help you." OK. But if that is the case, what are you going to balance out when it becomes obvious after this amendment is approved but they fail to do it? Because we are talking about the set-up of TV stations. We are not talking about something like they are trying to make a copy of Starbucks around the street corner. Right? We are talking about huge sums of money.

So, in clause 5, once again, this is a relative business. When it comes to relatives, you would make it quite clear, spouse, parent, sons, daughters, sister, brother. So, you are talking about blood relations that I understand. But, non-blood relations that are in the family are out of the question, right? Out of context? They are irrelevant. I assume my understanding is correct. You talk about blood related persons by your definition of relatives. So, in-laws are out or together? No in-laws, right? That is the meaning.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 851

So, if you have this sort of blood relationship, accommodation and that is all fine. But, I have been thinking what if somebody wants to have a family business of a TV station. And yet, he does not want it to be publicly known that the holder is a son or that is … a wife, whatever company is subsidiary of something. What if he wants to hide? Is this relative thing obviously does not include beneficiary of a trust? We are in the generation of trustee, trust babies. Parents would need to provide … never mind. I am talking about beneficiaries of certain assets or some heritage thing or estate and so on. They just want to hide it. What about that?

Now, they could be technically correct but morally very wrong. And, what if I send … and my advertising agent but I do not want him to be known as an advertising agent, somebody, my right-hand man, my lieutenant, complete with a political mission to do something propaganda. Remember the word "propaganda"? How would you know? I am not exaggerating or just introducing hyperbole. What if Ta Kung Pao (《大公報》) would want to set up a 大公電視台(Translation: Ta Kung Television)? Let us set up a Ta Kung TV Station in Hong Kong and they suddenly decided that―they are not suddenly, they would have thought about it first―may not be a very good idea to use the same name for the TV, same as the newspaper. Right? And this may hide their connections behind or they have loads of ways of doing that. Using that … never mind the relative thing now.

I am going back to the advertising agency business. So, there we are. And you would say, "Oh, we have very stringent, very responsible supervisory authorities that you worry." I have no accountancy training but you are supposed to be an accountant. You have that sort of training. You have heard that how people can put some numbers off the books or you actually have this term in your trade―cook the books, and they would not know.

But then, the rich in Hong Kong seems to think that the authorities here are rather gullible. They are gullible spongers and they could be simple and naive. I do not know. I mean, who is in whose pocket? Kind of revelations. I do not know.

I have asked a huge open-ended question. And they say, "Oh, you never ask a question that you do not know the answer to." But the answer does not hurt me. That is the exception. Because we have been dealt the cards and they are all over the table. We knew what we are facing. And, this is another little 852 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 tactic―if not trick by the Government to pretend to be opening up when they are actually going after uniformity and trying to silence the people with only very loud politically correct voice of their choices.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): The time limit of this session is up. I now call upon the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development to reply …

(Mr WU Chi-wai indicated his wish to request a headcount)

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr WU Chi-wai has requested a headcount.

Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.

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

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): A quorum is present in the Chamber. The meeting now continues.

Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development, please speak.

SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, Honourable Members. Just now …

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

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Secretary, please wait a minute. Dr Fernando CHEUNG, what is your point of order?

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, just now I have pressed the "Request to speak" button, but why am I denied the opportunity to speak? LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 853

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr CHEUNG and Members should know well that the Chairman has set down the time limit for this session at an earlier stage. That is, he would invite the Secretary to reply at about 5:00 pm. If Members had made better use of the time on the whole and made fewer requests to count the quorum, I believe more Members would have been able to speak. I believe that the Chairman of the committee of the whole Council has already taken into consideration the need to balance the speaking time of Members and the entire operation of the legislature. The Chairman's decision shall be final. Dr Fernando CHEUNG, please sit down. Secretary, please reply.

(Dr Fernando CHEUNG kept speaking aloud in his seat)

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr CHEUNG, this is not a debate session. What is your another point of order?

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): I only wish to raise a point of order. In my capacity as a representative of public opinions, I need to debate this issue here. Under Article 73(6) of the Basic Law, Members should exercise the power and function "to debate any issue concerning public interests". I have no idea about the provision in the Rules of Procedure under which the Chairman draws the line. This is my first question. My second question is, before he made this decision, four Members were ahead of me. It was virtually impossible for me to have adequate time to speak if each of them would speak for 15 minutes …

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr CHEUNG, you may communicate with the President of the Legislative Council after the meeting. Everyone should be aware of the fact that the President's decision shall be final. I have frequently reminded Members that every Member is duty bound to make good use of the time of the legislature. Just think about it, if we make fewer requests for a quorum call, more Members will be able to speak.

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): I consider that this is an abuse of power. You should not arbitrarily …

854 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Dr CHEUNG, I am not going to debate with you the President's decision, please sit down. Secretary, please reply.

SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): Deputy Chairman, just now I have made a comprehensive reply to Members' views during the Second Reading of the Bill. Moreover, I have listened to the speeches made by Members just now, but at the current stage I am unable to comprehend the specific connection between those views and the Bill at the present stage, which I have not addressed at the previous stage. Therefore, Deputy Chairman, I am unable to give any further reply. Thank you, Deputy Chairman.

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

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

Mr Jeremy TAM rose to claim a division.

DEPUTY CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Jeremy TAM has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for five minutes.

(While the division bell was ringing, THE CHAIRMAN resumed the Chair)

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

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 855

CHAIRMAN (in Cantonese): Mr Jeffrey LAM, are you going to cast your vote?

(Mr Jeffrey LAM cast his vote)

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

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Ms Elizabeth QUAT, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr Jimmy NG, Dr Junius HO, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Dr Pierre CHAN, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan, Mr Vincent CHENG and Mr Tony TSE voted for the motion.

Mr James TO, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Dennis KWOK, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Dr Helena WONG, Mr IP Kin-yuen, Mr Alvin YEUNG, Mr Andrew WAN, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Mr SHIU Ka-chun, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr KWONG Chun-yu and Mr Jeremy TAM voted against the motion.

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

THE CHAIRMAN announced that there were 54 Members present, 37 were in favour of the motion and 16 against it. Since the question was agreed by a majority of the Members present, he therefore declared that the motion was passed.

856 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): All the proceedings on the Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019 have been concluded in committee of the whole Council. Council now resumes.

Council then resumed.

SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, I now report to the Council: That: the

Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019 has been passed by committee of the whole Council without amendment. I move the motion that "This Council adopts the report".

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

In accordance with the Rules of Procedure, this motion shall be voted on without amendment or debate.

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

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

Mr Alvin YEUNG rose to claim a division.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 857

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

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

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

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

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

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

858 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020

THE PRESIDENT announced that there were 54 Members present, 37 were in favour of the motion and 16 against it. Since the question was agreed by a majority of the Members present, he therefore declared that the motion was passed.

Third Reading of Government Bill

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Government Bill: Third Reading.

BROADCASTING AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS LEGISLATION (AMENDMENT) BILL 2019

SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, I move that the

Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019 be read the Third time and do pass.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019 be read the Third time and do pass.

Does any Member wish to speak?

Mr KWONG Chun-yu, please speak.

MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese): President, we are now at the stage of Third Reading debate on the Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019 ("the Bill"). As you know, there are a lot of issues to discuss at this stage, right? At this juncture, I must, of course, tell Members that the Third Reading debate is to, with or without amendment, debate once again the Bill and vote on its final passage. At this point, we must talk about the spirit of the Bill. The way the Government puts it is really good―in the face of the burgeoning Internet media, the traditional broadcasting industry …

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 859

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr KWONG Chun-yu, the Third Reading debate aims to allow Members to state whether they, on the whole, support giving the Bill its Third Reading rather than repeat arguments already made during the Second Reading debate or consideration by a committee of the whole Council. Please revert to the question under debate.

MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese):"Brother Andrew", this is the way you treat me after I have spoken for only 32 seconds, even before I get down to the brass tacks. Well, which part of my speech do you think has digressed from the subject?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr KWONG Chun-yu, I only mean to remind Members of the scope of the Third Reading debate. Please revert to the question under debate.

MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese): I really want to … You see, President, I am speaking not to you but the Secretary, alright? I do not want you to interrupt me for no reason either …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr KWONG Chun-yu, when Members of the Legislative Council deliver speeches in a meeting, they have to present their views to the President and not the Secretary. Please revert to the question under debate.

MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese): You got it! That is to say … Now, do you intend to interrupt me every 30 seconds? I have not formally started my speech yet. Perhaps it will be better if you drink some water first, President? It is meaningless to go on like this.

Now that the Bill has entered the stage of Third Reading debate, and as Members have also engaged in the consideration of bills many times in the past, we certainly understand that we should speak on the overall merits of the clauses of the Bill during the Third Reading debate. Is this a difficult task? Not really. Let me tell you right now: I oppose the clauses as well as the Bill itself and will point out the problems therein.

860 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020

I have only told half of what I have to say just now. First, the Government said that it means to help the traditional broadcasting industry remove barriers and get out of restraints. This is really ironic, President. The Secretary―I have to face the President first and please remember to convey my views to the Secretary, whom I scolded face to face yesterday―the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development told us in his reply speech in respect of the Bill today that the Government wishes to let the traditional broadcasting industry have a greater role to play by amending the obsolete provisions in the relevant legislation. I am not going to repeat what went on during the previous stage (i.e. clauses 1 to 15 stood part of the Bill) because Members know that very well. However, I would like to point out what is wrong with the amendments introduced by the Bill explain why I oppose it. I am going to explain in detail now.

Just as what I said yesterday, the Secretary had bullied Radio Television Hong Kong ("RTHK"), bullied a female reporter and suppressed freedom of the press. Among the various amendments proposed by the Bill, the most important part lies in the amendment to section 20(1) of Schedule 1 to the Broadcasting Ordinance, which seeks to, by increasing the relevant percentages, adjust the caps on aggregate voting shares of voting control held by voting controllers. The Government stressed that the increased percentages would not have significant impacts but this is not the case in reality. We have plainly and directly pointed out at previous stages that upon adjustment of the relevant percentages by the Government, the red capital will be like pouring in and hitting straight in the heart―well, in the past, one could say that it was all because of the foreign investors, but it is no longer the case now. There are signs that first, the red capital is almost eroding the freedom of the press in Hong Kong little by little, and then there is a belligerent Secretary who seems to take every opportunity to "pick a fight", to find fault with RTHK first and then one of its female reporters.

In our opinion, President, after the Bill has gone through the procedures of consideration and moving of amendments at the previous stages and entered the stage of Third Reading, I need to point out the reasons for my objection to the Bill in general. First, the relevant Policy Bureau is now interfering with the staffing arrangement of RTHK, or it can be seen from other incidents―the Government is now amending the legislation, in particular with the plan to relax the restrictions on cross-media ownership and foreign control. What does this mean? If, like the situation in the past, when the industry was still flourishing, people might believe that there would be foreign investors to invest here and we LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 861 would have a shining future ahead. Yet, things are no longer the same and the Administration's legislative proposals are kind of much ado about almost nothing. Having failed to stay abreast with the times, they introduced these amendments all too late in the day.

Have there not been so many constraints (such as the National Security Law and the measures taken by the government led by Carrie LAM to suppress the freedom of the press), we might think that these proposed amendments would be quite fine, given the outdated legislation which should have been amended to relax the relevant restrictions. However, this is not the case in reality. I would like to point out that members of the public have the impression that many mainstream media in Hong Kong have turned "red". The annual report published in 2017 by the Hong Kong Journalists Association ("HKJA") in 2017 has adopted "Two Systems Under Siege" as its theme …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr KWONG Chun-yu, the Council is now debating the Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019 rather than a subject on the media. I will stop you from speaking if you do not revert to the question under debate.

MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese): President, please answer me then: What is section 20 of Schedule 1 to Cap. 562 of the Laws of Hong Kong all about? You accuse me of having digressed from the subject. Will you please tell me its contents then?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The Council is conducting the Third Reading debate right now.

MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese): I am commenting on the overall merits of the Bill. First of all, please answer me: What is section 20 of Schedule 1 all about? President Andrew LEUNG!

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The Council is conducting the Third Reading debate right now and I am reminding you to revert to the question under debate.

862 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020

MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese): Please do not interrupt my speech. Section 20 is precisely about voting control, see? I have spent several hours studying the provision but the President said that I have digressed. Buddy, you may say that I have gone off on a tangent about the question under debate―I would not have hit back at you had you reminded me gently, "Brother Andrew". Do not keep accusing me of going off the topic, Buddy, as I did have thought it through which was already written in my head. How dare you accuse me of going off the topic, you fool!

I go on with my speech, President. Just now, I have told the objective fact that, as we see, nine mainstream media firms became "red-tinted"―the remarks were made not by me but HKJA. Alright, let us revert to the crux of the matter. Now that the Administration is to adjust the relevant percentages through the Bill, and this is precisely the reason why I asked if you, "Brother Andrew", is aware of what section 20 of Schedule 1 to the Bill is all about.

Do you know how much the threshold percentages of total voting control by non-Hong Kong resident shareholders has been increased? The relevant percentages have just become a headache to many Members when they tried to mention those figures. Let me tell you, in respect of the percentages of voting control by foreign shareholders, we only need to bear in mind three items, namely "2%", "6%" and "10% and above", which will be raised to "5%", "10%" and "15% and above" respectively. Meanwhile, foreign capital can be red capital (capital from Mainland). This is tantamount to opening the door wide to facilitate inflow of capital from the Mainland. What can we say then? Is this very amendment not meant to open the door wide for red capital?

I have pricked up my ears since the beginning of the Second Reading debate on the Bill and the point is: What will happen upon adjustment of the threshold percentages of total voting control? There are plenty of examples to illustrate a particular instance in which the owner or news head of a media firm funded by Mainland capital may exercise control over the contents of news reports. For example, Bill CHAN, the news chief of Now TV, had once ordered the removal of certain remarks made by Mr IP Kin-yuen from the contents of news report. They were banned purely because he personally considered them to be inappropriate for reporting. Examples of the same kind are pretty common. Now, I would like to ask Members to think about whether the present situation will worsen once the percentages set out in section 20 of Schedule 1 are adjusted―well, I was speaking composedly at first.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 863

Simply put, I have to speak up for the media industry. Do Members think that the two are related? They certainly are. A change in the percentages of voting control means different bosses are in charge, and when the source of funding has changed, frontline employees will be subject to greater suppression. As we can see, this is the case with the news channel of Now TV and Cable TV as well. And so, how can we say that there is no connection between the two? Well, Buddy, two of the senior staff have left and three senior engineering personnel have been sacked. What happened in the end? Does this have nothing to do with voting control? Or does it have nothing to do with Cable TV's being controlled by red capital? Who would believe so?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr KWONG Chun-yu, please revert to the subject of the Third Reading debate.

MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese): Fine, I am reverting to the question under debate. Simply put, President, the entire media industry would have collapsed a long time ago, but thanks to the group of journalists and media workers of integrity who are resisting the red capital. Perhaps this is not what today's proposal of percentage adjustment was originally meant for. Adjusting the percentages of voting control by foreign shareholders―try not to test me as I have already learnt everything by heart―President, will such adjustment affect the freedom of press and editorial autonomy?

The changes proposed today are not just about voting control. I can tell you that I still have a lot more to say. Now, the crux lies in section 20 which I have just mentioned. Originally, the percentages of total voting control of 2% to 10% held by the unqualified voting controllers are subject to prior approval of the Communications Authority ("CA"). Yet, there will be no way out once the relevant percentages have changed.

In addition, the definition of "relative" will also be changed. I am not going to repeat what was said during the debate at the previous stage, but since the Bill has been debated by a committee of the whole Council, we have to debate the changes here and state the reasons for my opposition. Of course, I oppose revising the definition of the term "relative" to mean "immediate family member" because this will certainly make it more convenient for them to usher in red capital. Members may look back on the controversy over the shareholding of 864 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020

ATV some years ago, which was really ridiculous. WANG Zheng was not a Hong Kong citizen, but how come he managed to hold more than 50% of ATV's shares then? Well, he just asked a distant relative and his wife to acquire over 50% stake on his behalf so that he could control ATV …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr KWONG Chun-yu, this is my final warning: You have strayed from the scope of the Third Reading debate. If you still fail to revert to the question under debate, I will stop you from speaking.

MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese): Now, President, I make it clear that I oppose the Bill and am going to point out the overall problems. As I have mentioned just now, the provisions are clearly set out. It will be fine if the current legislative amendment exercise is conducted in the hope of allowing Hong Kong's media and the people of Hong Kong to make real decisions so that journalists will not be subject to so much pressure and that freedom of the press will no longer be suppressed. However, what are we relying on for the time being? We rely solely on the journalists who keep hanging on. They are people of integrity―one should behave with integrity but not arrogance, I am referring to those who still stand fast in their positions even in the face of "invasion" by red capital upon adjustment of the percentages of voting control. They deserve respect indeed. Let us take a look at what has happened in Cable TV, more than 300 people …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr KWONG Chun-yu, please stop speaking.

As pointed out in my letter to all Members yesterday, the progress of the Legislative Council meetings has, with unnecessary delays caused by some Members, fallen short of expectations.

Today, the Council has spent around five hours conducting the Second Reading debate and consideration of individual clauses by the committee of the whole Council. Throughout the above proceedings, Members have requested eight quorum calls which took more than one hour. Both my Deputy and I have repeatedly pointed out that Members have strayed from the subjects in question when delivering their speeches or kept repeating their own or other Members' arguments.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 865

Third Reading debate is now in progress, Members should focus their discussions on whether they support giving the Bill its Third Reading instead of spending any more time repeating arguments that have already been made at previous stages or putting up arguments irrelevant to the Bill under consideration.

As the President, I am duty-bound to ensure the orderly, fair and proper conduct of meetings while striking an appropriate balance between respect for Members' right to speak and efficient operation of the Council. With the power granted to the President of the Legislative Council by Article 72(1) of the Basic Law, I have decided to call upon the Secretary to speak at about 6:30 pm and put to vote the Third Reading motion afterwards.

Will Members please keep their speeches as concise as possible so that more Members can speak? I will stop a Member from speaking any further if I consider that he has strayed from the subject or kept repeating his own or other Members' arguments. Dr Fernando CHEUNG, please speak.

(Mr KWONG Chun-yu indicated his wish to raise a point of order)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr KWONG Chun-yu, what is your point of order?

MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese): President, I have a point of order, but please turn on my microphone first … You do not allow me to request a quorum call? Fine, I request a quorum call right now.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Your microphone has already been turned on for quite a while, and you have been speaking all the time.

MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese): I request a headcount.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr KWONG Chun-yu has requested a headcount.

866 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020

Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.

(While the summoning bell was ringing)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Honourable Members, I will adjourn the meeting upon the completion of the Third Reading debate on the Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019. The next agenda item will be dealt with at the next meeting.

(Mr Jeffrey LAM indicated his wish to raise a point of order)

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

MR JEFFREY LAM (in Cantonese): President, Members belonging to the pan-democratic camp do not really want a meeting. All that they want is to make trouble here. What if you suspend the meeting now until 6:30 pm and then proceed direct to the voting?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Jeffrey LAM, I am the one presiding over the meeting now. I thank you for your views, but I will handle the Council business in accordance with the arrangement announced just now.

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

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please return to their seats.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr NG, you may either enter or leave the Chamber.

A quorum is present in the Chamber. Dr Fernando CHEUNG, please speak.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 867

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Mr Jeffrey LAM made a very good point just now. The President had better suspend the meeting forthwith and ask Members to return to the Chamber at 6:30 pm and cast their votes. Or, the President simply needs not make this arrangement. He may draw the line directly and put the question to vote now. This can speed up the whole process. All they have to do is to turn this Council into a rubber stamp. Why is it necessary for Members to hold any debates anyway?

(Some Members spoke aloud in their seats)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please stop speaking aloud in their seats.

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): All Members have to do is to return to the Chamber and cast their votes without having to deliver any speeches. They only have to cast an affirmative vote each time …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Fernando CHEUNG, please return to this debate topic.

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Let them abolish this legislature! Things are getting increasingly outrageous!

(Some Members spoke aloud in their seats)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please stop speaking aloud in their seats. Dr Fernando CHEUNG, please continue.

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, such colleagues are honestly a disgrace to me.

President, your abuse of power is so outrageous, and the line you draw is getting more and more absurd. You have announced that the question will be 868 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 put to vote within one hour. If five Members have pressed the "Request to speak" button, and each of them may speak for 15 minutes, then the last one of them simply will not get the opportunity to speak.

Secretary Edward YAU himself has admitted that the Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019 ("the Bill") is controversial. As early as 2017 when he told us in advance that a consultation exercise would be conducted, he already reckoned that the Bill was controversial. Today, various Members like us wish to speak on the amendments proposed in this Bill that involves significant public interests. But the President has drawn a line somewhat arbitrarily. Doesn't all this matter in your view? Don't you think the amendment contents are important?

The Government says that it is necessary to remove barriers and open up the market, and this is why it proposes to relax the restrictions on licensees. Anyway, the Government will relax the relevant requirements as much as possible. For instance, it will not matter even if a "relative" relationship exists. Another example concerns voting controllers. In the past, a voting controller who was not a Hong Kong resident would be subject to certain restrictions. But now, the restrictions will be slightly relaxed. All these proposals are extremely controversial.

Just now, various Members brought up a very important question, the question about who is in control of those major communications channels whereby people receive information, such as public broadcasters, media organizations and free television ("TV") broadcasters. The Government's intended relaxation of certain restrictions has led people to question whether the entry of red capital into the market and the resultant gradual transfer of control over domestic media and broadcasting organizations to non-local people will be good to Hong Kong. Our current discussion shows that this is certainly very undesirable, and this is the very reason why we must voice our resentment and opposition.

To be frank, the current constitutional set-up has definitely guaranteed that you people are in the majority. But to say the very least, Hong Kong is a highly civilized society that will tolerate opposition voices. But the President's arrangements are precisely tantamount to forbidding opposition, discussions and the expression of views.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 869

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Fernando CHEUNG, you are putting forth your views. But this Council is now conducting a Third Reading debate. Please return to the topic of the Third Reading debate, meaning to say that you should state your support or otherwise for the Third Reading of the Bill.

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): As you do not allow Members to speak, I certainly have to speak up and voice my objection.

The Government's relaxation proposals also include the abolition of the requirement that a licensee must be a non-subsidiary company, and also the retention of the current mechanism with the Chief Executive in Council as the licensing authority for free TV, pay TV and sound broadcasting services. We will oppose all the government proposals because we think the proposals are a sheer waste of efforts. The Bureau's proposals are not based on the interests of local people, despite its assertion that it will restrict the eligibility of foreign-capital companies or non-local people as licensees or voting controllers, so as to ensure continuous control and management of the relevant licensees to be held by local individuals or companies who or which should be in the best position to cater for local interest, taste and culture. These are certainly not the only examples.

On this point alone, I will say the Government's proposals are actually useless. The Government's relaxation proposals will only enable more foreign-capital companies to gain control over domestic broadcasters and violate its principles. The current arrangement (with the percentages of 2%, 6%, and 10% and above) is comparatively stringent, in the sense that an unqualified voting controller is required to file an application with the Communications Authority ("CA") if his total voting control reaches a relevant percentage threshold. But the Government proposes to adjust the above percentages upwards to 5%, 10%, and 15% and above. While this relaxation direction runs counter to the direction we have requested, the retention of the current percentages is actually of no use at all because the Government is unable to exert any control.

Let me cite the $4.2 billion buyback plan announced by Television Broadcasts Limited ("TVB") in 2017 as an example. Since TVB was required to file an application with the Securities and Futures Commission ("SFC"), SFC was therefore able to discern the shareholding arrangements among TVB's major shareholders and subsequently discover that a consortia controlled by a major 870 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 shareholder with a "red background" (LI Ruigang, alias "China's Rupert Murdoch") was instead truly rested with the final say. SFC also queried that there might be someone else who could actually call the shots behind LI Ruigang.

The case has enabled us to see that the existing rules and regulations are actually unable to prevent foreign-capital companies or non-local people from gaining substantive control over our important domestic broadcasters. All along, people thought that TVB was controlled by Dr Charles CHAN, who is better known as "King of shell companies", because people had seen his frequent appearance as its Chairman on TV. But the fact is that he actually held only 6% of shareholding, whereas LI Ruigang possessed almost 80% of shareholding. On the surface, Dr Charles CHAN was rested with the power of control …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Fernando CHEUNG, I remind you again that in this Third Reading debate, you should discuss your support or otherwise for the Bill as a whole rather than the detailed contents of its clauses. Besides, you should not cite any examples in the way you have. Please return to this debate topic.

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): I cited this example for the purpose of telling people that the amendment proposals are useless, opposite to the proper direction and a sheer waste of efforts. Why do I say it is a sheer waste of efforts? Because even without any amendments of the law or relaxation of foreign control restrictions, the existing rules and regulations are still unable to prevent the intrusion of foreign capital.

It was revealed that under the existing legal framework, TVB was actually controlled by a non-Hong Kong resident, and the final say was in the hands of a non-local company. As the case unveiled, with the use of financial stratagems and agreements between the relevant companies, the Chairman was actually subject to the control of others and might have to sell all his shares anytime under orders. As Members all know, Dr Charles CHAN announced his resignation early this year. He was actually a puppet.

In other words, the existing laws are utterly unable to ensure that our major domestic broadcasters are controlled by local people or restrict the intrusion of foreign capital. Through financial stratagems, such as weighted voting right LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 871 structures and intersect holding by way of agreements setting forth an uneven distribution of power, they may obtain ultimate power to appoint or remove any directors, or veto their appointments. Since many important decisions must be made by voting among directors, SFC was therefore able to discover that the Chairman was simply stripped of the final say and any control over the company. SFC even stated that TVB refused to cooperate with it and disclose any details. Members can imagine its extent of degeneration.

CA did not take any action in accordance with existing laws. After CA became aware of the whole incident following SFC's handover of all evidence to it, it nonetheless let go of LI Ruigang and considered the relevant arrangements to be alright, citing the ground that "veto power does not mean control". An individual might decide on the membership of TVB's Board of Directors, control all directors, and even ban anyone whom he disliked from joining the Board. He is like the Hong Kong Government, in the sense that it will disqualify any candidates whom it find detestable or even any one of them who wins an election. Wasn't all this a form of "control"? All this was obviously inconsistent with the requirements of the existing legal framework, but CA turned a blind eye to it and condoned their wrongdoings.

According to the Government, the Bill proposes to relax certain definitions, such as "relative", "other licensable TV licensee" and "non-domestic TV licensee". I have no intention to read them out one by one. In fact, this proposal is pointless because there are all sorts of intricate financial stratagems at present, and price ramping, price fixing, and so on, are not uncommon. The Housing Department ("HD") now engages a few dozen cleaning contractors, and a relative relationship can be found among 20% of them …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Fernando CHEUNG, you have strayed from the discussion topic in your speech. Please return to this debate topic.

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I am now speaking on the relaxation of licensees' eligibility in the relevant definitions. The relevant amendments propose to remove …

872 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): But it seems that the example of HD given by you is not quite so relevant to this Bill. Please return to this debate topic.

DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): The connection here is that even though HD already stipulates that its contractors must not have a relative relationship among one another, such a relationship has been discovered among certain contractors. The three big families concerned have been awarded 40% of HD's contracts over the past 15 years. This is well known to all, and the Government should stop deceiving people. The Government is now doing something unnecessary, arguing that since online TV and sound programme services have become a mainstream trend, the lack of supervision over such services has necessitated a relaxation of the restrictions on free TV broadcasters and broadcasting organizations as a means to strike a balance in the market. All such arguments are invariably deceptive.

As rightly pointed out by Mr Jeremy TAM earlier on, monopoly actually exists in the provision of free TV services, despite the authorities' claim that they are not aware of any such monopoly. The past 20 years have seen a monopoly in the provision of free TV services, and it can be said that such monopoly is overwhelming. I cite this example for the purpose of illustrating that a broadcaster with a monopoly in the provision of domestic free TV services over the past few decades was already able to bring in foreign capital under the existing legal framework (or before the law is amended) and actually subject to the actual control of a Mainland person with a "red background". SFC even pointed out that there might be someone else behind the scene who could actually call the shots. What does this show? A complete mess. In that case, what is the point of the authorities' introduction of amendments? Instead of plugging the exiting loopholes and enforcing the law under the existing legal framework, the authorities have even gone so far as to propose a further relaxation of certain restrictions to enable influential people to take control over our domestic broadcasters. It is through these broadcasting channels whereby the general public obtain important information.

A research report issued by Reporters Without Borders shows that Hong Kong's ranking on its global press freedom index has plummeted from 18th in 2002 to 70th. It has also pointed out that half or more of the major media operators in Hong Kong have financial stakes in Mainland China, and they are possibly members of the National People's Congress or the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 873

We have striven to defend those important broadcasting and media organizations that are consistent with Hong Kong people's culture and tastes and take the interests of Hong Kong people as their basis. But they will be subject to further destruction under the authorities' Bill. In view of the authorities' partial and lax enforcement actions and their intention for further destruction, we must raise our objection. (The buzzer sounded)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHEUNG, please stop speaking.

Mr WU Chi-wai, please speak.

MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): President, Dr Fernando CHEUNG has just talked about how the Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019 ("the Bill") opens the door wide for considerable red capital to enter Hong Kong, and I wish to point out why we oppose the Bill from another perspective.

The Bill seeks to facilitate the operation of the television and sound broadcasting industries, so a certain obsolete legislative provisions have to be removed, so as to achieve this objective. Undoubtedly, this approach aims at attracting a wider variety of capital to enter the television and sound broadcasting market through the amendments to the legislative provisions, thereby increasing competition. But it is obvious to us that Hong Kong has actually undergone significant changes from the time when this Bill was at the discussion stage, to the establishment of the Bills Committee concerned, and further to the debate today. We can see that … Previously, we thought that the amendments to this legislation could attract capital around the world to come to participate in the television and sound broadcasting business in Hong Kong because of the presence of a platform for freedom of speech here, and we also saw the inception of the Hong Kong Television Network Limited by a local investor in Hong Kong. But then, the Government refused its licence application out of political considerations. In light of this, even if amendments are made to the restrictions relating to voting control structure, the objective of the Bill seems to be completely unachievable. This is the first point.

Second, as you can see, when the expression of views has been subjected to increasing control, the influential television station and sound broadcasting operators that Members mentioned will find their influence dwindling. One of 874 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 the conspicuous examples is "CCTVB" which has been cited by many Members. It has formed part of the collective memory of many Hong Kong people, and accompanied many of us as we grew up, broadcasting …

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

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WU Chi-wai, is your mobile phone placed near you? Please put it away.

MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): President, it is not me.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Please continue with your speech.

MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): But, as we can see, many appalling situations have arisen since this enterprise was injected with some capital which is eager to control freedom of thought and speech. In particular, there is a lack of protection for the fourth estate while control over the freedom of expression and the press can be seen. Actually, this has also led many Members to express their thoughts and concerns about another issue in their speeches: When Hong Kong opens its door wide open to welcome foreign investors, what capital will it manage to attract in the end? Has the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau rolled out any other complementary measures to facilitate the operation of the television and sound broadcasting industries after proposing the legislative amendments? Or does the Bureau just plan to rely on this move alone? Looking at the presentation of the Bill and the contents of the documents, we have no idea what the authorities plan to do. All we can see is that the authorities have put great emphasis on one point: control, control and control. Very often, the professionalism required for supervision has been left on the shelf as the authorities just consider matters from a political perspective. To me, this is the very root cause of the problem.

The final point that I wish to talk briefly about is that this Bill involves … seeks to alter the threshold percentage of shareholding held by foreign capital that is required to be reported to the Communications Authority for prior approval through the amendments, especially clause 6. As I pointed out just now, I think LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 875 the most crucial problem is that these amendments are out of step with the circumstances and unable to respond to the current situation. More importantly, even if they are passed successfully, the foreign capital attracted to Hong Kong will only be red capital, and this will only result in a decline in the influence of the relevant broadcasting organizations, because red capital always gives top priority to ideology when handling broadcasting affairs. Members can have a look at the credibility of Wen Wei Po and Ta Kung Pao which are media 100% controlled by red capital. In the future … We can also see how the influence of "CCTVB" gradually diminishes.

We oppose the amendments proposed in the Bill because they actually run counter the overall prevailing situation. To put it another way, with the Hong Kong society being overshadowed by the Hong Kong National Security Law, there is no way that the Administration's effort can really achieve the objective of facilitating the development of television and sound broadcasting industries through the legislative amendments concerned.

President, with these simple remarks, I express our objections.

MS CLAUDIA MO: I will vote against this Bill for two particular reasons. Overall, it claims to be just loosening up Hong Kong's official control over a free or pay television market, i.e. the traditional television market. But then, for the desired side effect, or I do not know if it is planned or is simply a collateral thing, this is going to open up the door even wider to red capital from Mainland of China. Because, let us be honest, who else is going to invest in Hong Kong's television or telecommunications market? Why are Mainland capitalists interested in such a market in Hong Kong? Well, it has got so much to do with propaganda and ideology. Practically, this Bill is telling those businessmen that all hands aboard, or rather all hands can go into the cookie jar.

My second point is that―now I have no actual proof―this Bill seems to be some prelude to even tighter controls over the Internet in Hong Kong, well, basically the social media. They are trying to stifle the freedom of expression and freedom of everything online.

That was evident by that Beijing lackey person's speech at the start of this Bill's introduction earlier today. For a third of the time, she was calling, urging the Hong Kong Government to get rid of our online media labels because they 876 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 make fake news, or they spread stories that would incite others into illegal activities. What exactly is the relevance of all that? You did not complain, did you, Mr LEUNG? Not until almost the very end of it. This is disgusting. And you stopped Mr KWONG Chun-yu barely after 32 seconds of his speech.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Claudia MO, please return to the subject of this debate.

MS CLAUDIA MO: Of course I am coming back. Now, the Government claims as if there is some huge revelation on its part that the Internet has changed the media ecology. As a result, conventional television stations or radio broadcasters, in general, have faced very fierce competition from online. It is fine if the Government wants to help the traditional labels. But, as far as the online media are concerned, I do not know if it has heard or it would remember Beijing's mentioning of Internet sovereignty. Internet is supposed to be borderless.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Claudia MO, I think you have digressed. Please return to the subject of this debate.

MS CLAUDIA MO: I have not departed in any way. I am telling you why I am objecting …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This Council is now conducting the Third Reading debate on the Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019. Please return to the subject of this debate.

MS CLAUDIA MO: I am telling you that I am objecting to this Bill because of reason number two. And reason number two is that it is my belief, my contention that this Bill is going to become some prelude to more Internet controls in Hong Kong. That is what I am saying …

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 877

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Claudia MO, this Bill does not cover what you called Internet …

MS CLAUDIA MO: Then why did you allow that other person to go on and on and on earlier today? Not until the end of her speech, I must say.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Please watch the video clip or listen to the sound segment …

MS CLAUDIA MO: I was sitting right here!

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I pay attention to the content of every Member's speech when presiding at a meeting. If you do not want to continue with your speech, you may sit down. If you want to continue with your speech, please get back to the subject of the Third Reading debate.

MS CLAUDIA MO: I do find you completely unreasonable. This is just getting too much. You are using Chinese Cultural Revolution tactics in this Council as well.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Claudia MO, please clarify.

MS CLAUDIA MO: To clarify what? Yes?

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): You have made a very serious accusation. But please sit down, I am not going to argue with you.

Mr Andrew WAN, please speak.

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

878 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020

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

MR LAM CHEUK-TING (in Cantonese): I request a headcount.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LAM Cheuk-ting has requested a headcount.

Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.

(While the summoning bell was ringing, Ms Starry LEE indicated her wish to raise a point of order)

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Starry LEE, what is your point of order?

MS STARRY LEE (in Cantonese): President, please cancel my request to speak.

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

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Andrew WAN, originally you should have 15 minutes to speak, but because your party member has spent some of the time on asking a headcount, I thus ask you to be brief when you speak. I will stop you at an appropriate time and let the Secretary reply.

MR ANDREW WAN (in Cantonese): President, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting explained the situation to me already. Just now, I also asked him why he had to request a headcount and often interrupted me. He said he wanted to let more Members listen to my speech, so I forgave him.

President, given the order you gave to other colleagues just now, I will briefly state a few arguments and I hope I can meet your request. Overall, why do I have to speak in opposition? Actually, it is all about the amendment which LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 879 clause 5 of the Bill, which I just mentioned, seeks to make. The amendment contains three major controversies and just now, I already collectively set them out. I hope you understand that my speech is related to the subject.

The reason of my opposition is that the amendment obviously reveals several problems. First, it is based on a wrong assessment of the situation and a misunderstanding of the ecology of the industry now. And it even shows, as I just mentioned, that it has confused licensed media platforms with non-licensed media platforms. Are licensed media platforms unusable? How did this so-called problem happen that has prompted the Government to introduce this amendment? Second, I will briefly talk about later the backfire as a result of the wrong assessment. I hope you would allow me to finish. Lastly, the amendment to the ordinance seems to run counter to, if not completely destroying, the legislative intent of the ordinance, and it may even produce a backfire. Being Legislative Council Members, we must point out the possible consequence of the amendment. I thus speak against it.

One of the controversies concerning the amendment which clause 5 seeks to make is amending the definition of "associate". Another controversy is the removal of the cross-media ownership restrictions and the last one is about share rights. Just now, many Members already mentioned share rights and I will not repeat them. I will only briefly talk about it.

I wish to begin with monopolization by familial groups. The Bill seeks to narrow down the scope of "relative" under the definition of "associate". This will relax the restriction on cross-media ownership. Under the Bill, some relationships will be removed from the definition of "relative", and only immediate family members (e.g. spouse, parent, child, etc.) will be affected, while other family members will be excluded. Some Members cited earlier Asia Television as a typical example. If this amendment is passed, it will further aggravate monopolization by familial groups and further undermine the legislative intent of the ordinance when it was enacted, which is to promote competition and ensure a healthy ecology of the industry, and avoid over concentration of controlling power and enable pluralistic views. But President, this amendment will precisely run counter to this intent.

Hence, if Members are sane, they should not have reason on the whole to support the Bill. Relaxing the restriction will not remove the barriers but it will actually become a potential source of trouble. President, this will not remove 880 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 the barriers. If barriers are removed, it should promote competition and encourage the healthy development of the industry, which in turn will foster pluralistic views, which I just mentioned, and eliminate oligopoly. But this amendment will encourage monopolization by familial groups. I think this is totally unjustifiable. Hence, we cannot support it.

The other form of monopoly is cross-media monopolization. President, this is ridiculous. According to the Government, mainstream media or licensed media are losing out to non-licensed media. I believe non-licensed media refer to all forms of Internet broadcasting. The Government's argument is totally wrong. Why does it hold such a view? Certainly, the ecology of the broadcasting industry has changed. In terms of proportion, the latter (i.e. Internet media), as the document on the Bill has mentioned, has reduced the market share of the licensed media. However, President, we must pay attention to a point, and not many people have mentioned this point; I thus hope that you will let me talk about it. I want to say that the non-licensed media market is not monopolized. Actually, many licensed broadcasters or media companies are actively promoting their non-licensed business and they are doing quite well. As many colleagues just mentioned, a traditional broadcaster, the Television Broadcast Limited, or TVB, has a high view rate on YouTube. I thus think that this approach will become another form of monopolization. The attempt to remove barriers will actually make it easier for cross-media owners to monopolize the market and lead to a more homogeneous and monopolized market; second, the licensed media will dominate the market and strengthen their business because removing the barriers will bring in bad elements into the market and further strengthen their integration and monopoly. And there will be an even worse impact after such a monopoly takes place. As we all know, we not only focus on the channel that a media broadcaster operates, but also the information, including the products, which the broadcaster disseminates through the channel. These informational products also matter a lot.

The present problem is that if a media broadcaster monopolizes this part of the production, and it can also take part in the non-licensed part of the production, then the broadcaster is actually taking the whole market in its hand. Is this in line with the aim of this legislative amendment exercise which the Bureau advocates? In fact, it will only produce another effect. Do not describe them as being so weak, as if they are being ravaged. The Government seems to say that if they are not exempted from the existing ordinances, they cannot stay viable. I wish to tell you all that this is not true. In the real world, they are the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 881 one who is actively promoting their business. I wish to make another point. The more credible a broadcaster is, the higher view ratings it will have. I am unsure whether the Secretary knows that during the protests last year, which licensed television service providers were more popular? They were Now TV and i-CABLE. Their live broadcasts had high view ratings. Why? Based on this example, I wish to say that … I believe the Secretary may not have viewed their live broadcasts. I believe he has not, so he may have mistaken that they are in a difficult situation and thus wishes to relax the restrictions to balance the ecology of the industry because they are so weak. Sorry …

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Andrew WAN, I think you have digressed from the subject. Please come back to the subject of the debate and finish your speech as soon as possible.

MR ANDREW WAN (in Cantonese): President, I have not digressed from the subject at all. I believe that in your mind, I am occupying your time. I will soon finish this point. I hope that people watching the television or fellow colleagues can be reasonable, no matter how they are going to vote. The reason the Secretary states in this document is untenable. The argument puts the cart before the horse and is confusing. The present situation is not like that. If the Bill is passed, it will result in cross-media monopoly. They will take control of the part of the production chain which generates these messages, but they will be categorized as the non-licensed broadcasters by the Government. They will become invincible! I think this will actually degrade the information and media ecology, and it will also run counter to the original intent of this legislative amendment exercise and fail to establish an argument for the justifications stated in paragraphs 6 to 18.

Hence, I wish to reiterate that … and this is my final point, since I promised you just now that I would not speak for too long. I will just briefly touch on this subject. The last restriction to be relaxed by the Bill is about share rights. At the end of the day, it is also about removing the barriers for the red capital to enter the market. Right? Just now, I cited some examples. Actually, I have prepared many documents, but I believe the President will not let me read them all out. I will just briefly talk about them. Everyone, except those who are insane, those who deliberately deny this fact or those who were 882 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 born only yesterday, can see that the red capital is infiltrating into the Hong Kong media market. So, I would not even need to talk about the 2%, 6% and 10%. The higher the percentage they hold, the deeper their infiltration will be. In the end, we can see that these three aspects of the amendment work in tandem. They seek not to make the market healthier, or produce more pluralistic views, or better balance the competition. They will actually work the other way round and result in a one-sided tilt, so that the political regime may have the opportunity to exercise control and capital injection, and make the voice of the media more homogeneous. This seems to be their purpose.

I so submit. Thank you, President.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, do you wish to speak again?

SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, I have nothing to add.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019 be read the Third time and do pass. Will those in favour please raise their hands?

(Members raised their hands)

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

(Members raised their hands)

Dr KWOK Ka-ki rose to claim a division.

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr KWOK Ka-ki has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for five minutes.

LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020 883

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

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

Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Ms Alice MAK, Mr KWOK Wai-keung, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Ms Elizabeth QUAT, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr Jimmy NG, Dr Junius HO, Mr Holden CHOW, Mr SHIU Ka-fai, Mr Wilson OR, Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-kwan, Mr LUK Chung-hung, Mr LAU Kwok-fan, Mr Kenneth LAU, Mr Vincent CHENG and Mr Tony TSE voted for the motion.

Mr James TO, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Prof Joseph LEE, Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Mr Dennis KWOK, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Dr Helena WONG, Mr Alvin YEUNG, Mr Andrew WAN, Mr LAM Cheuk-ting, Mr SHIU Ka-chun, Mr HUI Chi-fung, Dr CHENG Chung-tai, Mr KWONG Chun-yu and Mr Jeremy TAM voted against the motion.

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

THE PRESIDENT announced that there were 57 Members present, 38 were in favour of the motion and 18 against it. Since the question was agreed by a majority of the Members present, he therefore declared that the motion was passed.

CLERK (in Cantonese): Broadcasting and Telecommunications Legislation (Amendment) Bill 2019.

884 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 29 October 2020

NEXT MEETING

PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now adjourn the meeting until 11:00 am on Wednesday, 4 November 2020.

Adjourned accordingly at 6:40 pm.