LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 521
OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Wednesday, 24 October 2012
The Council met at Eleven o'clock
MEMBERS PRESENT:
THE PRESIDENT THE HONOURABLE JASPER TSANG YOK-SING, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ALBERT HO CHUN-YAN
THE HONOURABLE LEE CHEUK-YAN
THE HONOURABLE JAMES TO KUN-SUN
THE HONOURABLE CHAN KAM-LAM, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE LEUNG YIU-CHUNG
DR THE HONOURABLE LAU WONG-FAT, G.B.M., G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE EMILY LAU WAI-HING, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE TAM YIU-CHUNG, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ABRAHAM SHEK LAI-HIM, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE TOMMY CHEUNG YU-YAN, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE FREDERICK FUNG KIN-KEE, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE VINCENT FANG KANG, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE WONG KWOK-HING, M.H. 522 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
DR THE HONOURABLE JOSEPH LEE KOK-LONG, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE JEFFREY LAM KIN-FUNG, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ANDREW LEUNG KWAN-YUEN, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE WONG TING-KWONG, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE RONNY TONG KA-WAH, S.C.
THE HONOURABLE CYD HO SAU-LAN
THE HONOURABLE STARRY LEE WAI-KING, J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE LAM TAI-FAI, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHAN HAK-KAN, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHAN KIN-POR, B.B.S., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE PRISCILLA LEUNG MEI-FUN, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG KWOK-CHE
THE HONOURABLE WONG KWOK-KIN, B.B.S.
THE HONOURABLE IP KWOK-HIM, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MRS REGINA IP LAU SUK-YEE, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE PAUL TSE WAI-CHUN, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE ALAN LEONG KAH-KIT, S.C.
THE HONOURABLE LEUNG KWOK-HUNG
THE HONOURABLE ALBERT CHAN WAI-YIP
THE HONOURABLE WONG YUK-MAN LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 523
THE HONOURABLE CLAUDIA MO
THE HONOURABLE MICHAEL TIEN PUK-SUN, B.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE JAMES TIEN PEI-CHUN, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE NG LEUNG-SING, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE STEVEN HO CHUN-YIN
THE HONOURABLE FRANKIE YICK CHI-MING
THE HONOURABLE WU CHI-WAI, M.H.
THE HONOURABLE YIU SI-WING
THE HONOURABLE GARY FAN KWOK-WAI
THE HONOURABLE MA FUNG-KWOK, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHARLES PETER MOK
THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHI-CHUEN
THE HONOURABLE CHAN HAN-PAN
DR THE HONOURABLE KENNETH CHAN KA-LOK
THE HONOURABLE CHAN YUEN-HAN, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG, B.B.S., M.H., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE KENNETH LEUNG
THE HONOURABLE ALICE MAK MEI-KUEN, J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE KWOK KA-KI 524 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
THE HONOURABLE KWOK WAI-KEUNG
THE HONOURABLE DENNIS KWOK
THE HONOURABLE CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG WAH-FUNG, J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE FERNANDO CHEUNG CHIU-HUNG
THE HONOURABLE SIN CHUNG-KAI, S.B.S., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE HELENA WONG PIK-WAN
THE HONOURABLE IP KIN-YUEN
DR THE HONOURABLE ELIZABETH QUAT, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MARTIN LIAO CHEUNG-KONG, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE POON SIU-PING, B.B.S., M.H.
THE HONOURABLE TANG KA-PIU
DR THE HONOURABLE CHIANG LAI-WAN, J.P.
IR DR THE HONOURABLE LO WAI-KWOK, B.B.S., M.H., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHUNG KWOK-PAN
THE HONOURABLE CHRISTOPHER CHUNG SHU-KUN, B.B.S., M.H., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE TONY TSE WAI-CHUEN
MEMBER ABSENT:
DR THE HONOURABLE LEUNG KA-LAU
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 525
PUBLIC OFFICERS ATTENDING:
THE HONOURABLE MRS CARRIE LAM CHENG YUET-NGOR, G.B.S., J.P. THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION
PROF THE HONOURABLE ANTHONY CHEUNG BING-LEUNG, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING
THE HONOURABLE MATTHEW CHEUNG KIN-CHUNG, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE
PROF THE HONOURABLE K C CHAN, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY
THE HONOURABLE GREGORY SO KAM-LEUNG, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
THE HONOURABLE LAI TUNG-KWOK, S.B.S., I.D.S.M., J.P. SECRETARY FOR SECURITY
DR THE HONOURABLE KO WING-MAN, B.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH
THE HONOURABLE PAUL CHAN MO-PO, M.H., J.P. SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT
CLERKS IN ATTENDANCE:
MR KENNETH CHEN WEI-ON, S.B.S., SECRETARY GENERAL
MISS FLORA TAI YIN-PING, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL
MISS ODELIA LEUNG HING-YEE, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL
MRS PERCY MA, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL
526 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Clerk, please ring the bell to summon Members to the Chamber.
(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members entered the Chamber)
TABLING OF PAPERS
The following papers were laid on the table under Rule 21(2) of the Rules of Procedure:
Subsidiary Legislation/Instruments No.
Banking (Capital) (Amendment) Rules 2012 ...... L.N. 156/2012
Banking (Specification of Multilateral Development Bank) (Amendment) Notice 2012 ...... L.N. 157/2012
Banking (Amendment) Ordinance 2012 (Commencement) Notice 2012 ...... L.N. 158/2012
Inland Revenue (Double Taxation Relief and Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to Taxes on Income) (Malaysia) Order ...... L.N. 159/2012
Inland Revenue (Double Taxation Relief and Prevention of Fiscal Evasion with respect to Taxes on Income) (United Mexican States) Order ...... L.N. 160/2012
Telecommunications (Determining Spectrum Utilization Fees by Auction) (Amendment) Regulation 2012 ...... L.N. 161/2012
Telecommunications (Designation of Frequency Bands subject to Payment of Spectrum Utilization Fee) (Amendment) Order 2012 .. L.N. 162/2012
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 527
Lifts and Escalators (General) Regulation (Commencement) Notice ...... L.N. 163/2012
Lifts and Escalators (Fees) Regulation (Commencement) Notice ...... L.N. 164/2012
Lifts and Escalators Ordinance (Commencement) (No. 2) Notice 2012 ...... L.N. 165/2012
Lifts and Escalators Ordinance (Commencement) (No. 3) Notice 2012 ...... L.N. 166/2012
Mediation Ordinance (Commencement) Notice ...... L.N. 167/2012
Third Technical Memorandum for Allocation of Emission Allowances in Respect of Specified Licences ...... S.S. No. 5 to Gazette No. 42/2012
Other Papers
No. 4 ─ Report of changes made to the approved Estimates of Expenditure during the first quarter of 2012-13 Public Finance Ordinance: Section 8
No. 5 ─ The Land Registry Trading Fund Hong Kong Annual Report 2011-12
No. 6 ─ Customs and Excise Service Welfare Fund Audited financial statements and its summary, together with the Report of the Director of Audit for the year ended 31 March 2012
No. 7 ─ Customs and Excise Service Children's Education Trust Fund Report by the Trustee together with the Report of the Director of Audit and the audited financial statements for the year ended 31 March 2012
528 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
No. 8 ─ Companies Registry Trading Fund Annual Report 2011-12
No. 9 ─ The Government Minute in response to the Report of the Public Accounts Committee No. 58 of July 2012
ADDRESSES
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Address. The Chief Secretary for Administration will address the Council on "The Government Minute in response to the Report of the Public Accounts Committee No. 58".
The Government Minute in response to the Report of the Public Accounts Committee No. 58 of July 2012
CHIEF SECRETARY FOR ADMINISTRATION (in Cantonese): President, laid on the table today is the Government Minute responding to Report No. 58 of the Public Accounts Committee (PAC).
When presenting Report No. 58 on 4 July to the Legislative Council, the Chairman of PAC gave comments on two chapters in the Director of Audit's Reports:
(a) Unlawful occupation of Government land; and
(b) Youth Square.
We are grateful for the time and efforts that the PAC has devoted to investigating these subjects. We accept the Committee's various recommendations and have set out the Administration's specific responses in the Government Minute. Today, I should like to highlight the key measures that we have taken in the relevant areas and the progress.
Regarding the unlawful occupation of Government land, the Administration agrees with the Audit Commission and the PAC that land is a scarce and valuable resource in Hong Kong. We also agree that the Government LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 529 has to carry out land control actions effectively to protect Government land from being unlawfully occupied.
We would reiterate that the Administration considers it unacceptable for people to first occupy Government land unlawfully and then apply for a short term tenancy (STT) in an attempt to regularize the situation after being detected. As the department responsible for managing unleased Government land, the Lands Department (LandsD) has reminded its District Lands Offices (DLOs) that approval of STTs should continue to be under strict control. They also have to make clear to the applicants that the Government has no obligation to regularize the illegal occupations by means of STT or to suspend land control actions pending decisions on the STT applications. If it is considered not justifiable to grant a STT, the DLO will reject the application as soon as possible.
On the other hand, as we undertook at the PAC meeting in May this year, the Administration is in the process of reviewing the provisions in relation to unlawful occupation of Government land in the Land (Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance and formulating legislative amendment proposals, with a view to increasing the penalties against the relevant offences to achieve greater deterrent effect. Taking into account the views of the Audit Commission and the PAC, we will also examine the possible introduction of a system of daily fines. The Development Bureau and LandsD are putting together concrete proposals to amend the Land (Miscellaneous Provisions) Ordinance and will consult the Panel on Development of the Legislative Council as soon as possible.
In the light of the recommendations of the Audit Commission and the PAC, the LandsD has already taken various measures and redeployed its manpower and available resources flexibly to further improve and refine its land control work. To expedite the processing of backlog land control cases and to handle cases newly received, the LandsD has assigned the New Territories Action Team in the Headquarters to take over from the 12 DLOs the outstanding cases received between July 2007 and December 2009, so as to enable the DLOs to focus on the handling of the cases received in recent years. Furthermore, in order to strengthen the monitoring of land control cases, the LandsD is working on the upgrading of the existing Land Control Information System, with a view to completing the project in 2014. The LandsD has also instructed the DLOs to step up the regular risk-based inspection programmes to protect Government land 530 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 from unlawful occupation, particularly the fenced-off areas, which are prone to be illegally occupied and black-spot sites.
The Administration is grateful to the PAC for acknowledging the enforcement efforts of the LandsD in late May this year in respect of the unlawful occupation of Government land in Tai Tong Lychee Valley. The LandsD has the determination, and will continue to handle each and every case of unlawful occupation of Government land impartially.
On Youth Square, the PAC shares our view that promotion of youth development is a meaningful policy objective which requires public subsidy. The Home Affairs Bureau strives to ensure that public funding allocated to the Youth Square is expended prudently to achieve the intended objective.
On the operation and performance of the Youth Square, the Bureau will consider drawing up further qualitative and quantitative performance targets to measure the contribution of the Youth Square to youth development in consultation with its Management Advisory Committee. The Bureau will continue to listen to the views of the users and other stakeholders of the youth sector in managing and promoting the Youth Square.
On the planning and implementation side, the Bureau is actively exploring the possibility of putting some of the less utilized areas of the Youth Square to more gainful uses, and is further considering the setting of focal theme(s) for the Youth Square to distinguish it from other youth related facilities and to boost youth patronage.
As recommended by the Audit Commission, the Bureau has already published the operating results of the Youth Square at its website. Moreover, the Administration will keep the Legislative Council informed of the operating results of the Youth Square through reporting to the Legislative Council's Panel on Home Affairs.
As pledged to the Legislative Council previously, the Bureau will review the management and operation mode of the Youth Square in 2013. In the review, the Bureau will take into account the views and recommendations of the PAC, the Audit Commission as well as relevant parties and stakeholders in the youth sector with a view to better enabling the Youth Square to achieve its LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 531 function in promoting youth development. The 2013 review will also address the positioning of the Youth Square including its overall rental strategy. The Bureau will report to the PAC the results of the 2013 review, which is expected to be completed by the third quarter of 2013.
Regarding PAC's recommendation in respect of monitoring of estimated cost and the awarded tender price of a project, the Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau has reminded all bureaux/departments in September 2012 that project and cost monitoring is an important ongoing process. Bureaux should consider keeping the Legislative Council posted of developments where the overall estimate or the awarded tender price of core components of the approved funding proposal has changed significantly from the Finance Committee approved provision, even though no supplementary provision has to be sought from Finance Committee.
Finally, I would like to thank PAC once again for its constructive comments and recommendations. The Administration will, as always, respond positively and implement necessary improvements earnestly. Thank you, President.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Questions. In accordance with Rule 9A of the House Rules, the time taken by each oral question should not exceed 22 minutes in total. After a Member has asked a main question and the relevant public officer has given reply, the Member who asks the question has priority to ask the first supplementary question. Other Members who wish to ask supplementary questions may indicate their wish by pressing the "Request to speak" button and wait for their turn.
Let me remind Members once again that they may raise only one question in asking supplementary questions. Please do not make arguments so that more Members can ask supplementary questions.
First question.
532 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
Ancillary Transport Facilities for New Cruise Terminal
1. MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): President, some residents in the vicinity of Kowloon East, the Kai Tak Development area and the new cruise terminal have expressed to me their concern whether there will be adequate ancillary transport facilities carrying tourists disembarking at the cruise terminal, which will be commissioned next year, to and from tourist and shopping areas. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the ancillary transport facilities under the latest plan for carrying tourists disembarking at the cruise terminal to various tourist and shopping areas; whether it has assessed if a large number of tourists disembarking and heading towards the various tourist and shopping areas at the same time will lead to traffic congestions in Kowloon East; if it has, of the assessment results;
(b) whether it has studied the provision of transport services which are more efficient than the existing ones to connect the cruise terminal and Lei Yue Mun, so as to make it convenient for tourists, boost the local economy and create more employment opportunities; whether the various improvement and beautification works in Lei Yue Mun can be completed in time before the commissioning of the cruise terminal for the enjoyment of the tourists; and
(c) whether it has studied the provision of water taxi services to enhance the accessibility of the Victoria Harbour by connecting the cruise terminal with the tourist spots as well as tourist and shopping areas on the two sides of the Victoria Harbour?
SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, the Government is committed to developing Hong Kong into a leading cruise hub in the Asia-Pacific Region, and the new cruise terminal at Kai Tak Development (KTD) area is an important part of this strategy. The Kai Tak Cruise Terminal, to be commissioned shortly in mid-2013, can accommodate the world's largest cruise vessel. It is an iconic landmark at the Victoria Harbour and features a highly functional design. Its Customs, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 533
Immigration, Quarantine and Police facilities will be able to clear a maximum of 3 000 passengers per hour. There will also be adequate provision of vehicle pick-up and drop-off areas as well as parking spaces. To tie in with the commissioning of the terminal, the Government will provide an access road to connect the cruise terminal with Cheung Yip Street at Kowloon Bay. In addition to the existing major trunk roads (including Kai Tak Tunnel and Kwun Tong Bypass), the Route 6 that is being planned (including the Central Kowloon Route and road connections at the KTD area) will also link the KTD area with East and West Kowloon. Furthermore, the Shatin-to-Central Link under construction will provide railway service for the KTD area.
My reply to the three parts of Mr TSE's question is as follows:
(a) When a cruise vessel berths at a terminal, the cruise operator will typically make arrangements for its passengers to disembark in groups. The shipping agent or the shore excursion operator will then arrange for coaches to carry the visitors between the cruise terminal and tourist spots. When the Kai Tak Cruise Terminal commences operation, the terminal operator will, together with the cruise operator and shore excursion operator concerned, work out in advance the necessary arrangements according to the passenger volume and berthing duration. This is to ensure that cruise passengers will disembark in an orderly manner and to avoid adding to the traffic load during peak hours.
The Government has conducted a traffic impact assessment of the cruise terminal on the nearby road network. The results indicated that upon the completion of the new road between the cruise terminal and Kowloon Bay as well as the modification works of some of the road junctions in Kowloon Bay, the road network would be able to cope with the traffic flow brought by the cruise terminal. The Civil Engineering and Development Department (CEDD) is carrying out the above road and junction improvement works for completion before the commissioning of the Kai Tak Cruise Terminal. The Government is also planning the next stage of road network development, with a view to enabling the vehicles leaving the cruise terminal to bypass Kowloon Bay and go directly to Kowloon West. 534 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
Moreover, the Government is also planning for the provision of public transport services to facilitate public access to the Kai Tak Cruise Terminal based on the projected passenger flow by a consultancy study. According to the current projection, the Government is of the view that green minibus (GMB) service should suffice for the demand at this stage and is making plans for GMB service connecting the cruise terminal and Kowloon Bay MTR Station. After the commissioning of the remaining cruise berth and if there is demand, the Government will consider the need to increase public transport service at an appropriate juncture. Upon the commissioning of the cruise terminal, the Tourism Commission will continue to liaise actively with the cruise industry and work with relevant departments to provide quality ancillary facilities and services to incoming cruise vessels and their passengers.
(b) As mentioned in part (a) above, cruise operators usually engage shipping agents or shore excursion operators to arrange coaches for transporting visitors to and from the terminal and for joining shore excursion programmes, including those involving Lei Yue Mun. Visitors who do not join any shore excursion programme may take taxis or other public transport at the terminal to go to Lei Yue Mun.
Regarding the Lei Yue Mun enhancement works, the Government is planning to take forth the Lei Yue Mun Waterfront Enhancement Project (LYM Project). The scope of the Project includes the construction of a public landing facility, a breakwater and a waterfront promenade; the provision of several lookout points and streetscape improvement works along the footpath linking up the lookout points; as well as the construction of a new viewing platform, and so on.
Gazettal for the marine works of the LYM Project was made in October 2009 under the Foreshore and Sea-bed (Reclamations) Ordinance by the CEDD. The relevant statutory procedures are still in progress. During the gazettal of the project works, we received views concerning the public hygiene situation in Lei Yue Mun. To meet the concern on sewerage problem, the Environmental Protection Department commissioned a consultant in late 2010 to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 535
explore possible interim and long-term measures for improving the sewerage handling facilities in the area. The consultant consulted the local community on its sewerage review report in March 2012. The local stakeholders generally agreed to the preferred options for the sewerage improvement schemes proposed by the consultant.
To ascertain the works details of the long-term sewerage scheme, the Drainage Services Department engaged a consultant to conduct a technical study in end September 2012. Subject to the consultant's confirmation on the works details of the sewerage scheme, we will expedite actions to complete the statutory procedures under the Foreshore and Sea-bed (Reclamations) Ordinance and to implement the project as soon as possible.
The Kai Tak Cruise Terminal is one of the major infrastructure under the KTD project. The LYM Project, which is a government measure to improve the district tourism facilities, is not part of the KTD project. While we will make the best endeavours to take forward the LYM Project, there is no direct link between the LYM Project and the timing of commissioning of the cruise terminal.
(c) The current KTD project has not made any provision for a ferry pier near the cruise terminal or water taxi services. Using railway as the backbone, the public transport system in Hong Kong has comprehensive arrangements by rail, land and sea for transportation across the Victoria Harbour. Indeed, the nature, operational mode, berthing facilities and regulatory framework of the existing water taxi services around the world are all different. Based on the local actual needs and unique environment, the Government needs to consider whether water taxis can be effectively operated in Hong Kong with regard to technology, operation, safety and legislation, and so on, so that additional waterborne transport services could be provided to link up both sides of the Victoria Harbour and the Kai Tak Cruise Terminal. Nevertheless, we understand that the cruise terminal operator intends to look into the feasibility of providing a pier near to the terminal to complement the cruise operation. We will actively consider the detailed proposal with the bureaux and departments concerned upon receipt of the same from the operator. 536 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary pointed out in part (b) of the main reply that the LYM Project is not part of the KTD project. I would like to ask a question about the stadium relating to the KTD project.
Just now the Secretary mentioned the traffic impact assessment and arrangements in part (a) of the main reply. Is it based on the original stadium project? What is the present situation of the stadium? If the site of the stadium will be re-zoned for the construction of public housing or other residential facilities as rumoured in society, will the assessment on transport services be altered entirely?
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Which Secretary will reply? Secretary for Transport and Housing, please.
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): President, regarding the KTD project mentioned by Mr TSE just now, there are some innovative views in the community recently. But as the Government said, we are still listening to public views and no relevant decision has been made yet. Currently, the transport services under the KTD project are made according to the assessment of the demand for public transport conducted by consultants in the development planning process.
Coming back to the commissioning of the cruise terminal, we expect that at the initial stage, the current transport services, including the newly added green minibus service connecting the cruise terminal and Kowloon Bay MTR station, should suffice to meet the demand.
MR CHAN KAM-LAM (in Cantonese): President, the Kai Tak Cruise Terminal will be commissioned in less than one year. However, it seems that the Secretary will only say that measures will be taken forward according to the consultants' recommendations whenever being asked about the transport services. After reading the Secretary's detailed main reply, I still cannot see any effective approach. Apart from the road network, it seems that other approaches have yet to be confirmed. In his reply, the Secretary said that the Government is making plans for green minibus service connecting the cruise terminal and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 537
Kowloon Bay MTR Station. Given that the platform of the Kowloon Bay MTR station is already very busy currently, may I ask whether the authorities will consider other options apart from conducting an assessment of the Kowloon Bay MTR Station?
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Which Secretary will reply? Secretary for Transport and Housing, please.
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): President, as I said in my reply to Mr TSE's question, the public transport services are provided on the basis of the assessment of the public transport demand and patronage made in the Kai Tak development planning process. Certainly, any assessment should catch up with the latest development. So, we will continue to monitor the situation at the initial stage after transport services have commenced operation and consider providing new services whenever necessary.
Regarding the congestion of the Kowloon Bay MTR station, the MTR Corporation Limited always pays attention at the patronage at various MTR stations and takes corresponding measures.
MR RONNY TONG (in Cantonese): President, today a newspaper's editorial entitled "A government has no mandate if it does not have the faith of its subject" queries the Government of its recent proposal to remove the Sports City from the KTD area. President, regardless of whether the Government's proposal is right or wrong, to my understanding, we have to consider how to deal with the crowds entering and leaving the stadium in the context of major sports events in discussing ancillary transport facilities. However, if the Government wants to construct public housing there, will it totally depart from the original planning and intention? Honestly, regardless of whether or not the Sports City will be retained, if several public housing blocks were built there suddenly, it would increase the daily ……
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Please ask your supplementary question.
538 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
MR RONNY TONG (in Cantonese): …… there would be tens of thousands of people travelling in and out of the area. May I ask the Government whether a proposal should be put forth only after careful consideration rather than spontaneously? Is it necessary to make a substantial change to the ancillary transport facilities? If it is, will this affect the timetable of the commissioning of the cruise terminal?
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Which Secretary will reply? Secretary for Transport and Housing, please.
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): President, regarding the development plan of Kai Tak, today's main question is about the commissioning of the cruise terminal. As pointed out by Secretary Gregory SO or me in our replies to Members' questions, our measures are implemented according to our original plan, and it is estimated that in the early period of the commissioning of the cruise terminal, all public transport facilities, including some relevant road and junction improvement works under our planning and arrangement, should be able to cope with the demand.
Should there be any new ideas regarding the KTD project, the Government will certainly consider relevant ancillary transport services, including public transport, in any planning process.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Has your supplementary question not been answered?
MR RONNY TONG (in Cantonese): My supplementary question just now was based on an assumption that: If public housing blocks were really built there, would any change to the ancillary transport facilities affect the timetable of the commissioning of the cruise terminal? President, the Secretary has only replied that the existing plan will not affect the timetable, but he has not answered my supplementary question.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 539
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Your follow-up question is very clear. Mr TONG's question is: If any change is made to the development project, will the commissioning timetable of the cruise terminal be affected? Which Secretary will rely? Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development, please.
SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, the construction of the cruise terminal has been proceeding very smoothly and it is expected that it will be commissioned in mid-2013. So, it has not been affected.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr TONG, the Secretary has given a reply.
MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): A smoke-free city, including many environmental facilities and environmentally-friendly modes of transport, has been promoted for the KTD area. But now, green minibus service will be introduced. May I ask the Administration whether a smoke-free city as the basis for planning will be dropped in planning the transport services of Kai Tak City?
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Which Secretary will reply? Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development, please.
SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): Regarding the transport services mentioned just now, we, after completing the assessment report, considered that green minibus service would be a suitable option which can cope with the local demand for transport. A decision was made in this regard.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Has your supplementary question not been answered?
540 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): My question is: Will a smoke-free city no longer from the basis for planning?
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Which Secretary will reply?
SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, regarding the policy in this aspect, I will ask the department concerned to provide a reply in writing after the meeting. (Appendix I)
MR CHRISTOPHER CHUNG (in Cantonese): May I ask the Secretary why the Government does not consider waterborne transport? If there are vessels to connect the new cruise terminal to other scenic spots such as the West Kowloon Cultural District, the load on road traffic in Kowloon can, most of all, be alleviated. Secondly, the visitors can cruise in the Victoria Harbour by ferry to view the beautiful scenery on both sides. Since it can enhance our tourism value, I wonder why the Government does not give it consideration.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Would Members please attach the clip-on microphone onto the lapel of their jackets when they speak to avoid getting too close to the microphone so as to achieve the best acoustic effect. Which Secretary will reply? Secretary for Transport and Housing, please.
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): President, with regard to water taxi services, Secretary Gregory SO has mentioned in his main reply that the existing public transport system basically suffice to meet the transport needs on both sides of the harbour. Our public transport system is mainly rail-based. We have four cross-harbour rail links, three cross-harbour tunnels, 80 cross-harbour bus routes and seven ferry routes across the Victoria Harbour. Therefore, we think that the existing demand is generally met. We will definitely consider some other variants when making our overall planning for public transport services with a view to meeting demands in the future, if any.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 541
Speaking of water taxi services, as their operation, mode of business and safety arrangements are very different from all other current public transport services, including ferry, we must study them more thoroughly against needs in the future in exploring such provision.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHUNG, what is your point?
MR CHRISTOPHER CHUNG (in Cantonese): I would like to ask a follow-up question. I am not saying that water taxi ……
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHUNG, a Member is not allowed to ask any follow-up question after asking a supplementary question unless he thinks that the Secretary has not answered the supplementary question.
MR CHRISTOPHER CHUNG (in Cantonese): He has not answered ……
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The Secretary has given an answer.
MR CHRISTOPHER CHUNG (in Cantonese): I was asking about ferry service rather than water taxi. A ferry is different from a water taxi in operation, right? The ferry service has a fixed schedule, but water taxi will serve passengers on demand.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Fine, Mr CHUNG. You have made your follow-up question very clear. Secretary for Transport and Housing, please.
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): President, as for ferry service, I think the existing seven ferry routes in the Victoria Harbour are sufficient for passengers who rely on ferries to cross the harbour. In case there is a need to adjust ferry service after the commissioning 542 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 of the cruise terminal or when the development of various districts obliges such a need, the Government will certainly act according to the circumstances.
DR LAM TAI-FAI (in Cantonese): President, I heard that you took a cruise vacation with your wife this summer. So I trust you will appreciate the boundless business opportunities that the cruise industry can bring about to society in addition to upgrading our international status.
President, as you know, cruise passengers will go ashore for sightseeing, shopping, eating and drinking after disembarking. Since the time is very short, many passengers worry that their itinerary will be affected by any transport problem.
President, my supplementary question is as follows. Given that Hong Kong's traffic congestion is very serious, especially at the tunnels, can the Secretary tell us whether the Government has any good policy or special plan to tackle the diversion of traffic among the three cross-harbour tunnels as well as the long-standing congestion? Does the Government have, for example, any plan to buy back any tunnel or build one more tunnel? As we all know, if the cruise passengers miss the boat, they will probably never come to visit Hong Kong again. Opportunity never knocks twice at one's door.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr LAM, you have made your supplementary question very clear. I now call on the Secretary to reply. Secretary for Transport and Housing, please.
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): President, concerning the transport services in the initial period after the commissioning of the cruise terminal, Secretary Gregory SO and I have stated clearly in our replies that the new services currently under planning, including the green minibus service, should be able to cope with the demand. As for the issues such as the three cross-harbour tunnels and their traffic flow adjustments which Dr LAM mentioned just now, they are certainly a major problem that we have to face. The Government will, at a later stage, submit to the Legislative LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 543
Council a detailed proposal regarding traffic diversion of the three cross-harbour tunnels for discussion.
DR LAM TAI-FAI (in Cantonese): I was asking the Secretary how the traffic diversion of those three cross-harbour tunnels as well as the long-standing congestion, could be tackled, but I have not heard the Secretary's reply clearly. Is the Secretary saying that the Government does not have any good plan or policy to resolve the traffic diversion or congestion of those three tunnels? I would like the Secretary to clarify.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I heard the Secretary say that a proposal would be presented at a later stage. Secretary, do you have anything to add?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Cantonese): President, you have heard it right. The Government will, at a later stage, present a specific suggestion concerning traffic diversion of those three cross-harbour tunnels and submit it to the Legislative Council for discussion.
MR YIU SI-WING (in Cantonese): President, may I ask the Secretary whether the ancillary transport facilities are fully ready to serve visitors returning to the Mainland or Mainland visitors travelling to the cruise terminal in Hong Kong after the commissioning of the cruise terminal?
SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): If Mr YIU referred to promotion, the Hong Kong Tourism Board has in fact been exploring with its Mainland counterparts on how to make visitors spend more time in Hong Kong, apart from making close liaison with the relevant Mainland counterparts on the development of tourist spots.
To the cruise passengers, as we all know, it is necessary to provide many tourist attractions and tourist stops at various locations in order to enhance the appeal overall. In this connection, we have always maintained a very close relationship with the relevant Mainland departments.
544 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Has your supplementary question not been answered?
MR YIU SI-WING (in Cantonese): The Secretary has not answered my question. In fact, my question is: Have the authorities considered the transport services from the cruise terminal to the Mainland, and from the Mainland to the cruise terminal?
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Which Secretary will reply? Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development, please.
SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, after the commissioning of the cruise terminal, these visitors can come to Hong Kong by land or by plane, like other travellers do. The measures I mentioned just now will facilitate Mainland visitors in coming to visit Hong Kong via other tourist spots, or the development of multi-destination itineraries. As for visitors departing from Hong Kong, which is taken as their home port, they are not different from any other travellers in general.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): We have spent more than 23 minutes on this question. Second question.
Developing New Development Areas
2. DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, the Government has indicated earlier that there are currently over 2 100 hectares of land planned for "Residential" or "Commercial/Residential" land use in the Government's land reserve, including about 1 200-odd hectares of land zoned "Village Type Development". The objective of conducting the North East New Territories New Development Areas Planning (the Planning) by the Government is to increase land supply. Some villagers of the Ma Shi Po Village affected by the Planning, including farmers whose families have engaged in farming for three generations, have relayed that ever since the Government had indicated more than a decade LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 545 ago that it would develop North East New Territories, they have been under constant threat of land resumption and dispossession by real estate developers. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) among the aforesaid 2 100-odd hectares of land, of the respective areas of land reserved for public housing and various private developments as well as sites which are already on the Application List, excluding "Village Type Development" sites and land which is not suitable for development; the specific locations of such land and estimated numbers of various types of housing units that may be built; as well as the locations of the 1 200-odd hectares of "Village Type Development" sites;
(b) of the details of the household statistics, including the number of households, distribution of household size, household income profile, types of housing and number of households, in the three areas affected by the Planning, namely Kwu Tung North, Fan Ling North and Ping Che/Ta Kwu Ling, according to the demographic data in 1996, 2001, 2006 and 2011, as well as the estimated population in the three areas at present; and
(c) of the principles based on which the Government chooses to adopt the "public-private partnership" approach or the "Conventional New Town Approach" in developing a new area; as the aforesaid villagers have indicated that the Government had initially planned to develop North East New Territories under the "public-private partnership" approach, and many pieces of agricultural land within the three affected areas were acquired and damaged as a result, of the transaction details, including the lots, areas, acquisition parties, values and the years of transaction, of the land in these three areas since 1996?
SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, during the motion debate on the North East New Territories New Development Areas (NENT NDAs) later today in this Council, I will give a comprehensive account of the NDAs project and relevant issues. Meanwhile, I will confine my reply to Dr the Honourable Fernando CHEUNG's question:
546 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
(a) The 2 100-odd hectares of Government land mentioned in the question refers to areas of unleased or unallocated Government land zoned "Residential", "Commercial/Residential" and "Village Type Development" on statutory town plans (including Outline Zoning Plans and Development Permission Area Plans). This figure, based on statistics as at the end of June 2012, is simply obtained by subtracting leased or allocated areas under respective land use zonings from the total area covered by such zones on the statutory town plans.
There are a total of 952.5 hectares of unleased or unallocated Government land which are "Residential" or "Commercial/Residential". Excluding roads/passageways, man-made slopes, land allocated under the Simplified Temporary Land Allocation procedures (for example, land allocated to government departments as temporary works areas) and fragmented sites (sites less than 0.05 hectares in area), which are not suitable for development, not yet available for development or with low development potential, there remain 391.5 hectares of land. It must be pointed out that amongst the 391.5 hectares of land, there are still a number of sites with irregular shapes (for example, empty space between buildings, back lanes and narrow strips of land alongside existing developments, highways or other amenities), and not all of them are suitable for housing development.
Furthermore, of the above 391.5 hectares of Government land, 19 sites, representing 18.9 hectares of land in total, have been included in the 2012 to 2013 Application List for land sale while the sites allocated to the Housing Authority for planned public housing development are not included in these 391.5 hectares of land. The remaining may not necessarily be land immediately available for development as some will require technical studies to ascertain their development feasibility. Indeed, some of such land has already been included in various studies. At present, we are not able to estimate how much land among the 391.5 hectares can be made available for housing development and the number of housing units that can be built.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 547
Within the "Village Type Development" zones, there are a total of 1 201.2 hectares of unleased or unallocated Government land. Excluding roads/passageways, man-made slopes and land allocated under the Simplified Temporary Land Allocation procedures, there remain 932.9 hectares of land.
Information on the relevant land area analysis and the map showing the site boundaries were uploaded onto the website of the Development Bureau on 17 October for public inspection.
(b) In the Population Census/Population By-census, the household and population statistics by districts are compiled on the basis of the demarcation of the District Council districts/constituency areas or tertiary planning units/street blocks, which are different from the development boundaries of the NENT NDAs. As such, the Population Census/Population By-census cannot provide the household and population statistics of the NDAs.
According to the information obtained from site inspections under the NENT NDAs Planning and Engineering Study (the Study) in 2009 and 2011, about 1 700 households (approximately 6 500 persons) would be affected by the NDAs project and subject to removal. The affected households are mainly living in buildings of one to two storeys. The actual numbers and circumstances of the households can only be confirmed after the completion of the pre-clearance surveys and eligibility screening to be conducted before commencement of works.
(c) More than half of the developable land in the NENT NDAs is privately owned. In the early stage of the Study, the implementation of the NDAs project has already been included in the Study as a matter requiring attention and public discussion has been made thereon. The Administration has all along remained open-minded on the issue. After the Stage One and Stage Two Public Engagement exercises, we have thoroughly considered the public views on the implementation mechanism, the needs to ensure orderly implementation of the NDAs project and timely provision of various public facilities and housing units. In the Stage Three 548 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
Public Engagement exercise, we have indicated that we would adopt the "Conventional New Town Approach" to implement the NDAs.
As we advised the Panel on Development of the Legislative Council in June this year, whether some kind of flexibility could be built in for public-private partnership in implementing the NDAs project would depend on whether it could address the need for timing provision of housing supply including new Home Ownership Scheme units, and the public perception of such approach. The Government will consider the comments collected during the Stage Three Public Engagement exercise before deciding on the final development approach for implementing the NDAs project.
At present, we do not have information on transaction of private land within the NDAs. Such information is not required for analysis in the planning and engineering study concerned.
DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): In part (c) of my main question, I ask the Government the principles based on which the Government chooses to adopt the "public-private partnership" approach or the "Conventional New Town Approach".
Under the public-private partnership that has been mode adopted by the Government all along, several major property developers have continually resumed and acquired land and dispossessed residents. After LEUNG Chun-ying had taken office, he announced the adoption of the conventional approach and all the property developers that had made land acquisitions happened to be supporters of Henry TANG but now, after LEUNG Chun-ying has taken over, he wants to switch to another approach. In view of this, may I ask the Secretary based on what principles the Government made the choice. In adopting the public-private partnership mode or the conventional approach, is the principle of letting property developers share the pie adopted or is some other principle adopted? He did not answer this clearly and was equivocal. Is the overriding principle adopted by him one of letting property developers share the pie?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 549
SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, I have said clearly in the main reply that at a panel meeting of the Legislative Council in June, on how this project on the NDAs should be taken forward, it was stated in our information paper that the Conventional New Town Approach would be adopted.
At that time, some Members also asked the Government about its view on the public-private partnership approach. The Secretary for Development at that time said that the adoption of the Conventional New Town Approach was mainly intended to ensure the orderly implementation of the NDAs project and the timely provision of various public facilities and housing units. As regards participation by the private sector, if the orderly implementation of this project can be ensured, housing can be provided in a timely manner, and if the public also finds this acceptable, such an approach can be reconsidered.
President, as regards Dr Fernando CHEUNG's question on whether or not this mode would be changed after Mr LEUNG Chun-ying had taken office, I wish to point out that although the consultation paper on the Stage Three Public Engagement exercise was published in June this year, the relevant mode was actually approved by the Executive Council prior to that, so it is not true that it was changed after the new Government had taken over. In consideration of the public views that would be collected at Stage Three, we would adopt an open attitude in examining them.
MR CHAN HAK-KAN (in Cantonese): President, in fact, the residents in the NDAs are all very worried about matters relating to relocation and compensation, so they are very concerned about how their status is delineated and defined. I find that in part (b) of the main reply, the Government only said in a general manner that at present, about 1 700 households or 6 500 people live there and I find this unacceptable. This is because, to the residents, how their status is defined is actually a very important assurance. May I ask the Secretary if the Government will carry out a detailed household survey or registration in the near future, so that residents can have greater assurance in relocation and compensation in the future?
550 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, at this stage, we do not consider it appropriate to launch a registration exercise because the actual boundaries as well as the schedule and mode of implementation of this project have still not been decided. Therefore, we will follow the established practice, that is, after the appropriate approval procedure for this project has been completed, as stated in the main reply, we will launch the pre-clearance surveys and eligibility screening before the commencement of works.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, has your supplementary question not been answered?
MR CHAN HAK-KAN (in Cantonese): President, what the Secretary has not answered is: In fact, the project is actually now at the pre-works stage, so to what time will the phase mentioned by him be brought forward, or when will it commence? I think this point is very important. May I ask the Secretary to give us a specific date?
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The Secretary has already given a reply. Secretary, regarding the specific date, do you have anything to add?
SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, at present, it is not appropriate to carry out any registration.
MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): President, I still cannot see how the Government intends to carry out the planning for the NDAs and what the original procedures and rules are. President, I will cite two examples. Regarding the Sports City originally planned for Kai Tak, first, it was said that residential buildings rather than the Sports City would be built; then, it was said that the project would be downsized by half. The planning for North East ……
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr FUNG, please put your supplementary question concisely.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 551
MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): Fine. A plan was already formulated for NENT but suddenly, it is said that there is demand for public housing, so some of the land can be allocated to the construction of public housing.
May I ask how much is left of the right of the public to take part in the planning, so that they can gain information and be consulted in the process? Can the Government make changes all of a sudden? The Sports City is a case in point.
SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, I will not lump the NENT NDAs together with Kai Tak.
President, in fact, the consultation on the NENT NDAs began in the second half of 2008 and was carried out in three stages. When Stage One was carried out, the sheet of paper was blank. If Members look at the relevant papers again, they would find that at that time, the general public were consulted on the planning principles for the NDAs. Now, we have come to Stage Three and precisely because this is a consultation paper, President, we have to listen to views humbly and if any area of the relevant planning needs to be revised, we will strive to do so.
Just now, Mr Frederick FUNG mentioned the proportion of public housing and private housing and this is precisely one example. In the original plan, the proportion of public housing accounted for about 53% and when the plan was published, the Home Ownership Scheme (HOS) had not yet been reintroduced, so after we had heard the views expressed during the consultation period, we said that firstly, HOS flats would be built in the NDAs in the future and second, in response to the views in society, the proportion of public housing (by that I mean both public rental housing and HOS units) would be adjusted upwards, so it would not be surprising if its proportion exceeds 50%.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Which part of your supplementary question has not been answered?
552 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): Just now, I mainly cited two examples, both of which are related to the Government suddenly ……
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Please repeat your supplementary question.
MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): The question is: How much is left of the right of the public to obtain such information and be consulted? The Government can make changes whenever it likes.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The Secretary has already answered it. Secretary, on the Member's question on how much of the public's right to be consulted has remained, so do you have anything to add?
(The Secretary for Development was looking up the information)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The Member asks how much is left of the public's right to be consulted.
SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, although the consultation period was originally scheduled to end in late August, having regard to the views in society, we extended the period to late September. In fact, after the consultation period ended in late September, if various groups want to approach us to express their views, we would never turn them down.
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): President, each time, this kind of new plans and decisions on new land uses would eventually turn out to be the automatic teller machines for the rich and powerful, and by that I mean the rich and powerful in local communities on the one hand and consortia on the other. If we look at the planning for the entire NENT, there is a most special feature. Most of the land at Kwu Tung, an area slated for a new town and residential development, was bought up in advance by the Cheung Kong (Holdings) Limited, and it looks as though the location of Kwu Tung was specially designed as a new LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 553 property development of the Cheung Kong (Holdings) Limited, that is, it looks as though the entire planning were cut out for the consortium, whereas ordinary members of the public who have lived there for several decades have to be evicted ……
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, please ask your supplementary question.
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): President, my supplementary question is: Regarding the development of NENT, will the Government review the planning approach, which has been skewed towards plutocrats, consortia and the rich and powerful over the years, so as to ensure that the arrangements in this regard would not seriously affect the living of members of the lower classes, particularly users of temporary housing and farmlands, and that they can resume their farming activities and be rehoused in-situ?
SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, when planning NDAs, colleagues of the Planning Department (PD) have considered how the uses of various sites in an NDA should be planned having regard to what is the best and most appropriate option for the entire NDA. They would by no means take, and have never taken, into account what sites developers have hoarded. I think such an accusation is groundless and unfair to our colleagues in the PD.
President, as regards the restoration of farming activities, we have listened to many views and said a number of times that we understand that currently there is not enough land in North and South Long Yuen and Fu Tei Au for the resumption of farming, so we also said during the consultation period that colleagues of the PD had been asked to examine if some recreational land could be allocated to enable people who like farming to do so. We have also taken the initiative to liaise with the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department and the Lands Department to see if more places near the NDAs can be earmarked for consideration by people who are prepared to restore farming activities. We respect their way of life and will do our best to address this.
554 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
This also applies to our consideration of the demands of "no removal and no demolition" and in-situ rehousing. We hope Members will understand that we have the greatest sincerity and have done our level best. At the end of the day, it is inevitable that some people would still be affected but I hope all of us can appreciate one point, that is, in carrying out planning for the NENT NDAs, apart from the interests of local residents, we also have to consider the interests of all members of the Hong Kong public. We will do our utmost to put in place satisfactory arrangements for rehousing and compensation.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Which part of your supplementary question has not been answered?
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): He does not know about planning at all. I urge him to go back and check the land ownership at Kwu Tung clearly before giving me a reply. President, my supplementary question is: Will the Secretary ensure that residents who have lived in that area for several decades, that is, farmers or people leading a traditional way of life, can continue to live in that area? President, the Secretary did not give any reply about such an assurance.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The Secretary has already answered it. As Members know, later on, there will be a motion debate on the NENT NDAs. If Members have different views, they can raise them in due course.
MR ALAN LEONG (in Cantonese): President, at present, there is a great deal of hullabaloo in society claiming that Secretary Carrie LAM prefers the Conventional New Town Approach but LEUNG Chun-ying wants to adopt the public-private partnership approach to advance gains to property developers, so I wish to focus on part (c) of the main reply in particular.
President, the Secretary said in the second paragraph of this part of his reply that at present, it has not yet been decided whether the Conventional Approach or the public-private partnership approach would be adopted. President, we find this comment in the Secretary's reply: "…… would depend on whether it could address the need for timely provision of housing supply …… LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 555 and" ― I wish to focus my discussion on this point ― "…… the public perception of such approach". President, if we look at the next page, the last paragraph of the Secretary's reply says, "At present, we do not have information on transaction of private land within the NDAs. Such information is not required for analysis in the planning and engineering study concerned"……
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Please come to your supplementary question.
MR ALAN LEONG (in Cantonese): If it is necessary to consider the public perception of the public-private partnership approach, may I ask the Secretary if it is also necessary for him to give an account to the public on how much land in the NDAs is privately owned, so as to let them judge if the Government would advance gains to property developers? May I ask the Government if it has considered this matter from this angle? Does it still want to stand by what it says in the last paragraph of its reply?
SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): President, in these NDAs, more than half of the land is privately owned. This is the first point.
Second, Members mentioned the Conventional New Town Approach as well as the participation of the private sector, so I must point out one thing, that is, a simple dichotomy may not be the most useful in understanding the issue, President, because even under the Conventional New Town Approach adopted in the past, instances of land exchange as well as exchange entitlements could be found. In raising these two points, I do not mean that we would adopt these measures in respect of the NENT NDAs. We have not made any final decision and the higher echelon of the Government has not yet started discussing this. I only wish to point out that in considering this matter, we will consider how the planning on the NENT NDAs can be carried out in a timely and orderly manner, in particular, how a good job can be done in housing and infrastructure.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): We have spent 24 minutes on this question but a number of Members are still waiting to ask questions. When we conduct the 556 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 motion debate on the NENT NDAs later on, the Secretary will listen to Members' views and give a further response.
Third question.
Announcement on Overseas Visits by Senior Officials
3. MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): President, in August this year, the Commissioner of Police (Commissioner) paid a duty visit to Beijing without prior announcement. After the matter was reported by the media, the Commissioner openly claimed that this was a usual practice. A journalist has pointed out that in the past, whenever a senior government official was to make a visit outside Hong Kong, an announcement must be made before the visit to safeguard the public's right to information and the media's right of reporting. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council whether it has assessed if the aforesaid remark made by the Commissioner was a blatant lie; if so, whether he will be subject to any disciplinary action; and if so, what the disciplinary action will be?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): President, the arrangements for announcing visits made by Heads of Department are determined by individual departments having regard to the work nature, circumstances and needs.
Concerning the duty visits made by the Commissioner of Police, the Police Force, as a general practice, will issue press releases when substantive achievements have been attained by the visits. Since the incumbent Commissioner assumed his office in January 2011, the Police Force has issued press releases for 10 visits made by the Commissioner, announcing the substantive achievements attained by the visits, such as a consensus or co-operation agreement, including the signing of a memorandum of understanding or an agreement, with a law-enforcement agency outside Hong Kong on the combat of cross-boundary criminal activities and the strengthening of collaboration in training, professional development, and so on.
The arrangement for issuing a press release with regard to the Commissioner's visit to Beijing from 20 August 2012 to 22 August 2012 was, in LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 557 general, same as the previous arrangements, including those for his visit to Japan this year and visits to Cambodia, Thailand, Singapore, Malaysia, Indonesia and Australia last year for which press releases were issued after achievements had been attained by such visits.
The media may at any time contact the Police Public Relations Branch (PPRB) relating to any enquiries about the Commissioner's official activities.
MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): President, may I ask the Secretary why he has to harbour the Commissioner again and again while he himself has to lie, too? It is because firstly, the Chief Secretary for Administration has undertaken that announcements will definitely be made whenever visits are made by government officials outside Hong Kong. Secondly, subsequent to the news report of the aforesaid incident, a press release was issued immediately by the PPRB the following day, though no substantive achievement whatsoever had been attained in the visit. Why was the announcement made so quickly? Thirdly, information has shown that a visit to Beijing was also made by the Commissioner, TSANG Wai-hung, on 23 March. A press release on the details of the visit was issued by the PPRB the day before the visit rather than after substantive achievements had been made, as mentioned by the Secretary. Hence, I have to put this question to the Secretary again: Why does he have to harbour his subordinate in lying while he himself has to lie, too?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): President, I must point out very clearly that I have not harboured the Commissioner in lying. My subordinate has not lied, either.
A relevant point was mentioned by the Chief Secretary for Administration on 20 July this year during a meet-the-media session. Let me quote her remarks at that time: "According to the usual practice of the Special Administrative Region (SAR) Government, announcements will be made or press releases will be issued for all official visits outside Hong Kong, including courtesy calls pay courtesy calls on, whether by Secretaries of Departments or Directors of Bureaux." The Commissioner is a Head of Department in the Civil Service, not a Secretary of Department or Director of Bureau. According to the usual 558 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 practice of all Heads of Departments, press releases will not be issued until achievements have been attained in visits outside Hong Kong.
I already quoted some examples in the main reply just now. Let me cite more examples to illustrate my point.
During the Commissioner's visits to Singapore and Malaysia during the period from 7 June to 11 June 2011, a press release was issued by the police on 9 June about the meeting between the Commissioner and the head of the police unit of Singapore as well as the strengthening of training co-operation and combating of transnational crimes, including drug trafficking, money laundering and technology crimes. During his visit to Malaysia, the Commissioner also met with the senior staff of the Witness Protection Unit and reached an agreement on plans for training made by the Hong Kong Police Force and future co-operation. The date of his return was 11 June.
Hence, I think that there is nothing wrong with our usual practice. As regards the one single occasion on which a press release was issued before the Commissioner's visit to Beijing, as mentioned by the Honourable Member just now, I would like to point out that the press release was issued at that time because a question was raised earlier by the media as they were curious about when the Commissioner, who had newly taken office, would pay a courtesy call on Beijing. It was under such circumstances that the Police Force issued a press release earlier in response to the enquiry made by the media.
MR JEFFREY LAM (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary indicated just now in the main reply that arrangements for the announcement of visits made by Heads of Departments had been determined by individual departments having regard to their work nature, circumstances and needs.
To my understanding, President, the Commissioner of Independent Commission Against Corruption, the Director of Audit, the Commissioner of Police, the Director of Immigration and the Commissioner of Customs and Excise are all key officials appointed by the Central Authorities. May I ask the Secretary, besides the Police Force, how announcements on the arrangements for visits outside Hong Kong will be made to the media by the Immigration Department and the Customs and Excise Department (C&ED), as both LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 559
Departments are under the jurisdiction of the Security Bureau? What such announcements were made recently and what were the criteria adopted?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): President, I already pointed out just now in my reply to the supplementary question raised by Mr LEUNG that, although the Commissioner is a principal official stipulated in the Basic Law, he is also a Head of Department in the Civil Service. The same applies to the Director of Immigration and the Commissioner of Customs and Excise, who will pay official visits outside Hong Kong and attend conferences or activities hosted by relevant international agencies from time to time having regard to their operational needs. It is understood that the Immigration Department (ImmD) and the C&ED will, as a general rule, disseminate information to the public in a timely manner after substantive achievements have been attained in the overseas visits made by their Heads of Departments. Their practice is similar to that of the Police Force.
I would like to point out here that the work nature of the disciplined forces is unique as their prime goal is to combat crime and maintain law and order. Given the constant change in the modus operandi of cross-boundary criminal activities, international collaboration in combating crime is indeed very crucial. There is a need for the disciplined forces to maintain close ties and exchanges with their law-enforcement counterparts outside Hong Kong. What is more, communication and exchange often take a long period of time, in order that substantive achievements in collaboration can be attained. Moreover, strategies and arrangements for joint actions to combat crime often involve sensitive information. We consider that the existing practice of the disciplined forces, that is, issuing press releases after substantive achievements have been attained in visits, is indeed an appropriate arrangement.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LAM, has your supplementary question not been answered?
MR JEFFREY LAM (in Cantonese): Although arrangements can be made on their own, is it necessary for them to inform the Secretary?
560 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): You did not raise this point in your question just now. If you wish to raise another question, please wait for another turn.
MR NG LEUNG-SING (in Cantonese): President, I think that the overseas visits made by the police and their co-operation with other places are indeed very important. On behalf of the industry and some members of the public, I would like to praise the police for their outstanding performance in maintaining Hong Kong's security, law and order, and so on, such that members of the public and travellers can enjoy extra peace of mind in this city with a long tradition of upholding free economy.
With regard to this question, may I ask if the so-called right to information and right of reporting were given priority such that premature or excessively detailed reports are made on some collaborative visits concerning law and order, would this lead to negative or not entirely normal results?
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The Secretary actually touched on this point in his reply to the supplementary question raised by Mr LAM just now. Secretary, do you have anything to add?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): President, with regard to the supplementary question raised by Mr NG, I can only say that very often, announcements of this kind on communication and exchange can be made only after substantive achievements have been attained, and it is extremely crucial to do so. As some of the arrangements under discussion might be quite delicate, so, if they are made public before the time is ripe, the chances of both parties agreeing to collaboration or reaching agreements will often be affected. This will indeed pose a certain degree of difficulty for us in maintaining Hong Kong's law and order and reaching an understanding with our overseas counterparts.
We appreciate the public right to information, and so public announcements will be made after achievements have been attained for public information.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 561
MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): I still have to question the Secretary about his claim that announcements on any visits outside Hong Kong can be made only after substantive achievements have been attained and his remark that the right to information is, insofar as the Bureau is concerned, unimportant. I am afraid the Secretary does not have a very clear understanding of the media's beliefs. The public right to information requires no official filtering to determine what we should or should not know. The media absolutely have the right to ask the Commissioner in advance about the general direction of his visit to Beijing and the major issues to be discussed. If such a basic request cannot be met, he should be considered as failing to fulfil his responsibility towards the people.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Claudia MO, please refrain from making comments. Please raise your supplementary question.
MS CLAUDIA MO (in Cantonese): May I ask the Secretary whether he will insist on informing the media in future of what happened only after substantive achievements have been attained? Does it mean that even if public money is spent in future on overseas visits by all Heads, Directors of Bureaux and Directors of Departments, Hong Kong people will still not know what happened unless substantive achievements have been attained?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): First of all, I must state in unequivocal terms here that I did not say just now that the right to information was unimportant. Hence, announcements will be made after achievements have been attained in overseas visits for public information.
As regards the point that the media might be interested in the overseas visits by the Commissioner to certain places, as mentioned just now by Ms Claudia MO, I already mentioned in the main reply that the media may liaise with the PPRB at any time if they have any enquiries about the Commissioner's official activities. The Police Force also understand the media's concern about the visit by the Commissioner to Beijing. Hence, to my understanding, the Commissioner will consider, when paying visits to Beijing in future, making arrangements through the Office of the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region in Beijing to facilitate meetings with journalists of Hong 562 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
Kong's media organizations stationed in Beijing, so that the media can gain an understanding of his visits to Beijing.
MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): President, may I ask whether the line is drawn having regard to the ranks of the relevant officials, the sensitivity of their work or the requirements of the Basic Law, including that appointments must be made by the Central Authorities or such criteria as only permanent Hong Kong residents can assume such posts, and so on, to decide whether the current practice should be adopted? The Secretary has emphasized on three separate occasions that announcements can be made only after substantive achievements have been attained. We understand, however, that the issues handled by all principal officials are very often sensitive, so is it adequate to use substantive achievements as the criteria for decisions to be made? Or are there any other underlying considerations for the drawing of this line?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): Various departments have been making decisions on their own in respect of announcements on visits made by their Heads of Departments outside Hong Kong having regard to their work nature, circumstances and needs. Certainly, if under certain special circumstances that the media express interest in and make enquiries about overseas visits made by a Head of Department on official duty, the relevant department will certainly exert its utmost to answer such enquiries. In my second attempt just now to reply to the point about substantive achievements being attained, I already explained the reason, and so I do not wish to repeat it again.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Has your supplementary question not been answered?
MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): Besides the expression "substantive achievements", which have been emphasized repeatedly, are there any relatively objective criteria to let us know when and for what ranks or categories of questions we can expect prior announcements to be made rather than announcements made after overseas visits have been concluded and substantive LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 563 achievements attained? After the visit made by Secretary Eddie NG outside Hong Kong in connection with national education, people have already grown quite sensitive to or dissatisfied with this. In this respect, I hope the authorities or the Secretary can clarify whether there are objective and specific criteria rather than the mere expression "substantive achievements".
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Secretary, the question asked by the Honourable Member relates the criteria on which the line is drawn. Do you have anything to add?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): Announcements have always been made by the SAR Government on the visits made by Secretaries of Departments and Directors of Bureaux on official duty outside Hong Kong. Besides these visits, officials will also be required to, from time to time, attend working-level meetings and conferences with respect to certain issues. These working-level meetings and conferences may be routine in nature and the contents of the discussions may also be at the stage of consultation only. Hence, we cannot make sweeping generalizations. Instead, we should decide whether or not and how to make announcements having regard to the actual circumstances and needs. This should be our criteria for going about with this.
DR ELIZABETH QUAT (in Cantonese): President, I also think that the announcements on visits made by senior officials should be governed by a mechanism that must be clear and transparent in specifying, for instance, the ranks of civil servants and the circumstances under which announcements should be made a certain number of days before or after the visits. And, for instance, a set of criteria should be drawn up regarding what is meant by "substantive achievements". We also hope that the arrangements can be enhanced regarding the number of visits made by senior officials outside Hong Kong by, for instance, setting out statistics on the number of overseas visits made per annum, just as the uploading of statistics on the official exchanges between the SAR Government and the Mainland by the Constitutional and Mainland Affairs Bureau onto its webpage ……
564 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr QUAT, please raise your supplementary question.
DR ELIZABETH QUAT (in Cantonese): …… so as to enhance its transparency and enable members of the public to gain a better understanding of it. Hence, may I ask whether the authorities will consider establishing a clear mechanism and a clear set of criteria to enable us to grasp the relevant information and making public the arrangements in this regard and the statistics on the number of visits made by senior officials outside Hong Kong?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): President, in how many days or hours should advance announcements on visits made by Heads of Departments outside Hong Kong be made or when such be made? The official meetings attended by Heads of Departments outside Hong Kong are often affected by various factors, such as cancellations by the other parties due to unexpected important matters after the dates for the overseas visits have been fixed. Such circumstances actually arise from time to time. Hence, it will actually be difficult to draw a line to stipulate how many hours before or when announcements must be made.
Moreover, as I pointed out just now, the timing of the announcements hinges mainly on the achievements attained in overseas visits. Perhaps let me do some brief explaining here. Generally speaking, "substantive achievements" mean the agreements reached by the Commissioner during his visits outside Hong Kong with overseas law-enforcement agencies on the combat of cross-boundary criminal activities and the strengthening of collaboration in training, professional development, and so on. In other words, the attainment of "substantive achievements" means the reaching of consensus or agreements by both parties, certainly including the signing of memoranda or agreements, and so on.
In retrospect, we will find that announcements were made by the Commissioner over a period of time in the past in accordance with the aforesaid criteria, and very often, those announcements were made before the conclusion of his visits while he was still outside Hong Kong. All in all, an announcement will be made once an achievement has been attained. I believe this practice will not only persist, it can also effectively enable the public at large to gain an LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 565 understanding of the achievements attained after discussions with their counterparts by the Commissioner or other Heads of Department during their visits overseas.
MR IP KWOK-HIM (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary's reply is very simple. Nevertheless, when an enquiry was made by the media in the past, I also found that the Commissioner's reply was that announcements would be made only when substantial achievements had been attained. Why did different government officials act differently in making announcements on courtesy calls? Is there a need for the practices adopted by officials at various ranks to be standardized?
SECRETARY FOR SECURITY (in Cantonese): President, in my reply just now to the supplementary question raised by another Member, I already accounted for the general arrangements for the announcements on visits made by Secretaries of Departments or Directors of Bureaux outside Hong Kong. As for the Heads of Departments in the Government, I already explained to Members that the several disciplined forces under the Security Bureau have been making decisions on their own having regard to their work nature, circumstances and needs. As the overseas visits made by various government departments are different, it is most preferably for various departments to disseminate relevant information to the public at large in a timely manner having regard to their respective circumstances. I consider this approach the most appropriate. If rigid requirements are specially imposed, an unnecessary impact might be caused instead.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): We have used more than 22 minutes and 30 seconds on this question. Fourth question.
MPF Schemes
4. MR TANG KA-PIU (in Cantonese): President, the Employee Choice Arrangement (ECA) under the Mandatory Provident Fund (MPF) schemes, which is commonly known as "MPF Semi-Portability", will commence in November this 566 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 year. Upon its commencement, employees may opt for transferring the accrued benefits derived from their MPF contributions to the MPF schemes of their choices. However, some members of the public have pointed out that there are numerous MPF schemes and portfolios in the market, and the MPF trustees' sales targets will increase considerably to about 3 million upon commencement of the ECA; while employees will have more choices under the "MPF Semi-Portability", there may be an increase in malpractices in MPF sales. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) apart from putting in place a statutory regulatory regime for MPF intermediaries, what other measures the authorities have formulated to ensure that MPF trustees will conduct sales activities with transparency of information, and will recommend suitable schemes to employees according to their individual needs; if they have, of the details of the measures and the implementation; if not, the reasons for that;
(b) whether the authorities will establish an investigation team to conduct surprise random inspections of the sales practices, promotional materials and contents of MPF schemes of individual MPF trustees, and set up a designated department to directly receive employees' enquiries and complaints; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and
(c) concerning the effectiveness of the ECA in lowering the fees and charges of MPF schemes, whether the Government will make an estimation before the ECA's commencement and conduct a review thereafter; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): President,
(a) Under the Mandatory Provident Fund Schemes Ordinance and the Securities and Futures Ordinance, only offering documents on products approved by the Securities and Futures Commission as a Collective Investment Scheme and the Mandatory Provident Fund Schemes Authority (MPFA) as a registered MPF scheme or fund LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 567
may be issued. Marketing materials of MPF products are also subject to regulation of the two regulators.
We anticipate that there will be more proactive sales and marketing activities upon the introduction of the ECA on 1 November 2012. We have therefore introduced a new statutory regime to regulate MPF intermediaries. Under the new regime, only registered MPF intermediaries are allowed to sell MPF schemes or provide advice on MPF products. They must act in the best interests of clients and comply with a set of statutory conduct requirements. To facilitate compliance, the MPFA has issued Guidelines on Conduct Requirements for Registered Intermediaries (Conduct Guidelines) on the standards of conduct expected, which include among others, that an intermediary must conduct a suitability assessment for an employee before extending an invitation or giving regulated advice to the employee that involves choice of a particular MPF fund. An intermediary is also required to make such disclosure of information as is necessary for the employee to make informed decisions. For example, information on the fees and charges of the MPF product concerned, the monetary and non-monetary benefits the intermediary concerned will receive in promoting the product, and the implication for transfer into or out of a guaranteed fund.
In parallel, the MPFA will continue an extensive publicity and education campaign to enable employees to have a better understanding of the statutory duties of MPF intermediaries and the conduct requirements with which they must comply, as well as of basic MPF investment knowledge, such that employees will be better equipped to make informed decisions and protect their interests.
(b) Under the new statutory regime, each registered intermediary will be assigned a frontline regulator (FR) entrusted with clear statutory responsibility and power to monitor its compliance with the statutory conduct requirements. The FR will employ a range of regulatory tools at its disposal to monitor a registered intermediary's compliance with the statutory conduct requirements, which may include on-site inspections of their sales and marketing activities and relevant systems and records.
568 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
To ensure prompt detection of misconduct and follow-up of complaints, the MPFA has set up dedicated teams to handle enquiries and complaints regarding MPF intermediaries. It will maintain a central register of complaints including those received by FRs. In addition, the MPFA will monitor the progress of follow-up action taken by FRs on complaints referred, including the progress of investigation. Substantiated cases of non-compliance with the statutory conduct requirements will be subject to disciplinary sanctions imposed by the MPFA, ranging from reprimand to suspension or revocation of registration.
(c) Driving down MPF fees has been on the top of the agenda of the Government and the MPFA. Various measures to increase market transparency and promote market competition have been pursued. By way of example, back in 2004 the MPFA developed a uniform approach for illustrating the total effect of fees and charges impacting on MPF funds, namely, the Fund Expense Ratios (FERs). It has made available the information in the Fee Comparative Platform on its website since 2007 to facilitate choices of schemes and funds by members. The Government and the MPFA have also been closely monitoring the trend of the average FER and other developments concerning MPF system in devising new initiatives to enhance the system.
We note that the average FER of MPF funds has decreased from 2.1% as of January 2008 to 1.73% in September 2012, representing a reduction of more than 17%. This notwithstanding, we firmly believe that there is room for further fee reduction, especially in view of the growing size of the MPF System. While the effect of the ECA on the exact pricing dynamics of MPF market has yet to emerge, it should inevitably reduce the system-wide FER if more scheme members focus on transferring to lower-fee funds. It would also exert pressure on the industry to further reduce fees and charges. We will continue to keep track of market situation, including the change in the FERs of MPF funds, and introduce new measures as necessary.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 569
MR TANG KA-PIU (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary has just said that the average FER of MPF funds is 1.73%. In other words, the wage earners have injected $6.7 billion into the funds, which is a huge sum. In Singapore which has a similar or even smaller population than Hong Kong, the figure now is only 1.4%.
May I ask the Secretary why he cannot state any policy objective with respect to the level to which FER should be reduced? If confidence is only placed in the free choices of the market …… the MPFA has compiled a table showing a number of funds, but how can the wage earners understand that and how should they read the information and make choices? I do not think they know how to make such choices. This is really the case and this change has come about for just three months.
I wish to ask the question once more. The Secretary has said that he firmly believes that there is further room for fee reduction. Then may I ask what his target is and by how much it should be reduced? If the effect is not obvious, would a ceiling on fees charged be imposed, as the chairman Anna WU said before, and that the Government will intervene and become one of the intermediaries?
SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): Thanks to the Member for his supplementary question. We believe that there is further room for fee reduction. But as to the rate of reduced, I do not think I can provide any data now which can be considered as scientific enough. As for figures in other countries, including those from Australia and other places, I have certainly taken them into consideration. But MPF schemes in other places are different from ours and so the costs involved are different. This is something we must consider.
At present, we have invited the MPFA to undertake a cost study in collaboration with us to see how costs of MPF schemes in Hong Kong are calculated and why the fees charged are 1.7% and how fees are determined. This will enable us to know how much room for maneuvre we have in formulating a policy on that.
I wish to emphasize that we consider that the fees can be reduced. However, as to the question of what should be done to achieve a reduction, we 570 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 have to give serious thoughts to that. Mr TANG has just mentioned a table and I have seen it too. Released by the Consumer Council, it is well-prepared and the details of all the funds are listed. This table can certainly enable the consumers to know many details about the funds and the costs. But the question is, can a person tell whether which funds are good if he knows the costs? This is open to discussion.
I would think that there is still room for improvement in many aspects of the MPF schemes and costs are one of them. The table shows that the consumers really face many kinds of funds and it is confusing. About these funds, can they really meet the requirement of MPF schemes as a platform for members of the public? I would think that as they stand, these schemes still have inadequacies and we must study all kinds of funds provided by the MPF schemes to see if they can meet the policy objectives and requirements of the MPF System and whether or not the fees charged can be reduced. So in these respects, we will make holistic consideration.
So please give us some time. The MPFA will publish a cost report on the funds and the Government will take follow-up action and study the concepts behind the MPF System as a whole before deciding what should be done and what assistance should be given to the people to help them make the best choice. We will help them determine whether the choice they make is most suitable and whether allowing the availability of many options is the best approach and whether we can formulate some convenient arrangement regarding the funds and their charges so that the people can make their choice. We will study these aspects.
With respect to the question of which proposals would best meet our policy requirements, I can say that irrespective of which proposal we are talking about, such as the suggestion that legal requirements should be introduced in respect of the charging of fees, I do not think I can rule out such a proposal. But I must point out that we will follow a policy objective when we are to consider how our MPF System is to be improved.
MR ANDREW LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I wish to declare that I am a non-executive director of the MPFA. The Secretary in his reply to the question from Mr TANG Ka-piu has mentioned matters in many aspects. In fact, these LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 571 are matters of concern to the public, and fees are just one of such matters. However, the Government has said that when members of the public face so many funds, they would not know how to choose from these funds. Can the Government collaborate with the MPFA …… I have with me a table on fees. But actually fees are only part of the picture and the other parts are the return and the net return. In other words, it would be useless if the fees charged are low but there is no return. This is because we make contributions to MPF schemes only in the hope of getting returns. Then what should the Government do about this or to effect supervision? The Secretary has said that we should give some time to the Government, but just how much time is required? The "MPF Semi-Portability" measure will commence in November and 3 million people will be persuaded by the intermediaries to switch their trustees. Actually, this would cause a great confusion. I think that the Government should think about how this table of information can be made better and teach people like us who want to make use of the "MPF Semi-Portability" to switch our accounts and not to make the wrong choice.
SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): Thanks to the Member for raising this question. Now the "MPF Semi-Portability" measure is about to commence and of course, the Government is very concerned about problems associated with sales practices. This explains why we have passed the relevant law this year so that regulation can be imposed on the sales practices of intermediaries in selling MPF schemes and that the relevant arrangements can be improved. Now we have made available many guidelines on sales such as on forbidding the sale of MPF schemes or making cold calls to clients by unregistered intermediaries and requiring registered intermediaries to follow a set of guidelines when engaging in sales activities such as making it compulsory that a suitability assessment be conducted and that details of the funds concerned should be explained to the clients, and so on. Now we are working on these. We will study the question of whether "MPF Semi-Portability" can lead to changes in the market, hence achieving our policy objective of lowering the fees. However, I wish to say that relying on the semi-portability arrangement alone may not necessarily achieve this policy objective. Having said that, we consider that the philosophy behind "MPF Semi-Portability" desirable and it can enable the employees to have more choices. As for making improvements to the MPF System as a whole, we must undertake 572 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 a full review of the System. I can tell Members that we will certainly study the problem together with the MPFA.
MR CHAN KIN-POR (in Cantonese): President, I realize that Members all care very much about the MPF administrative fees. But I think that we must speed up the process of automation regarding MPF contributions and substantially simplify the compliance requirements before operation costs and administrative fees can be lowered. The Secretary pointed out in the main reply that if more MPF scheme members choose lower-fee funds, the FER overall should inevitably be reduced. However, the reality is that now almost all the service providers provide lower-fee funds for scheme members to choose. Has the Government done any study to examine why there are fewer people who opt for this kind of lower-fee funds? As a matter of fact, scheme members focus more on the net return. I think Members should not underestimate the intelligence of members of the public. Now there are actually many lower-fee funds for people to choose, but why do they not choose them? Will the Secretary please answer this question.
SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): The Member has raised a very good question. I have actually looked into this situation as well. Previously when we made a study of the MPF, we had considered how the fund companies could be encouraged to introduce some lower-fee products. As a matter of fact, charging lower fees does not mean having no returns. This is because for some passively managed funds, such as index funds, they will change with movements in the index. The costs of these passively managed funds are lower and their return will change in tandem with movements in the market. These funds reflect movements in the market and their value is so based. At present, there are many such index funds in the market. An example is the Tracker Fund. They have a cost lower than 1%. So if members of the public can choose to buy this kind of low-cost funds which can show market changes, then how are they sold in the market and do they sell well? I think I would try to learn more about the situation. But I think it is not the prevalent trend in the market for people to buy this kind of funds. What actually are the people after? Do they pursue high returns or other things? We will look into that. I believe currently the publicity and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 573 consumer education on this kind of funds are not sufficient and some people may not know that they even exist.
We used to hear many Members of this Council question why the Government did not do anything to encourage the fund companies to roll out funds like the Tracker Fund. I can tell Members that this kind of funds does exist. But why do the people not choose them? We hope that when we carry out a study together with the MPFA, we can first gauge the sales situation of these funds, then we can enhance educational efforts in this respect. This is because the FER figures of these funds are based on the average of the total amount of expenses incurred when people buy the funds. If the people do not choose the lower-fee funds, the costs will not drop. So we would certainly hope that the people can be encouraged to buy this kind of funds. I believe and I can say that the people do have choices. I am not saying that members of the public have to buy this kind of funds and they cannot choose other funds. But I would think that insofar as enhancing the acceptance of this kind of funds is concerned, enhanced efforts in education is one of the things we can do.
MS STARRY LEE (in Cantonese): President, since the introduction of MPF, wage earners have incurred more losses than gains. They have a lot of grievances to air about the existing MPF System. The administrative fees are high but the return is not guaranteed. These two problems are not properly dealt with. All along the wage earners want to have funds that charge relatively low fees and fetch a steady return. The Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB) has been advocating that the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) should assume the role of a fund trustee and roll out products linked with the Exchange Fund as an option for wage earners. Ms Anna WU, Chairman of the MPFA, mentioned in a recent interview that she did not rule out the possibility of some public organizations acting as MPF trustees. May I ask the Secretary whether he will accept our suggestion and urge the HKMA to study in the near future the possibility of making the HKMA or other public organizations act as trustees? If not, what are the reasons?
SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): As far as I know, a public trustee is not the same as an investment manager. They are different. To my understanding, a public trustee may incur lower costs and so its administrative fees may be lower. As for the question 574 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 raised by the Member, that is, whether or not there are some better funds preferred by members of the public, I am grateful to her for her praise of the Exchange Fund and I reckon that the managers of the Exchange Fund would be very pleased to hear that as well. However, the Exchange Fund is managed specifically for the purpose of defending the stability of the Hong Kong dollar. And given this mode of operation, it may not be entirely suitable for use in any arrangement related to retirement investments. Furthermore, if members of the public like the investment arrangements under the Exchange Fund, I am sure it is perfectly feasible for the market to think up similar funds. So there is nothing magical about it. If there are market needs, or if we have this kind of requirement in our regulation work, the market can actually come up with funds that offer greater stability.
Of course, as Members know, there is no guarantee that a fund will not suffer any loss. But with respect to how the formation of funds like this and ensure that they can better comply with the requirements for funds under a public sector retirement fund system, we will study that and work hard on it. This is because it is really very important. As Members have said, we agree that the MPF System is much criticized by the public and as there are many causes for such grievances, so we must try to find out the reasons. Meanwhile, we are also aware that there are strong public expectations for that and so we must do the job well before we can ever hope to strengthen the three pillars of our retirement system.
MR ALBERT HO (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary has just mentioned the retirement system again. Obviously, if the MPF is made one of these pillars, it is bound to be a short one and it will certainly crumble. So how can we rely on it for our retirement life? In this respect, we will hold a motion debate on it later on.
We have heard many problems now and the Secretary in his reply has admitted that the MPF System is much criticized by the public for offering no guarantee in the return and is subject to losses at any time. But these fund managers are making an indecent profit out of this lucrative business. For the Government, throughout all these 10 years, it has never introduced any effective measure to reduce the administrative fees and impose a ceiling on the investment charges.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 575
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Please raise your supplementary question.
MR ALBERT HO (in Cantonese): Why can something not be done about this? I have to stress again, and this point has actually been raised by some Honourable colleagues earlier, that the Government has the obligation to make available a scheme in the near future, including the appointment of a public trustee, in order to lower the administrative costs and to allow the public trustee to introduce different investment methods effectively or to brief the public on ……
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Please raise your supplementary question.
MR ALBERT HO (in Cantonese): …… this is part of my question. This will enable members of the public to have some better protection, even if the money involved is not that much. They will feel better and do not hold so many grievances. Can this be done within a few months, that is, appointing some public trustees and introducing some matching schemes to give better protection to MPF contributors?
SECRETARY FOR FINANCIAL SERVICES AND THE TREASURY (in Cantonese): I think we should fully examine the situation in this respect instead of just finding a method. As I have said, the cost for this kind of index funds similar to the Tracker Fund is actually very low, but why do members of the public not buy them? Is it because the promotion for these funds not proactive enough? Why do such things happen? Should we examine the system as a whole and see what can be done to make the people choose more of certain types of funds? I think we should study this problem closely. Is there an instant solution to this problem? I think that we cannot make a quick decision on this for the time being. I will study the problem of fees together with the MPFA to see if the administrative fees can be reduced and whether or not appropriate competition or regulation in other aspects can be introduced so that we can truly meet the expectations of the public.
576 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): We have spent more than 23 minutes on this question. Fifth question.
Review of Statutory Minimum Wage Rate
5. MR KWOK WAI-KEUNG (in Cantonese): President, the Minimum Wage Ordinance (MWO) provides that the Minimum Wage Commission (MWC) is required to review the statutory minimum wage (SMW) rate at least once in every two years. In conducting the review, the MWC will take into account a basket of relevant data including social, economic and employment indicators in the past year. As such, the MWC's recommendation about the minimum wage rate may be made with reference to the economic data three years ago and lags behind the actual economic situation by three years. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council whether it will:
(a) conduct a comprehensive review of the MWO;
(b) shorten the period of review of the minimum wage rate from once every two years to once every year; and
(c) formulate reference criteria which are more specific and objective, so as to minimize the contention among MWC members in reviewing the minimum wage rate and shorten the deliberation time?
SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): President, my reply to the question raised by Mr KWOK Wai-keung is as follows:
(a) The implementation of SMW in Hong Kong is the culmination of years of discussion and concerted effort of all stakeholders including the Legislative Council. It is a significant milestone in the development of Hong Kong's labour policy. In formulating the minimum wage legislation, the Administration undertook extensive consultation and gauged the views of different stakeholders. All the provisions of the MWO were thoroughly discussed and scrutinized before passage by the Legislative Council of the last term.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 577
The implementation of SMW since the Labour Day on 1 May 2011 has been smooth. The labour market has remained stable and low-income employees have enjoyed substantial improvement in their employment earnings. The latest figures in June to August this year showed that the average employment earnings of full-time low-income employees in the lowest decile group (that is, the lowest stratum) registered a year-on-year growth of 6.3% (or an increase of 4.6% net of inflation), outpacing the overall growth of 3.4%, whereas the overall employment earnings of employees have registered an increase of only 0.3% net of inflation.
SMW has been implemented in Hong Kong for only a year or so. The Administration will continue to closely monitor the implementation of SMW. At this stage, there is no proven need for a comprehensive review of the MWO.
(b) Given the high degree of external orientation of our economy, Hong Kong is more susceptible to global economic vicissitudes. Any changes in the external environment may have impact on the Hong Kong economy. As the time of implementing SMW in Hong Kong is still short, its full implications can only be fully assessed after a longer implementation period.
It is a pragmatic arrangement under the MWO for the SMW rate to be reviewed at least once in every two years. The SMW rate is determined on the basis of an evidence-based approach. The Census and Statistics Department (C&SD) conducts a survey every year to collect detailed information on wage levels and distribution among employees in Hong Kong. In the event that there is evidence supporting the need for a review of the SMW rate, a review can be conducted within less than two years.
(c) As stated clearly in the MWO, when reviewing and making recommendation on the SMW rate, the MWC must have regard to the need to maintain an appropriate balance between the objectives of forestalling excessively low wages and minimizing the loss of low-paid jobs, and the need to sustain Hong Kong's economic growth and competitiveness.
578 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
In its review of the SMW rate, the MWC makes reference to a basket of indicators which reflect the latest socio-economic and employment situation. It undertakes detailed analyses on wage distribution data and findings of other surveys, and conducts assessment of the impact of the SMW rate to take account of the changing social, employment and economic environment in an effective, timely and flexible manner. Through extensive consultation, the MWC also grasps the effects of the SMW rate on various sectors of society and their related views.
SMW has far-reaching impact on a multiplicity of areas like labour market, employment, society, economy, inflation, productivity and competitiveness, and these factors interact constantly. There are also diverse views and concerns about the SMW rate in the community. The Administration considers that the existing arrangement is specific, objective and appropriate.
MR KWOK WAI-KEUNG (in Cantonese): President, in part (a) of the main reply the Secretary said that the average earnings of employees who are paid at the minimum wage have registered a growth of 6.3%, outpacing the overall growth of 3.4%. This is unreasonable, because the former is given protection by an increase in the minimum wage. Therefore, these two figures should not be compared.
My question is: If the Bureau is unwilling to state clearly in the MWO that a review will be conducted once every year, how can the Administration solve the problem of the minimum wage rate lagging behind the actual economic situation and ensure that the new wage level can cope with the increase in inflation, in order to alleviate the financial pressure on elementary employees?
SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): President, I have explained this very clearly in my main reply. In fact, the minimum wage reflects market changes and trends. It is a misconception to think that the first minimum wage rate of $28 was based on the statistics in 2009 and therefore, there is a gap of three years. This is entirely a wrong understanding.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 579
Although the 2011 Annual Earnings and Hours Survey of the C&SD (which is now a large-scale survey conducted annually) covered the period from May to June 2011, the MWC, apart from drawing on this survey, also made reference to ― and I stress ― a large amount of other more frequently published and updated data, including those on inflation, unemployment rate, and so on. These data are published more frequently on a monthly or quarterly basis, and consideration is also given to the latest developments and trends. In the meantime, the MWC will grasp the outlook of the economy and labour market in the near term from such factors as the gross domestic product (GDP) and inflation forecast (or outlook). Moreover, it will pay regard to the latest changes in wages and employment earnings before making recommendations. So, there is absolutely no question of carrying a gap of three years as Mr KWOK has just said.
As a matter of fact, projections were already included in the recommendations made at that time, covering such aspects as inflation, employment situation and growth in GDP. An overall forecast has been made, which is reflected in the recommendation on the wage level.
MR CHUNG KWOK-PAN (in Cantonese): President, we have seen a lot of problems after the implementation of the minimum wage. One is that the increase in the minimum wage has shifted the cost to the price. For example, management fees, security fees, cleaning fees and rates have all been increased. In fact, the middle class has been hit the hardest.
In this connection, may I ask the Secretary whether representatives of the middle class should also be included in the MWC which is now comprised mainly of employers and employees? It is because they have been hit the hardest and do not have the opportunity to make their voices heard.
SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): President, the composition of the MWC is representative. Its members include three employers, three employees, three academics and three government officials who provide services and give advice in their official capacities. However, the MWC must undertake an important step in drawing up recommendations on the wage level and that is, it must listen to the views of members of the community 580 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 extensively and liaise with various stakeholders. Therefore, the MWC will meet with many relevant organizations (including members of the middle class that the Member has just mentioned), representatives of owners' corporations and even representatives of District Councils. They can convey their views in this course of consultation, and it is not the case that there are only the views of MWC members. Therefore, Members should understand that the MWC has collected public views extensively and listened to the voices of members of various sectors and stratum of society. So, it is representative and comprehensive.
MR MICHAEL TIEN (in Cantonese): President, the review of the minimum wage rate biannually has caused great depletion in society. Employers hope to keep the rate on the low side to maintain flexibility in business operation but they are always dubbed as unscrupulous, whereas labour unions have exploited the advantage of standing on the moral high ground, demanding exorbitantly high wages for the benefit of workers. A negative image has thus been created for the business sector over time.
In the Secretary's reply to part (c) of Mr KWOK Wai-keung's question about whether objective criteria will be formulated, basically I can see that the answer is all-embracing in that all factors are said to be taken into consideration. What actually happens is that both sides come to the discussion table to "bargain" with each other, and it is a very much politicized process.
May I ask the Government why the movements of inflation are not made a hard indicator, so as to give the MWC the power to make some fine-tuning subject to a limit? It is because this is in principle the most objective approach to provide protection to elementary workers by ensuring that their living meets the standard of $28 on which a consensus has been reached in society.
SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): Thanks to Mr TIEN for his question and views. The MWC adopts an evidence-based approach. So, the factors considered by the MWC in making recommendations are a basket of indicators. This is very important.
Second, the views of the people concerned (including the diverse views of stakeholders) and other relevant factors as well as impact assessments (including LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 581 the impact of a certain wage rate on the labour market, economy and the standard of living) will be assessed comprehensively by the MWC.
The Member asked whether this can be done in a simpler way by, for instance, linking the wage level to inflation, or there are views that a formula can be worked out to pre-empt contention. This is difficult because in fact, in many countries and advanced places, the implementation of minimum wage is also based on a "basket" approach, which means that apart from the data, analyses are also made before making an assessment. This approach is adopted in many places.
With regard to the use of a formula, it is even more difficult for Hong Kong to do so because given the high degree of external orientation of our economy, we are susceptible to influence by the external circumstances. If the wage level is linked purely to inflation, inflationary pressure will be intensified because this will create the chain effect of wages and prices chasing each other. This is the "self-perpetuating inflationary spiral" as referred to by economists. This is what economists say.
Therefore, we must be very careful. We cannot simply suggest that the wage level be purely linked to inflation. We, therefore, have to be objective and take a comprehensive approach. In the process, discussions are conducted and the best recommendation will then be put forward to the Government. This was the approach taken last time, and I believe this time around, there is a consensus that the task can also be accomplished through this process.
MISS CHAN YUEN-HAN (in Cantonese): President, I think there can be different interpretations of parts (a) to (c) of the Government's main reply, depending on the position that one takes. In other words, there is no criterion. In order to have a criterion to base on, I would think that there is already a criterion in the market. What is this criterion? On the question of pay rise, companies in general will, whether for economic reasons or other reasons, adopt a practice every year and that is, they give employees a pay rise.
I hope that the Secretary can tell me what companies in Hong Kong do not usually adopt this criterion of an annual pay rise for employees. I mean companies that do not review the pay of employees once every year, disregarding 582 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 whether or not the employees' pay is increased. What companies will do this? What are their justifications in doing so? You may say that a review is already conducted at least once every two years, but this is very irresponsible and evasive in saying so. The point is that according to the usual practice of pay rise in society …….
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Miss CHAN, if you have asked your supplementary question, please let the Secretary give a reply.
MISS CHAN YUEN-HAN (in Cantonese): My supplementary question to the Secretary is that on what ground he disapproves of the practice of an annual pay rise for workers in society. The Legislative Council also conducts a review once every year, and it is just the same in your case, Secretary. Why should such a weird criterion be adopted, and worse still, you even sounded as if you are very correct in doing so? I think this is really a big joke.
SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): President, thanks to Miss CHAN for her views and supplementary question. As a matter of fact, the proposals of conducting a review at least once every two years or once every year and the different views expressed in this connection had been discussed thoroughly in the legislative process whether in the MWC or the Legislative Council. Our explanation at that time, which is still correct now, is that this is a pragmatic arrangement for Hong Kong. Why? Because this arrangement has merits. It allows room for manoeuvre and ensures flexibility. An annual review has pros and cons. But in the event of an economic downturn, the room for mediation may be very limited, or the so-called buffer effect that can be created will become smaller. A merit of the current arrangement is that in the event of the economy going downhill, we can say that we should look at the figures for a longer time before making a decision as we can buy time from a two-year period. But if a review is conducted annually, the wage level may not necessarily be adjusted upward as it can also be adjusted downward and by then, there will be very little room for manoeuvre. This is the first point.
Second, apart from providing room for manoeuvre, as I mentioned earlier, if there is evidence supporting the need for a review, a review can be conducted. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 583
Conducting a review at least once every two years does not make it impossible to conduct another review. This is very important. Moreover, this will benefit the employees too. Why? If a review is conducted once every year, employers may hold a short-sighted mentality and sign short-term contracts with their employees on a yearly basis because they are uncertain about the future, not knowing for how much the pay will have to be increased. This will turn more jobs into casual jobs and lead to the fragmentation of jobs, which may not be a good thing to employees.
Besides, from the angle of employers, as some of the service contracts or business contracts may cover a term of two years or so, they will be put in a difficult position. What can they do about the budget? Therefore, we think that since the minimum wage has been put into practice for only 17 months and a comprehensive review of its impact on Hong Kong as a whole can be made only after it has been operated for some time, the existing arrangement is appropriate, pragmatic and objective.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Miss CHAN, what is your point?
MISS CHAN YUEN-HAN (in Cantonese): President, please make a judgment, for he did not answer my supplementary question. I asked him what companies there are in society or in the market which are as "daft" as the Government in raising employees' pay once every two years. He has not given me an answer.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Miss CHAN, what you raised just now are some allegations. The Secretary explained in his reply why a review is not conducted annually. I believe what he said cannot satisfy you but I cannot turn the question session into a debate. Please have your further debate with the Secretary the question of whether a review should be conducted annually or biannually on other occasions.
MR LEE CHEUK-YAN (in Cantonese): President, the Government is not only evasive and daft, but also unscrupulous. Mr Michael TIEN said earlier that the labour sector has put itself on the moral high ground in alleging that the 584 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 employers are unscrupulous. To a certain extent, I think the employers' reaction is just a case of "everyone for himself and the devil take the hindmost". They operate under the pressure of profit and so, we somehow understand why employers sometimes insist on sticking to those positions. But it is most unacceptable that the Government itself, being the Government, will do such a thing. The objective of minimum wage is to protect low-income employees and if this is the entire objective of minimum wage, how can it allow the frequency of pay rise for low-income employees to lag behind? How can it connive at these workers not enjoying a pay rise every year? How can it allow them to struggle for two years with the current minimum wage of $28 and then struggle for another two years with a rate of $30? If they have to struggle for so many years in any case and if every pay rise given to them invariably lags behind the actual situation and all their income will be eroded by inflation, where is there protection for low-income employees? Where is there protection for their living? Coupled with the fact that all civil servants enjoy a pay rise annually ……
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEE, please ask your supplementary question.
MR LEE CHEUK-YAN (in Cantonese): I would like to ask the Secretary if it is his final conclusion that it is all useless to say anything, that he is unscrupulous and that the Government is unscrupulous, refusing to provide protection to employees. It is not the employers who are unscrupulous. The Government is most unscrupulous. Do you agree that the Government is unscrupulous? Can you please show us your conscience?
SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): President, first of all, I would like to briefly respond to Mr LEE's supplementary question and views. Members must understand that the objective of minimum wage is to forestall excessively low wages. This is expressly written in the MWO. The objective is to forestall excessively low wages and provide for a minimum rate. What we are talking about is a minimum rate. On the point of making adjustments annually to catch up with inflation, adjustments must be made through market wages. As I said in reply to Mr TIEN's supplementary question earlier, linking the wage level to inflation will indirectly cause them to chase each LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 585 other, which is also not an objective way to look at the entire policy on minimum wage. Therefore, we must be clear about the objective, and this is also why we must give consideration to a basket of indicators. It would be very easy if the wage level is linked to inflation, and this would obviate the need for the MWC, as the wage level could be automatically increased. Why is it necessary to set up the MWC and conduct surveys annually? The reason is that a review has to be conducted objectively and comprehensively because the minimum wage will affect Hong Kong as a whole, while a decision to increase employees' pay or otherwise by individual companies will have a bearing only on the company itself.
Therefore, Members must understand firstly, the position of the policy, and secondly, we work on the basis of objective data. It is not the case that we do not conduct a review. We will conduct a review, and we understand that every time when adjustments are made, consideration has to be given to the entire economy, labour market and the overall situation in Hong Kong. The MWC will then make a decision in order for the Government to reach a final decision.
MR POON SIU-PING (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary mentioned earlier on that the minimum wage rate is reviewed at least once every two years and that when there is a need for a review, another review can be conducted. May I ask how this mechanism of conducting a review "on a need basis" is devised? Can any of the details of this mechanism be disclosed for Members' information?
SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): Thanks to Mr POON for his supplementary question. We have not stated in the law what constitutes "a need basis". To decide on whether there is this need, we actually have to look at the actual situation, such as whether there are circumstances, say, when some figures suddenly indicate a downturn of the economy or a drastic rise in inflation, or when there are various factors that require us to expeditiously carry out a review outside the normal cycle or in addition to those that have been planned. If there is such a need, we will conduct a review. For example, when the onslaught of SARS has suddenly dealt a blow to the economy of Hong Kong, is it necessary to conduct a review? However, we do not wish to set out the circumstances under which a review will be conducted. Rather, the MWC will 586 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 practically consider the actual situation and consider the ever changing social and economic trends before making a decision.
MR TOMMY CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, even a biannual review has brought about difficulties. It is because after a decision was made by us on the wage level, it was put into practice only after eight or nine months the first time a wage rate is set. What we are going to do now is to conduct a review biannually, but while the policy has been implemented for a year, the impact, be it negative or positive, has yet to be seen, and I think the data will not be accurate at all. When the matter is taken to the MWC for it to discuss the appropriate wage rate, I think the MWC does not have a lot of data in its grasp; nor can I get these data either. When I am to probe into it, I find it hardly acceptable that we should wait for another year before it can be put into effect.
In this connection, President, I have this question for the Secretary. Given that the policy has been brought into effect, will he consider introducing amendments to the MWO by not specifying the number of years and providing that a review will be conducted on a need basis? As some colleagues have said, adjustments can be made in the event of intensifying inflation, and if there is no inflation or the market is bad, frankly speaking, our current practice is that no downward adjustment will be made. No government or official has the guts to adjust the wage rate downwards, and this is the case not just in Hong Kong, but also in overseas countries. Therefore, may I ask the Secretary whether consideration will be given to abolishing the biannual review and providing that a review be conducted on a need basis?
SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): President, let me make this clear. In formulating the legislation, discussion had been held and the arrangement of conducting a review at least once every two years was considered pragmatic. It provides protection to employers and it is fair. It is also fair to the employers. A review will be conducted at least once every two years and then, recommendations will be made to the Government. Whether an increase or a decrease or a status quo is proposed, the MWC will make a decision based on the data, having regard to the need to strike a balance between the interests of various sectors of the community and the impact on the overall economy and unemployment rate in Hong Kong. So, a basket of factors will be LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 587 considered, and this is an objective and pragmatic approach. Therefore, as I have just said, the existing mechanism has been operating for 17 months, and I think that it has been operating well and smoothly.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): We have spent 22 minutes on this question. Last oral question.
Development of Pharmaceutical Industry of Hong Kong
6. DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): It has been reported that the Chief Executive has indicated earlier that despite many people's mistaken belief that business in Hong Kong is always thriving and there is no need to worry, there has been a decline in the retail and tourism figures recently, showing that there are hidden worries in Hong Kong's economy. He hopes that he can reverse the economic situation of Hong Kong in the latter half of his term of office. Some members of the trade have pointed out that as "Made in Hong Kong" is an international brand name, many foreigners and mainlanders are very confident in the products made in Hong Kong. In order to enhance the inherent position of the manufacturing industry of Hong Kong, they have suggested that the Hong Kong Government should strive to develop diversification of industries and, in particular, develop Hong Kong into a "pharmaceutical centre", as well as attract world-renowned pharmaceutical manufacturers through the preferential policy under the Mainland and Hong Kong Closer Economic Partnership Agreement to produce and manufacture pharmaceutical products in Hong Kong in order to enter the vast Mainland market, and Mainland pharmaceutical manufacturers may have their pharmaceutical products produced and tested in Hong Kong for export to various places in the world. As a result, more job opportunities will be created and the Gross Domestic Product of Hong Kong will increase significantly, which will allow the Government to formulate more measures that benefit the people. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the gross value of production and export figures of Hong Kong's pharmaceutical industry in the past three years;
588 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
(b) of the total number of pharmaceutical manufacturers in Hong Kong at present; among such manufacturers, the number of those which have set up production plants in industrial estates, broken down by industrial estate; the percentages of such numbers in the total numbers of companies in the industrial estates concerned; whether it knows the difficulties faced by pharmaceutical manufacturers in the past 10-odd years; the progress made by the Government in developing the testing and certification industry and the medical services industry, which are among the six industries being developed by the Government; whether it has conducted extensive promotion and publicity campaigns; if it has, of the details; if not, how the Government will enhance the development of such industries; and
(c) of the specific policies to be put in place in the future to facilitate the development of the pharmaceutical industry, so as to develop Hong Kong into the pharmaceutical centre of the Asia Pacific Region?
SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, my reply to the various parts of the question is as follows:
(a) According to figures provided by the Census and Statistics Department (C&SD), the gross domestic output of the industry of manufacture of Chinese medicines was HK$1.94 billion, HK$2.03 billion and HK$1.93 billion respectively in 2008, 2009 and 2010. For western drugs, we understand that local licensed manufacturers are mainly engaged in the manufacture of non-patented drugs for domestic sale. The C&SD does not have figures on the gross domestic output of the industry of manufacture of western drugs.
Regarding the export figures, the total value of domestic exports of the Hong Kong pharmaceutical industry (including western drugs and Chinese medicines) was HK$1.95 billion, HK$2.27 billion and HK$2.49 billion respectively in 2009, 2010 and 2011. Detailed figures are set out in Annex 1.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 589
(b) There are currently a total of 25 licensed manufacturers of western drugs and 293 licensed manufacturers of proprietary Chinese medicines in Hong Kong. Among these drug manufacturers, there are respectively eight and six pharmaceutical companies which have set up or plan to set up a total of 22 manufacturing plants in Tai Po Industrial Estate and Yuen Long Industrial Estate, accounting for 13% of the total number of manufacturing plants in the three Industrial Estates.
Good Manufacturing Practices (GMP) has been adopted in Hong Kong since 2002 to facilitate regularization of the western drug manufacturing industry and ensure the quality and safety of pharmaceutical products. In the light of the drug incidents in early 2009, the Review Committee on Regulation of Pharmaceutical Products in Hong Kong (the Review Committee) put forward 75 recommendations, including upgrading Hong Kong's current GMP licensing standards to Pharmaceutical Inspection Co-operation Scheme (PIC/S) within four years so as to enhance the standards of local drug manufacturers.
As for Chinese medicines, the Chief Executive announced in his 2010-2011 Policy Address that a timetable for mandatory compliance with GMP for manufacture of proprietary Chinese medicines would be worked out to keep up with the international trends of developing GMP for medicines. Since last year, the Chinese Medicines Board has been in wide consultation with the Chinese medicines trade to gather their views on the timetable and specific arrangements through various channels such as briefings and attending meetings with Chinese medicine associations. The Chinese Medicine Development Committee (CMDC), which will shortly be established, will also focus its discussion and put forward recommendations to the Government on how to strengthen the research and development of Chinese medicine and the development of the Chinese medicines industry.
For manufacturers of proprietary Chinese medicines and western drugs, how to effectively enhance production quality level is the greatest challenge currently faced by the industry. The industry is 590 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
generally concerned about the financial implications, availability of suitable sites for manufacturing plants, technological support and training of qualified persons, and so on, required for the implementation of GMP standards.
The Government will continue to liaise closely with the trade and offer assistance, examine in detail the local industry's need for the relevant infrastructure, and review the existing operation of the Science Park and Industrial Estates to see how we could facilitate development and provide support in this regard, so as to enhance the GMP standards of manufacturers of western drugs and facilitate proprietary Chinese medicine manufacturers to comply with the GMP requirements in a gradual and progressive manner.
Regarding the development of testing and certification, the Government set up the Hong Kong Council for Testing and Certification (HKCTC) in September 2009 in an effort to promote the development of the industry. The Government has been in close collaboration with the HKCTC to put forward the three-year market-oriented development plan proposed by the HKCTC in 2010 through a dual approach by, on the general front, making improvements to the accreditation services and the factors of production (that is, manpower, technology, capital and land) for the testing and certification industry whilst setting up the Working Group for each of the four selected trades (including Chinese medicines), for focused promotion and development of testing and certification services. The HKCTC has always been in support of the development of testing and certification services for Chinese herbal medicines, including enhancing the local authentication capabilities for Chinese herbal medicines through technology and manpower training, as well as promoting development of a Product Certification Scheme for Chinese herbal medicines, which will help the Chinese medicines trade in product quality assurance.
(c) To further promote the development of Hong Kong pharmaceutical manufacturing industry, it is necessary to promote the research and development of Chinese medicines products and western drugs. The Innovation and Technology Fund (ITF) under the Innovation LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 591
and Technology Commission (ITC) aims to provide support to the applied research and development projects initiated by the industry and the research and development (R&D) sector. Research and development work for the manufacture of western drugs and traditional Chinese medicines is covered under the category of "Biotechnology" under the ITF. As at August this year, over HK$6.8 billion has been approved under the ITF to provide funding for more than 2 900 projects, of which around 240 are biotechnology-related projects, involving funding commitment of over HK$511 million. Projects related to the development of drug manufacturing industry cover development of new drugs, modernization of traditional Chinese medicines, improvement of drug formulas, development of new drug delivery systems, conduct of clinical trials, development of drug manufacturing processes and quality control methods, and so on.
The Government will continue to providing an environment conducive to the development of biotechnology so as to develop Hong Kong into a centre of innovation and technology, thereby increasing the productivity and competitiveness of the local manufacturing industry.
Annex 1
Proprietary Year Western drugs Chinese Total medicines *Gross domestic output 2008 / 1,937.8 - (million HK dollars) 2009 / 2,027.8 - 2010 / 1,927.7 - Value of domestic exports 2009 810.7 1,141.7 1,952.4 (million HK dollars) 2010 924.7 1,347.7 2,272.4 2011 1,045.2 1,440.4 2,485.6
Note:
* Relevant figures are announced by the C&SD in June 2012. Figures for 2011 will be announced in December 2012. 592 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): President, according to the main reply given by the Secretary earlier, despite the small volume of exports of the Hong Kong pharmaceutical industry, an increase of 20% is recorded in each of the past three years. In other words, the market is growing.
As far as I understand it, the Secretary intends to encourage the development of more new drugs and improvement of the formulas of traditional Chinese medicines in future. However, I know that the greatest difficulty now faced by many drug manufacturers, particularly manufacturers of health products, is the absence of an official regulatory regime for health products in Hong Kong, which has given rise to the varied standard in the trade. Since society has made repeated requests for the regulation of health products, may I ask whether the new Government has seriously conducted studies on the regulatory arrangement for compliance by the local trade?
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHIANG, is your supplementary question related to drugs?
DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): Yes.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Let me see how the Secretary will respond to it.
SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, regarding the supplementary question of Dr CHIANG, I would like to point out that due to the diversity of ingredients of health products, health products now available for sale in the market in general are subject to regulation by various ordinances depending on the ingredients of the products. If the products contain western drugs, they must be registered under the Pharmacy and Poisons Ordinance before they can be put on sale. If the products contain Chinese medicines, they should meet the definition of proprietary Chinese medicines under the Chinese Medicine Ordinance (Cap. 549), that is, the products are composed solely of Chinese herbal medicines as active ingredients and have effect in treatment or health maintenance. Such products are subject to the regulation of this Ordinance.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 593
On the other hand, health food not subject to the regulation of ordinances on Chinese medicine and western drugs will fall into the category of general food, which is regulated by the Public Health and Municipal Services Ordinance (Cap. 132). Moreover, such health food is also subject to the regulation of the Food Safety Ordinance.
My answer to the supplementary question of Dr CHIANG is that there is no single ordinance designated for the regulation of health food, which is mainly due to the diversity of ingredients of health food now available. In brief, health food containing Chinese medicine will be regulated by the Chinese Medicine Ordinance, while those containing western drugs will be regulated by the Pharmacy and Poisons Ordinance which I mentioned earlier, and for other categories, they will be regulated under the two ordinances on food safety at present.
MRS REGINA IP (in Cantonese): President, the Secretary said in the main reply that GMP has been adopted since 2002, and in the light of the drug incidents in 2009, it is hoped that the standards will be upgraded to PIC/S. This is certainly a good arrangement. However, may I ask the Secretary which department is responsible for ensuring compliance with such standards by drug manufacturers, which department is responsible for spot checks, regulation and quality control, and whether the manpower is adequate for handling these tasks? Without such support, the claim to develop Hong Kong into a pharmaceutical centre is just a fake, overstated and vague statement.
SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): Regarding the situation mentioned by Mrs Regina IP in her supplementary question, basically, at present, the Department of Health (DH) is the major department responsible for regulation of the drug manufacturing sector and the conduct of spot checks on drug manufacturing factories when necessary. In response to the incidents that occurred in Hong Kong in 2009, we have now put forth 75 recommendations on the drug regulatory regime, and we will make specific amendments to the relevant ordinances later. Upon the completion of the amendment of the ordinances, the functions of the DH in law enforcement and regulation will be enhanced. Moreover, we will increase the manpower and resources of the DH to cope with the relevant work.
594 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Has your supplementary question not been answered?
MRS REGINA IP (in Cantonese): Does the Secretary mean that the DH has not applied for additional manpower to enhance regulatory work since 2009?
SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): I do not have the actual information on hand for the time being. However, after the drug incidents in 2009, we conducted a very comprehensive review. The Review Committee put forth 70-odd recommendations in 2009, where some of the recommendations could only be implemented by amending the existing ordinances. After amending the existing ordinances, we will conduct another review of the regulatory and enforcement capacity of the DH.
MR STEVEN HO (in Cantonese): President, in addition to the international brand name "Made in Hong Kong", "Grown in Hong Kong" is also a confidence guarantee. The earlier reply of the Secretary focuses mainly on testing and certification services, and so on. Regarding the growing of Chinese herbal medicines, may I ask whether the Bureau can point out to Members the development direction?
Now, I would like to ask another question ……
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HO, you can only ask one question.
MR STEVEN HO (in Cantonese): …… which is of the same supplementary question.
May I ask the Secretary whether universities in Hong Kong have launched co-operation of various scales with Mainland pharmaceutical companies, local farmers or agricultural organizations at present to achieve complementarity? The DAB considers that universities may capitalize on the opportunity to obtain LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 595
R&D funding from enterprises, and at the same time initiate the R&D project, thus obviating the need to identify items for R&D. In respect of farmers …… for the agricultural sector in Hong Kong, it will enable them to find a new and sustainable direction for development ……
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HO, please stop giving your views.
MR STEVEN HO (in Cantonese): …… if the R&D ……
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HO, if you have already put forth your question, please let the Secretary reply.
MR STEVEN HO (in Cantonese): …… if achievement is made for the project, it will be an all-win situation for the three parties involved. May I ask the Government whether it will promote co-operation in this respect through the mechanism of CEPA or relevant agricultural policies?
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I have to repeat that Members can only ask one question when they put forth their supplementary questions, and Members should not give a long speech to express their views. Secretary, please.
SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, the supplementary question of Mr HO mainly seeks to ask about the possibility of developing the planting industry, and I think Mr HO should be referring to the planting of Chinese herbal medicines. According to the information I have obtained, probably because of the scale and the requirements for the locality of the place of origin of many Chinese medicines, an overwhelming majority of Chinese medicines now used in Hong Kong are imported. Hence, I think the idea of planting or producing Chinese medicines on a large scale can hardly be realized in Hong Kong.
As for the other views of Mr HO, I have noted them.
596 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
MR VINCENT FANG (in Cantonese): President, though the Secretary has pointed out in the reply that the Government strongly supports the development of the Chinese medicine trade, including the establishment of the CMDC, the reply is all about future arrangements, and there is no mention of the actions to be taken at present.
In June, I questioned the Government via the Legislative Council of the support it would provide to the Chinese medicine trade. The Secretary said in his earlier reply that there were 293 manufacturers of proprietary Chinese medicines, most of them being small and medium enterprises (SMEs), producing over 6 000 kinds of products of Chinese medicines. The previous Government already pointed out that GMP measures had to be implemented. However, the implementation of GMP will entail the investment of tremendous funds, while many SMEs do not have so much funds. May I ask the Government whether it will consider constructing some factories or facilities of GMP standard for lease to SMEs, thus sparing the several hundred SMEs from closures? If these SMEs have to make their own investment, they just cannot afford to do so. May I ask the Government whether it will establish factories and facilities of GMP standard?
SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): I think part of the supplementary question of Mr FANG is a question and the other part is a proposal. The CMDC to be established will provide a channel for communicating with the Chinese medicines trade, understanding the difficulties faced by the trade in the development of the Chinese medicines trade in Hong Kong and identifying specific solutions. If the CMDC really considers the demand for land and factories the greatest, and since we hold an open attitude, the Government will examine ways to provide assistance to the Chinese medicines trade to enable them to meet the international GMP standard.
IR DR LO WAI-KWOK (in Cantonese): President, for medical technology and drug R&D, be it Chinese medicine or western medicine, the efficacy must after all be proved by clinical tests. At present, one of the major obstacles to the development of Chinese medicine practitioners and the Chinese medicines trade is the lack of Chinese medicine hospitals, thus undermining the clinical application and tests of the relevant medical technology and medicines.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 597
Therefore, under the policy of promoting the development of Chinese medicines trade in Hong Kong, the most important subject is the development strategy for Chinese medicine hospitals. In this connection, may I ask the Government whether there are specific plans?
SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, though clinical studies of Chinese medicines do not necessarily have to be carried out in hospitals, I agree that in Hong Kong, the availability of Chinese medicine hospitals or Chinese medicine in-patient services will be conducive to the Chinese medicines trade in conducing Chinese medicine clinical studies of enhanced quality. I am very sure that the development of Chinese medicine in-patient services or Chinese medicine hospitals will definitely be one of the subjects to be examined by the CMDC soon to be established.
MR NG LEUNG-SING (in Cantonese): President, since Macao has developed Hengqin Island for Chinese medicines studies, may I ask the Secretary of the progress of the studies, and whether there is room for joint development of Chinese and western medicines by Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macao on Hengqin Island?
SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH (in Cantonese): President, regarding specific plans like this, that is room for co-operation on Hengqin Island, I do not have such information for the time being, and there is no plan in this regard. However, I think there are close exchanges and co-operation between Hong Kong and Macao, particularly in the Chinese medicines trade. Therefore, in this connection, we will continue promoting the co-operation and mutual exchange between Hong Kong and Macao. Regarding the possibilities of conducting clinical R&D on Chinese medicines outside Hong Kong in the future, we welcome studies in this aspect.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): We have spent 22 minutes on this question. Oral questions end here.
598 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
WRITTEN ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
Eligibility for CSSA of Students Receiving Loans Under Financial Assistance Scheme for Post-secondary Students
7. MR CHEUNG KWOK-CHE (in Chinese): President, on 17 August, staff of my office made an enquiry with the Social Welfare Department (SWD) on the eligibility for the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA) Scheme. An officer from the Social Security Field Unit said, "The loan borrowed by a CSSA applicant will not be counted as income as long as the applicant can prove that the loan has to be repaid within a certain period." I am given to know that staff of the SWD have said that the loans made to students under the Financial Assistance Scheme for Post-Secondary Students (FASPSS) managed by the Student Financial Assistance Agency (SFAA) are grants in nature and are regarded as income, and therefore such students are disqualified from applying for CSSA. However, SFAA papers show that FASPSS comprises grants and/or loans, and the loans under the scheme are government loans. The students have to start repaying the living expenses loans, together with interests at the rate of 1% per annum, upon their graduation. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) why government loans are regarded as income since loans are not regarded as income, according to the abovementioned SWD staff;
(b) of the loans which are regarded respectively as loans, grants and income according to the policies and previous practice of the SWD;
(c) given that the loans made to students under FASPSS have to be repaid by instalments upon graduation of the students concerned, whether such loans are counted as loans or grants by the SWD;
(d) whether the authorities will continue to make CSSA payments to post-secondary students from CSSA recipient families so that they need not live on loans; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; whether the authorities will immediately reinstate the eligibility of those post-secondary students with disabilities from CSSA recipient families to apply for CSSA; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 599
(e) whether, the authorities will repay the loans on behalf of post-secondary students from CSSA recipient families who have borrowed loans under FASPSS, when they are unable to do so upon graduation; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and
(f) whether it has assessed if the disqualification of post-secondary students by the SWD from applying for CSSA will defeat the purpose of setting up CSSA?
SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Chinese): President, my reply to the question raised by Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che is as follows:
(a) to (d) and (f)
The Financial Assistance Scheme for Post-secondary Students (FASP) is administered by the SFAA. It aims to provide financial assistance to students pursuing self-financed, locally-accredited full-time sub-degree or degree programmes, to ensure that these students will not be denied access to education owing to the lack of means. Needy students have to pass family income and asset tests, and SFAA determines the amount of grant and/or low-interest loan for them in accordance with the "Adjusted Family Income" and "Sliding Scale of Asset Value for Discounting Grant and Loan Assistance" mechanisms.
Since post-secondary students joining the FASP are already provided with financial assistance under that scheme to meet educational and daily expenses, they should not receive further assistance under the SWD's CSSA Scheme. If students participating in FASP are members of CSSA families, the SWD will not count the grants and loans obtained from SFAA towards their families' total resources. The above arrangement is in line with CSSA's objective of being a safety net of the last resort for those in financial hardship.
(e) SFAA has put in place a mechanism for assisting students who have difficulty in repaying their loans. Student borrowers, whether or not they are from CSSA families, may apply to SFAA for deferring 600 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
loan repayment if they encounter difficulty in repaying their loans on grounds of further pursuit of full-time studies, financial hardship or serious illness. SFAA considers such applications on the merits of individual cases. In 2011-2012, over 80% of the applications for deferring repayment were approved. If individual student borrowers ultimately cannot repay their loans, SFAA will demand repayment from the loans' indemnifiers. Where the situation warrants, SFAA will also liaise with the loan borrowers or indemnifiers to agree on a loan restructuring plan in order to assist them to repay the loans.
Management of Sports Facilities Under LCSD
8. MR MA FUNG-KWOK (in Chinese): President, according to The Ombudsman's report (the Report) on a recent direct investigation into the booking and use of sports facilities of the Leisure and Cultural Services Department (LCSD), the LCSD's venue booking system has loopholes which give rise to problems like touting activities and difficulties in booking facilities. On the other hand, according to the LCSD's 2010-2011 Annual Report, while the usage rates of most LCSD's sports centres and courts reached almost 80%, the usage rates for some of its recreational and sports facilities, such as bowling greens (30.6%), squash courts (53.7%) and tennis courts (56.5%), were relatively low. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the number of complaints about the booking and use of venues received by the LCSD in the past two years, and how these cases had been handled;
(b) given that the Report has pointed out that, in monitoring the use of venues, many staff members of the LCSD have failed to follow strictly the procedure for verification of identity documents when users sign in, and confirmation from the LCSD about the availability of the sessions selected by organizations often comes very late, whether the Government will, apart from improving the LCSD's venue booking arrangements, put in place other measures to improve the LCSD's service culture, so as to address these two issues effectively; LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 601
(c) given that the Report has pointed out that some national sports associations (NSAs) had relayed to The Ombudsman that confirmation from the LCSD about the availability of their selected sessions often came very late, causing difficulties for them in organizing activities, whether the Government has any plan to provide more convenience for organizations, such as NSAs, in venue booking, so as to allow more sufficient time for these organizations to plan various types of sports activities; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
(d) of the measures for boosting the usage rates of those recreational and sports facilities which have relatively low usage rates; and
(e) whether it has any plan to enhance the role of District Councils (DCs) in monitoring the use of the LCSD's sports facilities, so as to increase the usage rates of those cultural and sports facilities which have relatively lower usage rates; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Chinese): President, for more than a year, the LCSD has been comprehensively reviewing the booking procedures and allocation mechanisms for sports facilities with a view to making improvements. In the past year, the department has introduced the following measures to curb touting:
(i) requiring staff to follow strictly the procedure for verifying the identity documents of all hirers to prevent the transfer of the right to use the venues;
(ii) requiring applicants to use only their Hong Kong Identity Cards to register as Leisure Link patrons to prevent people using different identities or false information to make multiple online applications to register to book leisure facilities in order to circumvent the quota for individual patrons; and
(iii) requiring members of the public to make telephone reservations for leisure facilities at least three days in advance and confirm by 602 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
payment at least one day before the day of use to minimize cases where reserved sessions are left unused when reservations have neither been confirmed by payment nor cancelled in advance.
The LCSD will put in place more new measures to improve further the booking arrangements and curb abuse. Major new measures are as follows:
(i) shortening the existing 30-day advance booking period for individual users to minimize the time available for touts to transfer permits;
(ii) tightening the quota of fee-charging facilities that can be booked by individual users during peak hours;
(iii) reviewing "stand-by" arrangements, including cancellation of the "stand-by" arrangement for football pitches; and
(iv) imposing penalties on people who fail to take up a booked session or who otherwise misuse the booking system.
As some of the improvement measures will affect the current arrangements whereby the public book leisure facilities, the LCSD will consult the public and the relevant organizations, including DCs, sports organizations and the Community Sports Committee of the Sports Commission on these measures. The LCSD will also upload the consultation document and questionnaire on its website. After analysing views on these measures, the LCSD will revise the procedures and arrangements for booking and allocation of facilities. Corresponding improvements to the Leisure Link System will also be carried out to facilitate the implementation of the improvement measures.
My reply to the different parts of the question is as follows:
(a) The LCSD will handle complaints in accordance with its established procedures. In the past two years, the LCSD has received about 220 complaints regarding the booking or use of leisure venues, about half of which related to dissatisfaction with the strict enforcement of the verification of hirers' identities by venue staff. Other complaints were mainly about excessive booking by organizations (13%) and booking arrangements for non-fee charging venues (8%). A breakdown of the complaints received is at the Annex. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 603
(b) To prevent the unauthorized transfer of booked leisure facilities, since last year the LCSD has required venue staff to enforce strictly the verification of hirer's identity documents. Hirers are required to produce the identity documents that they have used for making the booking for verification at the check-in counter before using the facilities. Random inspections have also been conducted at venues to check whether the sign-in arrangements have been strictly enforced.
There have been a few isolated cases involving the failure of venues to provide timely confirmation of the availability of the sessions selected by organizations. The main reason for this was that more than one organization had applied for the same session, and the LCSD staff took time to liaise between the organizations concerned in order to meet their needs as far as possible. In this regard, the LCSD has reminded staff and officers in-charge of venues of the requirement to follow the order of priority set out in the "Booking Procedure for Use of Recreation and Sports Facilities" issued by the LCSD when handling block bookings by organizations, as well as the importance of giving timely replies. Written notification should be sent to the organizations concerned if the relevant NSAs are not available for mediation.
In addition to reviewing and improving booking procedures for leisure facilities, the LCSD also remains committed to building new sports facilities. Since 2007, we have built new facilities and improved existing facilities at a total cost of over $9 billion. These facilities include swimming pools, sports centres and football pitches.
The LCSD completed the first phase of the upgrading of the Leisure Link System in March this year. Following the system upgrade, the capacity of the system's central processing unit has significantly improved, with the number of online transactions completed during the morning peak session at 7 am increasing from 360 to 560 on average, representing an increase of about 56%. The average waiting time at booking counters has been reduced from 14 minutes to nine minutes on average. The LCSD is now implementing the 604 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
second phase of the upgrading, covering areas such as improving the Leisure Link database server, system network, emergency inspection and recovery, as well as upgrading computers at counters. With the completion of work in mid-2013, the network infrastructure of the system will improve. Online booking requests will be processed more quickly and reserve capacity will be made available to accommodate future expansion of the Leisure Link service.
(c) As stated in part (b) of the reply, the main reason for not giving a timely reply to applicant organizations was that more than one organization had applied for the same session, and the LCSD staff took time to liaise between the organizations concerned in order to meet their needs as far as possible.
To facilitate the work of the NSAs in promoting and organizing international events, championships, leagues and training events, NSAs are allowed to make priority booking of the LCSD recreational and sports facilities 12 months in advance. Their bookings are accorded a higher priority than those of other organizations. The LCSD also provides venues to NSAs for training Hong Kong representative teams. Apart from the Wan Chai Swimming Pool, which is designated for exclusive use by NSAs for athlete training, each NSA can choose one leisure venue as a dedicated centre for training their Hong Kong teams to promote the development of their respective sport. The NSA concerned is eligible to make a long-term priority block booking of the venue for Hong Kong team training. Sports equipment, a conference room and storage space will be provided at the venues as far as possible to meet the needs of NSAs.
(d) Recreation and sports facilities under the LCSD management, especially natural turf pitches, artificial turf pitches and the arenas of indoor sports centres generally have high usage rates. However, to improve further the utilization of some individual facilities, the LCSD will continue to encourage schools, subvented non-governmental organizations, NSAs and district sports associations to use selected sports facilities, such as outdoor bowling greens, activity rooms and squash courts, free of charge during LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 605
non-peak hours (that is, from opening till 5 pm on weekdays between September and June the following year). Moreover, concessionary rates are available to people with disabilities, elderly people aged 60 or above and full-time students.
In addition, the LCSD will make sports facilities with lower usage rates available for other uses subject to circumstances. For example, squash courts can be converted into table tennis rooms, American pool rooms, multi-purpose activity rooms and indoor archery ranges, and tennis courts with relatively low usage rates can be used for non-designated activities such as tai chi practice and fitness exercise. Members of the public may apply for the use of these facilities as long as the activities to be conducted will not affect the original design of the facilities.
The LCSD will continue to explore measures to enhance the usage rates of sports facilities and work with sports organizations to promote and optimize the use of these facilities.
(e) The DCs play an important advisory role in district affairs. Since 2008, the DCs have taken part in the management of the LCSD facilities, including sports facilities. The LCSD will consult the DCs when planning the construction of leisure and sports facilities. Moreover, the department will also seek DCs' views on improvement works or the management of facilities with a view to increasing the councils' role in monitoring the management of these facilities.
Annex
Substantiated Complaints Relating to Operational Matters at Leisure Venues Received by the LCSD from 1 July 2010 to 30 June 2012
Case Description Number of Cases 1. Check-in arrangement being too 96 (44%) stringent/unreasonable 2. Excessive booking/abuse of facilities by 29 (13%) organizations 606 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
Case Description Number of Cases 3. Dissatisfaction with the booking arrangement for 18 (8%) non-fee charging venues 4. Unsatisfactory handling of booking procedures by 17 (8%) booking counter staff/poor staff attitude 5. Daily management problems (such as too many 14 (6%) users, poor arrangements for jogging in sports grounds, lighting) 6. Unsatisfactory booking policy for individuals 11 (5%) 7. Waste of venue resources caused by bookings 10 (5%) followed by cancellation 8. Closure of available courts/poor reallocation 8 (4%) arrangement 9. Telephone calls unanswered 6 (3%) 10. Miscellaneous 10 (4%) Total: 219 (100%)
Proposal to Set up Technology and Communications Bureau
9. MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Chinese): President, following the replacement of the Commerce, Industry and Technology Bureau by the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau in 2007, the information technology (IT) sector has been calling for the establishment of a technology bureau responsible for policy issues on IT, innovation and technology, and broadcasting. In May this year, the Government of the previous term put forward, at the suggestion of the Chief Executive-elect, a proposal on reorganization of the Government Secretariat (reorganization proposal) which included the proposal of setting up a Technology and Communications Bureau. However, the reorganization proposal had not been dealt with before the prorogation of the previous term of the Legislative Council. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the specific measures to be taken by the authorities to solicit and incorporate views from both the IT sector and the public, so that the work of the future Technology and Communications Bureau will meet not only the needs of the industry but also the expectation of the public; and
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 607
(b) whether it has assessed if the proposal of setting up Technology and Communications Bureau is relatively less controversial among various proposals in the reorganization proposal mentioned above; if the assessment result is in the affirmative, whether the authorities will deal with this proposal separately and submit it to this Council first; if it will, of the details and the timetable; if it will not, the reasons for that?
SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Chinese): President, first of all, we thank Mr Charles Peter MOK for his support to the proposal to set up the Technology and Communications Bureau in the Government Secretariat reorganization plan. The objective of the proposal as set out in ESC paper EC(2012-13)5 was to map out a comprehensive and systematic policy for information and technology, to support the development of technology infrastructure, and to encourage synergy among government, enterprises as well as research and academic institutions in research and development, and so on. Regrettably, the proposal was not passed within the last Legislative Session. When addressing the Legislative Council on 17 October 2012, the Chief Executive already stated that a relaunch of the reorganization proposal might result in another round of protracted meetings in Legislative Council, and he had therefore decided not to resubmit the reorganization proposal in the near future, so that the Government could focus on other areas of work.
It is the established practice of the Government to collect and listen to the views of different sectors of the community, including the industry, through different channels of consultation such as committees, trade associations, and conducting public consultations when formulating policies and work plans so as to address their concerns. We will certainly listen to the views of the Legislative Council and District Councils too. The Commerce and Economic Development Bureau will continue to solicit views through various channels of consultation on how best to promote the development of Hong Kong's communications and technology services.
608 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
Employment of Persons with Disabilities
10. MR TAM YIU-CHUNG (in Chinese): President, quite a number of organizations for persons with disabilities have relayed to me that persons with disabilities at present encounter great difficulties in seeking jobs. In respect of the employment situation of persons with disabilities, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the statistics on the employment of persons with disabilities by government departments from 2009 to September 2012 (please list the relevant figures according to the types of disabilities set out in the table below);
2012 Type of Disability 2009 2010 2011 (as at September) (i) Mobility restrictions (ii) Visual impairment (iii) Hearing impairment (iv) Speech impairment (v) Mental illness/emotional disorder (vi) Autism (vii) Specific learning difficulties (viii) Attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ix) Intellectual disabilities Total Percentage of persons with disabilities in the total number of government employees
(b) of the statistics on persons with disabilities with employment arranged through the employment services provided by the Labour Department (LD) from 2009 to September 2012 (please list the relevant figures according to the types of disabilities set out in the table below);
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 609
2012 Type of Disabilities 2009 2010 2011 (as at September) (i) Mobility restrictions (ii) Visual impairment (iii) Hearing impairment (iv) Speech impairment (v) Mental illness/emotional disorder (vi) Autism (vii) Specific learning difficulties (viii) Attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ix) Intellectual disabilities Total
(c) whether any new measures to facilitate or promote employment of persons with disabilities by government departments and public and private organizations are being studied; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and
(d) whether it will consider afresh the introduction of a "quota system for employing persons with disabilities" to require enterprises to employ a specified percentage of persons with disabilities by legislation; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Chinese): President, the policy objective of the Government is to ensure that persons with disabilities have equal access to participation in productive and gainful employment in the open market. We have put in place suitable legislative measures against disability discrimination in employment and at the workplace. We are committed to providing a wide range of employment support and vocational training services for persons with disabilities, including selective placement services provided by the LD to assist persons with disabilities in securing employment in the open market, vocational rehabilitation training provided by the Social Welfare Department (SWD) and the Vocational Training Council, and re-training 610 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 programmes for persons with disabilities provided by the Employees Retraining Board, and so on. In addition, the Labour and Welfare Bureau collaborates with the Rehabilitation Advisory Committee (RAC) and various sectors in the community to promote the work capability of persons with disabilities through public education, publicity, visit programmes, and so on, and encourage various sectors to employ persons with disabilities and procure the products and services provided by rehabilitation organizations.
My reply to the question raised by Mr TAM Yiu-chung is as follows:
(a) According to statistics, a breakdown of the number of persons with disabilities in the Civil Service by type of disabilities (more or less the same as the classification of Mr TAM) from 2009 to 2012(1) is set out below:
Type of Disabilities 2009 2010 2011 2012 Physical disability 1 754 1 768 1 739 1 750 Visual impairment 484 465 456 462 Hearing impairment 280 295 302 320 Ex-mentally ill persons 284 300 309 330 Intellectual disability 20 20 18 19 Visceral disability 403 455 481 494 Others (including speech impairment, autism, 13 13 12 16 specific learning difficulties, and so on) Total 3 238 3 316 3 317 3 391 Persons with disabilities as a percentage of the 2% 2% 2% 2% total number of civil servants
(b) From 2009 to 2011, the Selective Placement Division (SPD) of the LD recorded 2 436, 2 405 and 2 403 successful employment cases of job-seekers with disabilities respectively, while the corresponding figure was 1 939 for the period from January to September 2012. A breakdown of these cases by type of disabilities (more or less the same as the classification of Mr TAM) is set out below:
(1) The cut-off date of the relevant statistics is 31 March of each year. We do not have readily available information as of September 2012. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 611
2012 Type of Disabilities 2009 2010 2011 (January to September) Physical disability 216 239 200 173 Visual impairment 72 57 67 46 Hearing impairment (including 650 668 539 436 speech impairment) Ex-mentally ill persons 515 543 576 446 Intellectual disability 673 580 666 541 Visceral disability/chronic illness 307 306 308 232 Others (including autism(2), specific learning difficulties, and 3 12 47 65 so on) Total 2 436 2 405 2 403 1 939
Note:
(2) There is no statistics on autistic cases before 2011.
(c) The Government has been proactively encouraging government departments, government subvented organizations and statutory bodies to employ persons with disabilities. The Government, as an employer, seeks to place persons with disabilities in the Government where appropriate, and welcomes applications from them for Government posts. A candidate with disability who meets the basic entry requirements for a Government post will not be subject to any shortlisting criteria and will be directly invited to attend a selection interview or written examination. Candidates with disabilities will be given an appropriate degree of preference in order to enable them to compete with able-bodied candidates on equal grounds. In addition, if any candidates with disability request special arrangements to take the written examination or attend an interview in the recruitment exercise, the department concerned will consider their request and make appropriate arrangement. The Civil Service Bureau has been closely monitoring whether the policy on employment of persons with disabilities by the Government is effectively implemented among government departments. At the same time, the Government provides various types of on-the-job assistance to employees with disabilities to facilitate them to carry out their duties properly. Such assistance includes modifications of 612 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
work areas or facilities, appropriate changes to job design or work schedules, provision of necessary equipment, and so on. The Civil Service Bureau also allocate funds for the purchase of technical aids, such as Braille display, screen reading software, telephone amplifier for employees with disabilities to facilitate their effective discharge of duties in the workplace. The Government will adhere to the above policies and affirmative measures to promote the employment of persons with disabilities.
Moreover, the Labour and Welfare Bureau has all along requested all Policy Bureaux to proactively encourage public bodies and subvented organizations under their purview to formulate recruitment policy and measures for persons with disabilities. These measures may include formulating policies and procedures regarding the employment of persons with disabilities by drawing reference to those for the Civil Service; publishing the numbers of employees with disabilities in their annual reports; and giving priority in procuring products and services provided by rehabilitation organizations.
Besides, the SPD of the LD provides free and personalized employment services to job-seekers with disabilities for their open employment. The SPD has also implemented the "Work Orientation and Placement Scheme" with a view to enhancing the competitiveness of job-seekers with disabilities through pre-employment training and offering financial incentive to employers so as to encourage them to employ persons with disabilities and provide training and support to them. To enhance employers' understanding of the working capacity of persons with disabilities, the SPD has produced a series of new videos and photos on successful employment cases for viewing by employers through the use of tablet computers during promotional visits. The SPD will also continue to actively approach employers of various sectors to canvass more suitable vacancies for persons with disabilities.
To create job opportunities for persons with disabilities, the SWD grants seed money to non-governmental organizations (NGOs) for the setting up of small enterprises through the "Enhancing LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 613
Employment of People with Disabilities through Small Enterprise Project" (hereinafter referred as "3E's Project"). Under the 3E's Project, NGOs are provided with a maximum funding support of $2 million per business to meet the set-up capital cost and operating expenses incurred in the initial period of business operation. A funded business needs to fulfil the requirement that the number of employees with disabilities should not be less than 50% of the number of employees on the payroll of the business. This year, the Administration has injected $100 million into the 3E's Project and extended the funding period for each project from a maximum of two years to three years. To encourage employment of persons with disabilities, we will also provide subsidies to employers of persons with disabilities for procuring assistive devices and carrying out workplace modification works, thereby enabling persons with disabilities to secure employment in open market and employees with disabilities to work more efficiently. An employer can receive a maximum subsidy of $20,000 for each employee with disabilities. Besides, we will provide a $500 financial incentive for mentor to encourage employers to render workplace guidance to employees with disabilities and help them adapt to new jobs.
(d) According to studies by the European Commission in 2000 and the International Labour Organization in 2003 on promotion of employment of persons with disabilities, a mandatory employment quota system has not been proven successful overseas in helping persons with disabilities to secure employment, and some countries have abolished their quota system. The prevailing trend has moved away from employment quota system to anti-discrimination legislation and enhanced support measures for persons with disabilities.
Indeed, under a mandatory employment quota system, persons with disabilities would be perceived as a liability, making them difficult to be accepted by their peers at work. This is not conducive to their integration into the community. We consider that persons with disabilities should be assisted to find appropriate jobs on the basis of their abilities rather than disabilities. Apart from providing vocational training and employment support for persons with 614 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
disabilities, we will continue to adopt positive encouragement measures to enhance job opportunities for persons with disabilities, such as giving due recognition to good employers, sharing good practices and providing incentive and assistance to employers, and so on.
Sub-divisions of Flat Units
11. DR LAM TAI-FAI (in Chinese): President, in his election manifesto, the Chief Executive promised to increase the manpower to conduct a comprehensive survey on sub-divisions of flat units (commonly known as "sub-divided units"), bedspace apartments (commonly known as "caged homes") and cubicle apartments, set appropriate safety and hygiene standards as well as formulate long-term policies to solve the problem comprehensively. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) whether it has adopted definitions for sub-divided units, caged homes and cubicle apartments; if it has, of the respective definitions; if not, the reasons for that;
(b) whether the current numbers of unauthorized sub-divided units, caged homes and cubicle apartments in Hong Kong, as well as the numbers of households living in these three categories of residential units, are available; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that;
(c) of the respective numbers of law enforcement actions (including those completed or otherwise) taken by the authorities against owners of unauthorized sub-divided units, caged homes and cubicle apartments in each of the past five years, with a breakdown by type of law enforcement actions, including issuing removal orders and instituting prosecution;
(d) of the time the authorities had allowed owners for rectifying unauthorized building works in the cases in part (c), with a breakdown by type of law enforcement actions, and whether plans are in place to shorten such time so as to eliminate expeditiously the risks brought about by unauthorized building works;
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 615
(e) among the cases in part (c), of the numbers of cases in which problems with unauthorized building works had not been resolved upon expiry of the specific deadlines, with a breakdown by type of law enforcement actions, including issuing removal orders and instituting prosecution;
(f) of the respective numbers of cases in which warning letters regarding unauthorized sub-divided units, caged homes and cubicle apartments had been registered by the authorities at the Land Registry (commonly known as "imposing an encumbrance") in each of the past five years;
(g) whether plans are in place to increase the penalty against property owners of unauthorized sub-divided units, caged homes and cubicle apartments and people who rent out such properties; if so, of the details, if not, the reasons for that;
(h) how the authorities will conduct a comprehensive survey on the living conditions in sub-divided units, caged homes and cubicle apartments, and so on;
(i) of the new measures and plans the authorities have in place to improve the fire safety, hygiene and law and order of sub-divided units, caged homes and cubicle apartments;
(j) given that the Buildings Department (BD) has started inspection actions targeting at safety problems of sub-divided units since April 2011, of the total number of sub-divided units inspected so far, with a breakdown by district and type of buildings;
(k) of the respective numbers of reports of accidents or incidents received by the authorities in relation to sub-divided units, caged homes and cubicle apartments in each of the past five years, and the respective statistics on the casualties and loss of property involved, with a breakdown by type of accidents or incidents;
(l) of the details of the appropriate safety and hygiene standards mentioned by the Chief Executive;
616 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
(m) of the time to start and finish drawing up the appropriate safety and hygiene standards, as well as setting long-term policies to solve the problem comprehensively; and
(n) whether any work indicators, objectives and timeframe have been drawn up for tackling the problem of unauthorized sub-divided units, caged homes and cubicle apartments; if so, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Chinese): President, in recent years, the building and fire safety problems associated with sub-divided flats have become a subject of public concern. However, there are also views in the community that such flats have an existence value as they could provide affordable accommodation to low income groups who are not eligible or are waitlisted for public rental housing but wish to live in the urban area close to their place of work and/or to their children's place of study. Therefore, the Government's policy is not to eradicate all sub-divided flats but to ensure their safety.
To this end, the BD has since April 2011 launched a large-scale operation (LSO) aimed at rectifying irregularities of building works associated with sub-divided flats. In addition, the Government has amended the regulation this year to include building works commonly associated with sub-divided flats under the Minor Works Control System, so that these works would be required to be carried out by qualified professionals and contractors, thereby ensuring the quality of the works and minimizing the safety and sanitation problems associated with sub-divided flats. The BD has also stepped up its public education and publicity efforts to remind members of the public about building safety problems that can result from improper flat sub-division works.
For bedspace apartments (commonly known as "caged homes"), according to the extant laws of Hong Kong, operation of bedspace apartments is under the regulation of the Bedspace Apartments Ordinance (Cap. 447) (BAO). To ensure the safety of occupants and other users of the premises, any premises with a mode of operation falling within the interpretation of "bedspace apartments" under the BAO must obtain a licence before operation.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 617
My reply to different parts of the question is as follows:
(a) "Sub-divided units" are not defined in the Buildings Ordinance (Cap. 123) (BO). The term is commonly used in the community when referring to cases where a domestic unit is sub-divided into two or more smaller self-contained units for sale or for rental. Each of these smaller units usually has its own toilet. Some even have their own cooking places. Sub-dividing a unit often involves demolishing existing partition walls and erecting new ones, laying additional electrical wirings, altering or expanding the water supply and drainage system within the unit for the additional toilets, and raising the floor slab to embed the added or diverted pipes, and so on.
"Cubicle apartments" are not defined in the BO either. They are generally understood to be wooden cubicles of simple construction commonly found in tenement buildings completed in the 1950s and 1960s, enabling a unit to accommodate more than one tenant or sub-tenant. Openings are usually left at the top of the wooden partitions for ventilation and light borrowing. Without their own toilets and cooking places, tenants of the cubicles have to share the toilet and kitchen present in the unit concerned.
"Caged homes" are commonly known as bedspace apartments and the term is not defined in the BAO. According to the extant laws of Hong Kong, operation of bedspace apartments is under the regulation of the BAO. Under the BAO, a "bedspace apartment" means any flat in which there are 12 or more bedspaces used as sleeping accommodation for individuals under rental agreements. The purpose of the BAO is to ascertain that the premises intended to be used as bedspace apartments comply with structural and fire safety standard as well as the requirements on sanitary configuration, so as to ensure the safety of occupants and other users of the premises.
(b) The departments concerned have no records on the numbers of unauthorized sub-divided units, caged homes and cubicle apartments in Hong Kong, as well as the numbers of households living therein.
618 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
(c) and (e)
The BD has been issuing removal orders against unauthorized building works in sub-divisions of flat units, but has not categorized such units into sub-divided units, caged homes and cubicle apartments. Among the orders issued from 2007 to 30 September 2012, prosecutions have been instituted on 41 orders. The enforcement figures in the past five years are as follows:
Number of orders Number of Number of not yet complied orders orders issued with and being complied with followed up 2007 45 42 3 2008 47 35 12 2009 17 13 4 2010 19 14 5 2011(Note) 104 44 60 2012 295 18 277 (January to September)(Note) Total 527 166 361
Note:
As the BD has launched an LSO against sub-divided flats since April 2011, therefore the number of orders issued has greatly increased.
On the other hand, the Office of the Licensing Authority (OLA) under the Home Affairs Department is responsible for the enforcement of the BAO. It is tasked with the issue of bedspace apartment licences and relevant enforcement work.
It is a criminal offence to operate bedspace apartments illegally. During the past five years, the OLA instituted prosecution actions against two cases of suspected operation of unlicensed bedspace apartments. Those involved in the cases were convicted in court with a fine of $3,000 and $9,740 respectively. However, the OLA has not received any complaints against the violation of the licensing conditions of bedspace apartments or instituted any prosecution in this regard. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 619
(d) Where unauthorized building works are being or have been carried out, the BD may issue orders according to the BO requiring the owner to demolish or rectify the building works concerned. Generally, 60 days are given for compliance. In addition, if the Building Authority (BA) is of the view that there is an emergency, the BA may make arrangements to carry out the works concerned or take other actions.
(f) The BD normally does not register warning letters issued during enforcement actions at the Land Registry (commonly known as "imposing an encumbrance"). According to the BO, the BA may upon the service of an order, cause the order to be registered in the Land Registry against the related land or premises. The 527 orders issued during the period from January 2007 to September 2012 are already registered at the Land Registry.
(g) According to the BO, carrying out building works without approval is a serious offence and shall be liable for conviction to imprisonment for two years and a fine of $400,000. Any person who carries out or has carried out building works in such a manner that it causes injury or likely to cause a risk of injury to any person or damage to any property shall be guilty of an offence and be liable on conviction to imprisonment for three years and to a fine of $1 million.
Where the buildings works (including addition and alteration) have been or are being carried out in contravention of the BO, the BD may issue an order requiring the owner to demolish or rectify the building works concerned. If the order is not complied with within a specified period of time, the BD may carry out the works concerned through government contractors and the costs of the works, together with supervision and additional charges, shall be recoverable fully from the owner. The BD may also institute prosecution under the BO against the owner. The convicted person shall be liable to a fine of $200,000 and to imprisonment for one year.
Whether the property is for rental is not a factor in considering the legality of the building works under the BO. 620 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
In addition, as mentioned above, unlawful operation of a bedspace apartment is a criminal offence. According to section 5 of the BAO, any person who is convicted of operating an unlicensed bedspace apartment is liable to a fine of $100,000 and imprisonment for two years, and a further fine of $20,000 for each day during which the offence has continued. According to section 33 of the BAO, a bedspace apartment licensee who contravenes the licensing conditions is liable to a maximum fine of $50,000 and imprisonment for one year upon conviction, and a further fine of $10,000 for each day during which the offence has continued.
(h) to (j) and (l) to (n)
Apart from carrying out investigation in response to reports on sub-divided flats from members of the public and taking appropriate enforcement actions according to the current enforcement policy, the BD has since April 2011 launched an LSO aimed at rectifying irregularities of building works associated with sub-divided flats. Since April 2012, the BD has enhanced the LSO by increasing the annual number of target buildings from 150 to 200. From 1 April 2011 to 30 September 2012, the BD has inspected 2 581 sub-divided flat units. For a breakdown by districts and types of buildings, please refer to the Annex.
In addition, the Government has enhanced its regulation over building works associated with sub-divided flats. The Building (Minor Works)(Amendment) Regulation 2012, which came into effect on 3 October 2012, has included building works associated with sub-divided flats under the Minor Works Control System, so that these works would be required to be carried out by qualified professionals and contractors. These works should not be carried out in contravention of the regulations under the BO (which specify the building design and construction standards in such aspects as fire safety, structural safety and drainage works). The BD will also carry out random inspection on completed works to further ensure their quality, thereby minimizing the safety and sanitation problems associated with sub-divided flats.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 621
On the other hand, upon receipt of an application for a bedspace apartment licence, staff of the OLA will conduct an on-site inspection of the premises. Conditions of building structure and fire safety of the premises will be assessed and examined in accordance with the BO and the Fire Services Ordinance (Cap. 95). The OLA shall ascertain that the premises concerned comply with the safety standards as provided in the relevant ordinances before issuing a licence to the applicant under the BAO. In addition, upon receipt of a licence renewal application, staff of the OLA will also conduct an inspection. Licences will only be renewed pursuant to the BAO if compliance with the licensing requirements is ascertained.
(k) The departments concerned have no statistics of accidents and incidents related to sub-divided flats, bedspace apartments and cubicle apartments.
Annex
Number of sub-divided flats inspected from 1 April 2011 to 30 September 2012 District Commercial-residential Industrial Buildings Total Buildings Central and Western 38 - 38 Wan Chai 60 - 60 Eastern 169 - 169 Southern 17 - 17 Kowloon City 112 11 123 Kwun Tong 151 8 159 Sham Shui Po 997 - 997 Wong Tai Sin 4 90 94 Yau Tsim Mong 645 28 673 Northern 7 - 7 Sha Tin 8 48 56 Kwai Tsing 56 26 82 Tsuen Wan 15 47 62 Tuen Mun 21 4 25 Yuen Long 19 - 19 Total 2 319 262 2 581
622 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
Tung Chung-Hong Kong Monthly Pass
12. MR ALBERT CHAN (in Chinese): President, the MTR Corporation Limited (MTRCL) has launched the "Tung Chung-Hong Kong Monthly Pass" (the Pass) since October. Passengers holding the Pass may make unlimited journeys between Tung Chung Line stations and Hong Kong Station/Central Station, but they have to pay additional fares for journeys to and from other stations. Quite a number of Tung Chung residents have reflected to me that the sum of the additional fares paid by them and the value of the Pass is much higher than the fares paid with the Octopus card by a passenger not holding the Pass. Therefore, the Pass cannot alleviate the burden of travelling expenses on them. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council if it knows:
(a) the number of Passes sold by the MTRCL since the Pass was launched;
(b) how the fares paid with the Octopus card by a passenger not holding the Pass for journeys from Tung Chung Station to various stations not on the Tung Chung Line compare with the total fares for the same journeys paid by a passenger holding the Pass who makes 50 trips on the Tung Chung Line each month (set out in a table);
(c) the number of Tung Chung residents who work outside Tung Chung and among them, the estimated number who benefit from the Pass (set out in a table by District Council districts); and
(d) the reasons why the MTRCL requires passengers holding the Pass to pay additional fares for journeys to stations not on the Tung Chung Line; whether the authorities will request the MTRCL to cancel such a requirement; if they will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Chinese): President, reply to various parts of the question is as follows:
(a) The MTRCL launched the new promotion scheme of the Pass on 1 October 2012. Passengers can purchase the Pass to be encoded onto their Octopus Cards seven days before or after the first day of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 623
each month. Some 5 200 Passes were sold in the first month (that is, October 2012) of the launching of this promotion scheme so far.
(b) The price of the Pass is $550. Holder of this monthly pass can make unlimited rides between Tung Chung Line stations and Hong Kong/Central Station within the month. Commuters who frequently travel between Tung Chung Station and Hong Kong/Central Station can enjoy up to 30% fare savings. As requested by the Honourable Member in the question, assuming a total of 50 rides per month, the total fares using the Pass and the adult fares using Octopus for travelling from Tung Chung Station to all other stations of the MTR network (except stations of the Tung Chung Line) are set out at Annex 1. The information as set out in Annex 1 uses the example of a total of 50 rides per month for illustration purpose. If passengers take more than 50 rides per month, they may enjoy more fare discounts with the Pass. The MTRCL will enhance the publicity in this regard. Passengers may purchase the most economical type of tickets in accordance with their travel needs when riding on MTR. Passengers may also approach the MTRCL's Customer Service Centres for enquiries in making choices.
(c) According to the information provided by the Census and Statistics Department, the distribution of working population with fixed place of work in Hong Kong and living in Tung Chung by place of work in 2011 is at Annex 2. Please see reply (a) for the total number of beneficiaries under the Pass scheme. As regards the number of beneficiaries based on working districts, the MTRCL does not keep such statistics.
(d) According to the MTRCL, monthly pass schemes are introduced to benefit passengers living in remote districts who frequently take long train journeys or those who regularly travel on a specific rail line. Apart from the Pass, the MTRCL also offers monthly passes for the East Rail Line and West Rail Line.
All of the MTRCL's existing monthly pass schemes, including the Pass, have specified the respective valid journeys. Passengers using a monthly pass to travel beyond the valid journeys will be 624 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
charged the normal fare for the additional section of the journey. Any change to the rail line-based monthly pass fare model would bring about impact to the entire MTRCL's basic fare structure and passengers would be affected. The MTRCL considers that careful consideration is necessary.
Annex 1
Assuming a total of 50 rides per month, the total fares using the Pass (including the normal fare for the additional section of the journey) and the adult fares using Octopus for travelling from Tung Chung Station to all other stations of the MTR network (except stations of the Tung Chung Line) are set out below:
Total fares using the Pass (including the Adult fares Railway lines Destination normal fare for the using additional section of Octopus the journey) Island Line Sheung Wan $15.0 $19.8 Central $11.0 $19.8 Admiralty $15.0 $19.8 Wan Chai $15.0 $19.8 Causeway Bay $15.9 $19.8 Tin Hau $15.9 $19.8 Fortress Hill $15.9 $22.9 North Point $16.9 $22.9 Quarry Bay $16.9 $22.9 Tai Koo $16.9 $22.9 Sai Wan Ho $18.3 $22.9 Shau Kei Wan $18.3 $22.9 Heng Fa Chuen $18.3 $22.9 Chai Wan $18.3 $22.9 Tsuen Wan Line Tsim Sha Tsui $16.4 $14.9 Jordan $15.9 $14.9 Yau Ma Tei $15.9 $14.9 Mong Kok $15.0 $14.9 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 625
Total fares using the Pass (including the Adult fares Railway lines Destination normal fare for the using additional section of Octopus the journey) Prince Edward $15.0 $14.9 Sham Shui Po $15.0 $12.6 Cheung Sha Wan $15.0 $12.6 Lai Chi Kok $15.0 $12.6 Mei Foo $15.0 $12.6 Lai King $11.0 $12.6 Kwai Fong $15.0 $12.6 Kwai Hing $15.0 $12.6 Tai Wo Hau $15.9 $12.6 Tsuen Wan $15.9 $12.6 Kwun Tong Line Shek Kip Mei $15.0 $14.9 Kowloon Tong $15.0 $14.9 Lok Fu $15.9 $14.9 Wong Tai Sin $15.9 $14.9 Diamond Hill $16.9 $14.9 Choi Hung $16.9 $17.9 Kowloon Bay $18.3 $17.9 Ngau Tau Kok $18.3 $17.9 Kwun Tong $18.3 $17.9 Lam Tin $18.3 $17.9 Tseung Kwan O Line Yau Tong $19.9 $19.8 Tiu Keng Leng $19.9 $19.8 Tseung Kwan O $19.9 $19.8 Hang Hau $19.9 $19.8 Po Lam $19.9 $19.8 LOHAS Park $19.9 $19.8 Disneyland Resort Line Disneyland Resort $16.9 $12.6 West Rail Line East Tsim Sha Tsui $16.4 $14.9 Austin $15.9 $14.9 Nam Cheong $11.0 $12.6 Mei Foo $15.0 $12.6 626 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
Total fares using the Pass (including the Adult fares Railway lines Destination normal fare for the using additional section of Octopus the journey) Tsuen Wan West $15.9 $16.3 Kam Sheung Road $24.4 $24.8 Yuen Long $25.3 $25.7 Long Ping $25.3 $25.7 Tin Shui Wai $25.3 $25.7 Siu Hong $25.3 $25.7 Tuen Mun $25.3 $25.7 East Rail Line Hung Hom $16.0 $17.8 Mong Kok East $16.0 $17.8 Kowloon Tong $15.0 $14.9 Tai Wai $17.8 $19.8 Sha Tin $17.8 $19.8 Fo Tan $18.3 $20.3 Racecourse $24.7 $26.0 University $18.9 $20.8 Tai Po Market $20.3 $22.2 Tai Wo $20.3 $22.2 Fan Ling $21.0 $23.3 Sheung Shui $21.0 $23.3 Lo Wu $47.7 $47.2 Lok Ma Chau $47.7 $47.2 Ma On Shan Line Che Kung Temple $17.9 $20.5 Sha Tin Wai $17.9 $20.5 City One $17.9 $20.5 Shek Mun $17.9 $20.5 Tai Shui Hang $19.7 $22.8 Heng On $19.7 $22.8 Ma On Shan $19.7 $22.8 Wu Kai Sha $19.7 $22.8
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 627
Annex 2
Distribution of working population with fixed place of work in Hong Kong and living in Tung Chung(1)(2) by place of work in 2011
Place of work Working population in Tung Chung(1)(2) (District Council district) Central and Western 3 363 Wan Chai 2 406 Eastern 1 267 Southern 347 Yau Tsim Mong 2 935 Sham Shui Po 1 387 Kowloon City 780 Wong Tai Sin 232 Kwun Tong 1 405 Kwai Tsing 1 952 Tsuen Wan 1 076 Tuen Mun 413 Yuen Long 305 North 194 Tai Po 169 Sha Tin 780 Sai Kung 202 Islands 11 411 Land total 30 624
Notes:
(1) Tung Chung refers to the area covered by the Islands District Council Constituency Areas of Yat Tung Estate North (T02), Yat Tung Estate South (T03), Tung Chung North (T04) and Tung Chung South (T05).
(2) A total of 6 653 working population living in Tung Chung who either have no fixed place of work or work at home/in marine areas/in places outside Hong Kong are excluded.
Source: 2011 Population Census, Census and Statistics Department
628 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
Cycle Track Network
13. MR CHAN HAK-KAN (in Chinese): President, it has been learnt that, since 2010, the Government has commenced works relating to the cycle track network in the New Territories to joint individual sections of the existing cycle tracks in the New Territories (including the sections from Ma On Shan to Sheung Shui, and from Sheung Shui to Yuen Long and Tuen Mun) so that cycling enthusiasts can ride bicycles travelling between the New Territories East and the New Territories West more safely. On the other hand, quite a number of members of the public have relayed to me that the cycle tracks in the New Territories are intermittent, causing great inconvenience to the users. This, coupled with the faulty designs of quite a number of these cycle tracks, has resulted in accidents of different scale. They hope that the aforesaid cycle track network can enhance the safety of these cycle tracks. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the specific progress of the aforesaid works to date, and the anticipated completion dates for the works of individual sections; whether there have been any delays in the works; if so, of the situation and reasons for such delays;
(b) of the improvement measures to be implemented by the Government to tackle the design problems of the existing cycle tracks, such as "long downhill roads", sharp bends and uneven surfaces, and so on; whether the aforesaid works have included works for tackling these problems; if so, of the details;
(c) of the respective numbers of bicycle accidents and resultant causalities in various districts in the past three years, broken down by District Council districts; whether it will consider according priority to implementing the improvement measures mentioned in part (b) at those sections of the cycle tracks where the numbers of bicycle accidents are higher; and
(d) whether it will make reference to the practices of overseas cities in introducing a self-service bicycle hiring system in the cycle track network so that cyclists can hire and return bicycles at various LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 629
points along the cycle tracks; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Chinese): President, the Government is developing the main sections of the cycle track network in the New Territories measuring some 82 km, including the main section from Ma On Shan in the east and connecting via Sha Tin, Tai Po, Fan Ling, Sheung Shui and Yuen Long to Tuen Mun in the west, and the main section running from Tuen Mun to Tsuen Wan. Branching-off sections, with a total length of about 23 km, will also be developed, including new cycle tracks from Tuen Mun to Lung Kwu Tan, Ma On Shan to Sai Kung, and Yuen Long to Nam Sang Wai. The Civil Engineering and Development Department (CEDD) is carrying out the works in phases. The cycle tracks will pass through interesting spots in the New Territories, with resting stations provided at suitable intervals, to allow cyclists to take rest and enjoy the scenery. Entry/exit hubs will also be built in the vicinity of public transport interchanges for the provision of cycling facilities such as parking spaces, rental and repair kiosks, practising areas, first aid stations and information kiosks. The cycle track network in the New Territories is designed and constructed in accordance with the latest design guidelines for cycle tracks with due consideration to track curvature, gradient, width and visibility, and provided with transport supporting facilities, in order to enhance cycling safety.
My reply to the various parts of the question is as follows:
(a) The CEDD is developing the main sections and branching-off sections of the cycle track network in phases.
The Ma On Shan to Sheung Shui section includes the construction of a 5 km-long new cycle track and improvement of the existing connecting tracks. The works commenced in May 2010 and are scheduled for completion in 2013.
The works from Sheung Shui to Yuen Long, Tuen Mun includes the construction of a 15 km-long new cycle track and improvement of the existing connecting tracks. The Administration is discussing with green groups on how to alleviate the environmental and 630 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
ecological impact of the track alignment. To expedite progress, the Administration is considering proceeding first with the construction of the cycle tracks with less environmental and ecological impact, measuring about 2.5 km in length. Construction works are scheduled to commence in 2013 for completion in 2017.
Regarding the main section from Tsuen Wan to Tuen Mun and other branching-off sections (such as from Ma On Shan to Sai Kung and from Yuen Long to Nan Sang Wai), works cannot commence as some diverse views on track alignment have been received from some local residents at Sham Tseng and Nam Sang Wai, or because their environmental impact assessments (EIAs) are more complicated. We will strive to complete the statutory EIA procedures and detailed design of the non-controversial sections as soon as possible. The Administration will also maintain communication with the stakeholders, respond proactively and strike a balance among various views as far as possible by, say, reviewing and amending the track alignment from Tuen Mun to Ting Kau, for early implementation of the whole New Territories cycle track network project.
(b) When developing cycle tracks, the Government will duly consider the track alignment, curvature, gradient, width and visibility, and provide adequate level of illumination, traffic signs, road markings and guard rails so as to protect the safety of cyclists and other road users. The Transport Department (TD) also examines the traffic condition at the existing cycle tracks from time to time and takes into account views of the public, and if practicable, implements improvement measures. Examples are replacing metal speed reducing bollards with plastic collapsible bollards to lower the degree of injury resulting from accidental collision, and erecting advance warning signs such as "steep downward section" or "sharp deviation" to alert cyclists.
The TD has engaged a consultant to recommend measures for improving the existing cycle tracks and parking facilities in new towns. A series of recommended improvement measures is being LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 631
carried out in Tai Po under a pilot scheme to test their effectiveness prior to extended implementation. Simpler improvement measures under the scheme are expected to be completed by late 2012 while more complicated ones by late 2013. Subject to the trial results, physical environment of individual areas and views of local residents, we will consider and determine the specific arrangements and priorities for extending the various improvement measures to other districts. All works of the New Territories cycle track network project will be designed and carried out in accordance with the latest design guidelines for cycle tracks. Improvement measures recommended by the aforesaid consultant will also be adopted after testing.
(c) The Government attaches great importance to cycling safety and has been closely monitoring the cycling activities of the public and the accident statistics. The numbers of bicycle accidents and the casualty figures in the past three years, broken down by District Council districts, are set out in Annex.
Based on the statistics, there were more cycling accidents in Sha Tin and Tai Po in recent years. The TD has engaged the aforesaid consultant to analyse the records of the bicycle accidents that occurred along the cycle tracks in the two districts, identify accident-prone locations and the causes and patterns of these accidents, so that focused and feasible improvement measures can be taken at the relevant locations to reduce the accident risk. We are now studying and formulating improvement measures, and the relevant improvement works are expected to be completed in stages from 2013 to early 2014.
The Government has all along been enhancing public awareness on cycling safety through such means as publicity, education and enforcement. Relevant measures include regularly organizing activities on cycling education and safety, distributing promotional leaflets, and displaying banners and posters. In late 2011, the TD launched the Cycling Information Centre, an Internet-based one-stop information platform, to provide the public with convenient access to cycling-related information, including locations of cycle tracks and 632 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
parking places, cycling-related traffic signs and road markings with explanatory notes, safe cycling tips and relevant legislation. In addition, the TD produced a series of educational video entitled "Safe Cycling: Rules and Tips" in June 2012, presenting the important cycling rules, proper ways to choose and wear a helmet and safety gear, as well as the practical skills and tips for riding on cycle tracks and carriageways. The public can view the video via the Internet, at schools and in other public places such as libraries.
(d) Currently, the public can hire bicycles for leisure and recreational purposes from private bicycle rental shops at a relatively low fee. These shops are mostly located near MTR stations in Sha Tin, Ma On Shan, Tai Wai, and Tai Po, and are close to cycle tracks. They should be able to meet cyclists' demand for hiring bicycles in general. The proposed entry/exit hubs of the cycle track network in the New Territories will also have rental and repair kiosks for cyclists to hire and return bicycles. At present, the Government does not have any plans to introduce a self-service bicycle hiring system similar to those in overseas countries.
Annex
Number of Bicycle Accidents and Casualties by District Council District (2009 to 2011)
Number of accidents Casualties 2009 2010 2011 2009 2010 2011 Central and Western 12 15 11 12 17 11 Hong Kong Eastern 15 17 19 15 18 19 Island Southern 6 10 10 7 13 10 Wan Chai 17 13 18 17 13 19 Kowloon City 13 10 18 15 10 18 Kwun Tong 17 19 27 18 26 28 Kowloon Sham Shui Po 27 32 32 27 34 32 Wong Tai Sin 5 6 19 5 6 23 Yau Tsim Mong 50 45 51 51 45 54 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 633
Number of accidents Casualties 2009 2010 2011 2009 2010 2011 Islands 74 109 124 79 111 132 Kwai Tsing 29 27 26 30 28 26 North 177 180 238 180 190 243 Sha Tin 504 495 604 527 521 630 New Tuen Mun 121 121 170 126 123 181 Territories Tai Po 407 406 507 424 421 529 Tsuen Wan 30 51 66 30 54 68 Sai Kung 22 28 27 23 30 29 Yuen Long 267 330 381 282 336 391 Total 1 793 1 914 2 348 1 868 1 996 2 443
Note:
Casualties of cycling accidents include cyclists, pedestrians and other road users. The number of slightly injured persons accounted for 87%, 86% and 85% of the total casualties in 2009, 2010 and 2011 respectively.
Enforcement of Motor Vehicle Idling (Fixed Penalty) Ordinance
14. MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Chinese): President, the Motor Vehicle Idling (Fixed Penalty) Ordinance (Cap. 611) (the Ordinance) came into operation in December of last year. In recent months, some members of the public have complained to me that in many places in Hong Kong (such as school districts, tourist spots and loading/unloading areas), motorists often do not switch off idling engines of their vehicles. Furthermore, some environmental groups have pointed out that the authorities have been too lenient in law enforcement, thus limiting the deterrent effect of the Ordinance. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the idling engines black spots throughout the territory (set out in table form); since the Ordinance came into operation, (i) the number of publicity activities and law-enforcement actions conducted against motorists at these black spots, (ii) the number of verbal warnings given and fixed penalty notices issued by law-enforcement officers to motorists who did not switch off idling engines, together with a breakdown by vehicle class, and whether government vehicles were involved; 634 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
(b) whether the authorities have conducted any reviews and surveys on issues such as the enforcement and effectiveness of the Ordinance, including the practicability of the provisions on idling engines, enforcement practices, enforcement difficulties, the actual effect on improving roadside air quality, as well as the changes of motorists in their awareness of the relevant provisions and their attitude towards switching off idling engines; if they have, of the results, including whether any improvement measures have been suggested; and
(c) whether the authorities will strengthen support to the development and application of new technologies, such as developing an air-conditioning system which can still operate after the vehicle engine has been switched off, promoting the popularization of electric vehicles (EVs), and expediting the retirement of franchised buses of old models or diesel commercial vehicles, so as to improve roadside air quality, thus complementing with the measure of switching off idling engines?
SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT (in Chinese): President, the Ordinance came into force on 15 December 2011. The Government encourages drivers to develop green driving habits through law enforcement and publicity. The detailed reply is as follows:
(a) We will list locations where complaints about vehicles with idling engines are often received as idling engine black spots, and request Traffic Wardens to pay more attention to these black spots during normal patrol duty. We will also conduct publicity-cum-enforcement activities at these locations. The idling engine black spots are listed in Annex A. Since the enactment of the Ordinance and up to 9 October this year, the Environmental Protection Department conducted some 340 publicity-cum-enforcement activities.
As of end September 2012, Traffic Wardens and Environmental Protection Inspectors have so far timed 806 vehicles with idling LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 635
engines. Three drivers received fixed penalty notices for idling engines for more than three minutes as permitted by the law. The vehicle classes of the vehicles involved are at Annex B. No government vehicle is involved. The Government has already reminded all government drivers to comply with the idling engine ban.
(b) We have been monitoring the implementation of the Ordinance. Since the enactment of the Ordinance, the number of drivers who switch off idling engines has substantially increased. As to those individual drivers who do not comply with the requirement, virtually all of them will switch off the engines when law-enforcement staff start timing. Apart from urging drivers to develop the driving habit of switching off idling engines through law enforcement, we also remind the public and drivers to switch off the idling engines of stationary vehicles by distributing leaflets, staging outdoor roving exhibitions and mounting publicity through various platforms (such as television stations, radio stations, advertisement on parking metres, posters, banners, newspapers, advertisement at bus shelters, online advertisement and advertisement on smart phone applications), and so on.
(c) The Environment and Conservation Fund has sponsored the Hong Kong Productivity Council to develop a retrofit device that maintains the operation of the air conditioning after the engine is switched off. The transport trade can also apply to the Pilot Green Transport Fund to try air-conditioning systems that operate after the vehicle engine has been switched off if they can meet the objective of the Fund. The Fund received three applications for testing this type of products. They are being processed.
Besides, to promote the use of EVs, the Government has extended the waiver of First Registration Tax for EVs till end March 2014, and continue to expand the charging network for EVs. At present, there are over 1 000 standard charging facilities. The number of quick chargers will be increased to 10 by the end of this year. As regards new buildings, we have been encouraging developers to put 636 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
in place at the building construction stage the basic infrastructure to facilitate future installation of EV standard charging facilities having regard to the needs of carpark users through granting concessions on Gross Floor Areas for carparks. As regards existing buildings, a set of guidelines on the technical requirements and arrangements for setting up EV chargers has also been issued, while a dedicated hotline has been set up to provide information and technical support to parties interested in setting up EV chargers.
The Government has also fully funded the franchised bus companies to purchase six hybrid buses and 36 electric buses for trials. It is expected that the trial will commence in 2014.
Aged buses and diesel commercial vehicles are a key source of roadside air pollution. All pre-Euro buses have now been phased out. According to the bus replacement plan provided by the franchised bus companies, we anticipate that all Euro I buses will retire by 2015. As for Euro II and Euro III buses, they have been retrofitted with particulate reduction devices to reduce emission of respirable suspended particulates. We are working with the franchised bus companies to test out retrofitting them with selective catalytic reduction devices, with a view to upgrading their emission performance to Euro IV level or above. Preliminary testing results show that the retrofit is feasible and can effectively reduce nitrogen oxides emission. The trial will be completed by the end of this year. If the retrofit is proved to be technically viable, the Government will fully fund the retrofit of the relevant devices on Euro II and Euro III franchised buses.
As for expediting the retirement of old diesel commercial vehicles, we launched grant schemes to encourage vehicle owners to replace their vehicles as early as possible. In the meantime, we are studying other measures to expedite the retirement of these heavily polluting old vehicles.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 637
Annex A
Idling Engine Black Spots
Central and Western Wellington Street Central Ferry Piers Man Fai Street Man Kwong Street May Road Kennedy Road Hollywood Road Eastern Tin Hau Temple Road Java Road Hoi Chak Street Chong Fu Road Tsat Tsz Mui Road Southern Ap Lei Chau Praya Road Wong Chuk Hang Path Nam Fung Path Nam Fung Road Nam Long Shan Road Welfare Road Yue Kwong Road Tin Wan Street Beach Road Cyberport Road Stanley Beach Road Wan Chai Hennessy Road Oi Kwan Road Expo Drive Leighton Road Yiu Wa Street Shan Kwong Road Village Road Kennedy Road 638 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
Kowloon City Oxford Road Hung Hom Road Dyer Avenue Man Lok Street Pak Kung Street Bailey Street Perth Street San Ma Tau Street Kwei Chow Street Sheung Lok Street Sheung Heung Road Oi King Street School Areas in Kowloon Tong Peace Avenue Cheong Wan Road near Hong Kong Coliseum Kwun Tong Yuet Wah Street Yue Man Square Kai Lok Street Sham Shui Po Kweilin Street Fuk Wing Street Yiu Tung Street Tung Chau Street Wing Hong Street Yau Tsim Mong Granville Road Observatory Road Hankow Road Mody Road Bristol Avenue Portland Street Dundas Street Chung Wui Street Fife Street Fa Yuen Street Hoi Fai Road Pitt Street Wong Tai Sin Shatin Pass Road King Fuk Street LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 639
Islands Fu Tung Street Kin Tung Road Kwai Tsing Kwai Cheong Road Kung Yip Street Tsing King Road North Wo Tai Street Luen Wo Road Sai Kung Tong Ming Street Sha Tin Chak Cheung Street Man Lai Road On Lai Street On Muk Street On Sum Street Tai Po On Ho Lane Kwong Fuk Road Tsuen Wan Yau Ma Hom Road Kwok Shui Road Tuen Mun Ho Pong Street Tuen Shun Street Tuen Hop Street Tuen Lung Street Yuen Long Ping Shun Street Fung Yau Street South Fung Kam Street
Annex B
Classes of Vehicles Which Have Been Timed (as of end September)
Private Car 211 Goods Vehicle 385 Light Bus 54 Bus 117 Taxi 39 Total 806
640 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
Vehicle Classes Involved in the Fixed Penalty Notices Issued (as of 9 October 2012)
Coach 1 Light Goods Vehicle 2
Provision of a "Universally Accessible" Environment
15. MR PAUL TSE (in Chinese): President, the Government plans to allocate over $1 billion annually in the next few years to implement a new policy to provide a "universally accessible environment" (the new policy) under which lifts will be installed at footbridges, subways and elevated walkways in 232 locations. It has been reported that so far, the installation of lifts has been finalized in 10 locations only; while planning studies are being undertaken for most of the remaining locations, studies have yet to be commenced for 58 locations (that is, 25% of the total number). In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) among the aforesaid locations for which planning studies are being undertaken and have yet to be commenced respectively, of the number of those which are within the hillside housing estates in the districts of Kwun Tong and Wong Tai Sin;
(b) whether, prior to the implementation of the new policy, it has consulted the various District Councils on the demands for barrier-free facilities in the districts, so as to formulate a timetable for the provision of such facilities; if it has, of the details; if not, the reasons for that, and whether such a consultation can be held expeditiously;
(c) given that many residents in Kowloon East have pointed out that apart from developing Kowloon East into a core business district, the "Energizing Kowloon East" (EKE) project should also focus on enhancing the accessibility of areas such as various hillside housing estates, Sau Mau Ping and the Anderson area under development, and so on, which are far away from MTR stations, as well as strive to connect various hillside housing estates, business districts and the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 641
Kwun Tong Promenade together, whether the Government will accept the views of the residents in Kowloon East and expand the scope of the new policy to construct barrier-free access connecting such areas and MTR stations; if it will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and
(d) given that some residents in Kwun Tong have pointed out that there have long been vehicle-pedestrian conflicts along streets in the district such as Hoi Yuen Road and Kwun Tong Road, causing much inconvenience to the elderly, persons with disabilities and pregnant women, whether the Government has studied the construction of elevated walkways with lifts on road sections in Kwun Tong and across the territory with the most serious vehicle-pedestrian conflicts under the new policy, so as to minimize on-street pedestrian flow, ease traffic congestion and reduce the exposure of pedestrians to vehicle emissions; if it has, of the outcome of the study; if not, whether such a study can be conducted expeditiously?
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Chinese): President, the Government has been undertaking programmes to retrofit ramps and lifts for public walkways (including footbridges, elevated walkways and tunnels) without standard barrier-free access facilities. To bring further convenience to the elderly, persons with disabilities and the general public in using the public walkways, the Chief Executive announced a new policy on "universal accessibility" on 21 August this year. Under the new policy, when considering the retrofitting of barrier-free access facilities to public walkways, lifts and ramps will be treated equally. This is a change from the current practice which gives priority to ramps. At the same time, as long as site conditions permit, the Government would consider installing lifts at walkways even if a standard ramp has already been installed.
The Government will soon seek approval of the Legislative Council Finance Committee to establish a dedicated funding source for relevant works on an annual basis. Provision of about $100 million is expected in the coming year, rising to over $1 billion annually in the few years following, to expedite the works projects.
642 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
When the new policy on "universal accessibility" was announced in August, the Government announced a list of 233 proposed projects. Among which, 10 have earlier been approved with funding and have started or will start construction. Another 164 projects are public walkways with no appropriate barrier-free access facilities installed and are awaiting the completion of technical feasibility studies and funding allocation before works can start. The remaining 59 projects are preliminary proposals suggested by District Councils and members of the local community.
We welcome members of the public to provide further suggestions on locations for installing lifts by 31 October this year, so that a final prioritized list for implementation can be compiled after consultation with the relevant District Councils. Once a project is confirmed to be technically feasible, we will start the design and construction work as soon as possible.
The reply to the four parts of the question is as follows:
(a) Among the abovementioned 233 proposed projects, 10 are within Kwun Tong District and 13 within Wong Tai Sin District. Regarding the existing public walkways involved in these 23 proposed projects, three in Kwun Tong District and seven in Wong Tai Sin District are situated near hillside housing estates.
(b) As mentioned above, in the list announced by the Government in August, 59 projects are proposed by District Councils and members of the local community. We are also inviting members of the public to provide more suggested locations for retrofitting of lifts by end October this year. After collecting all the suggestions, we will process these suggestions together with the original ones received, and then submit to the relevant District Councils for discussion to decide on the priority of implementation.
(c) and (d)
To take forward the initiatives for EKE, the Development Bureau has formulated a CBD2 planning strategy, which includes "Connectivity", "Branding", "Design" and "Diversity". "Connectivity" is actually one of the main planning elements under LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 643
EKE. Three of the tasks included in the Conceptual Master Plan 2.0 specifically focus on enhancing the connectivity from the three MTR Stations (that is, Kowloon Bay, Ngau Tau Kok and Kwun Tong) towards the business areas and the waterfront.
For a better accessibility from Kowloon Bay MTR Station to Kowloon Bay Business Area and further to the waterfront of the Kai Tak Development, the Government is planning to commission a feasibility study to improve the pedestrian environment at Kowloon Bay Business Area. The study is anticipated to complete in end 2014. The Government will implement those short-term proposals identified in the study promptly, and formulate an implementation plan for other medium to long-term proposals.
The Government has also established an inter-departmental traffic focus group which is now concentrating on formulating possible enhancements in Kwun Tong Business Area. The focus group has already taken forward various improvement proposals in four categories including widening of footpath, modification of traffic signals, improvement of pedestrian crossing facilities, and removal of obstacles including traffic signs to pedestrian. Some of these measures have already been put in place and are serving the public while other measures will be implemented shortly in a progressive manner. The Government will also examine options of pedestrian links along Hoi Yuen Road taking into account possible alignment of the Environmentally Friendly Linkage System. Besides, the Government plans to examine enhancing pedestrian connectivity at Ngau Tau Kok MTR Station including improvements to pedestrian crossing facilities, and study possible options of a pedestrian link to enhance the connection between the landside and the waterfront.
The Government will continue to install lifts in public walkways (including public walkways connecting Mass Transit Railway stations) without standard barrier free access facilities in the district and will, through the "universal accessibility" new policy, as long as site conditions permit and there is a public need, consider installing lifts at walkways even if standard ramps have already been installed. We have communicated with the Mass Transit Railway Corporation Limited and the Corporation will support the Government's new 644 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
policy to pursue the necessary works in public walkway projects involving stations under the Corporation's jurisdiction.
The Government is endeavoured to implement various measures and programme in various districts in Hong Kong to improve the pedestrian environment, reduce vehicle-pedestrian conflicts along streets and enhance pedestrian safety.
Since 2000, the Transport Department has been implementing pedestrian schemes, including pedestrian streets, in several areas, with a view to improving pedestrian safety and mobility, promoting walking as a transport mode, avoiding access of non-essential vehicles in busy areas, reducing air pollution, as well as improving overall pedestrian environment. Furthermore, the Government is considering the implementation of pedestrian environment improvement works, including the pedestrian subway system in Causeway Bay, footbridge system in Mong Kok, as well as pedestrian environment improvement scheme in Yuen Long Town.
Review of Minimum Liability Cover for Local Vessels
16. MR CHAN KIN-POR (in Chinese): President, the Merchant Shipping (Local Vessels) (Amount of Insurance Cover) Notice, made under the Merchant Shipping (Local Vessels) (Compulsory Third Party Risks Insurance) Regulation (Cap. 548 sub. leg. H), stipulates that the amounts of minimum liability cover for a local vessel carrying more than 12 or up to 12 fare-paying passengers are HK$5 million and HK$1 million respectively. On the other hand, the minimum amount of insurance cover against third party risks required for a vehicle is $100 million. Following the maritime disaster on 1 October this year in which 39 people died, there are concerns among members of the community about whether the coverage for a vessel is sufficient to settle the claims in the event of a major maritime disaster. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council whether it will review the risks of maritime traffic incidents and raise the amounts of minimum liability cover for different classes of vessels, with a view to providing more comprehensive protection to passengers on vessels; if it will, of the factors to be taken into consideration, and the expected time by which it can put forward a new minimum liability cover?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 645
SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING (in Chinese): President, the existing requirements made under the Merchant Shipping (Local Vessels) (Amount of Insurance Cover) Notice are just the minimum liability cover. To our understanding, owing to operational needs, it is very common among vessel owners and operators to insure in excess of the statutory requirements. Nevertheless, in response to the vessel collision incident off Lamma Island on 1 October 2012, the Administration will review the regulatory measures governing navigation safety of passenger carrying vessels, including requirements on third party risks insurance.
As I have indicated in my response at the adjournment debate on "follow-up work relating to the 1 October maritime disaster" held on 18 October 2012, the Marine Department will convene a meeting of the Local Vessels Advisory Committee (LVAC) on 26 October 2012 to discuss, as a priority, 10 items relating to vessel safety and regulation, including the proposal to increase the minimum liability cover of the compulsory third party risks insurance for better passenger protection. A dedicated working group comprising representatives of vessel operators, maritime insurance bodies and other relevant parties will be set up under the LVAC to conduct a review. The review will cover consideration of such factors as the number of past maritime accidents, experience in handling claims and the current situation. The working group will, upon completion of the review, submit recommendations to the Administration for consideration. The Administration recognizes the urgency of increasing the minimum liability cover. We will proceed with the legislative amendment exercise once a consensus is reached with the industry. We hope that Members would support those amendments when they are ready.
Dedicated Fund on Branding, Upgrading and Domestic Sales
17. MR WONG TING-KWONG (in Chinese): President, the Government launched in the middle of this year the Dedicated Fund on Branding, Upgrading and Domestic Sales (the Fund) with a commitment of $1 billion and the Fund is open for application for a period of five years. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the respective total numbers of applications received, since the launch of the Fund, for the Enterprise Support Programme and the Organisation Support Programme established under the Fund, with 646 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
a breakdown of the applications by category (please set out the numbers in table form);
(b) of the average amount of subsidy for the applications approved, and the amount of subsidy granted in each case in tabular form; the number of applications rejected and the reasons for that;
(c) given that the Fund has been launched for several months, whether the authorities have reviewed the operation of the Fund and gathered the views from the industry; if they have, of the details; if not, the reasons for that; and
(d) when the authorities will conduct a comprehensive review of the Fund in order to understand its effectiveness?
SECRETARY FOR COMMERCE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT (in Chinese): President,
(a) The Dedicated Fund on Branding, Upgrading and Domestic Sales (BUD Fund) was launched on 25 June 2012. The BUD Fund comprises the Enterprise Support Programme and the Organization Support Programme, and both are open for applications throughout the year. As at the end of September 2012, 283 applications and 36 applications were received under the Enterprise Support Programme and Organisation Support Programme respectively, with breakdown as follows:
Enterprise Support Programme
(i) Type of Applications
Number of Percentage Applications To engage service provider to draw up a 23 8.1% holistic business plan To implement measures of branding, 260 91.9% upgrading and/or domestic sales Total 283(1) 100% LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 647
(ii) Key Nature of Applications
Number of Percentage Applications Branding 15 5.3% Upgrading 37 13.1% Domestic Sales 13 4.6% Branding and Upgrading 14 4.9% Upgrading and Domestic Sales 20 7.1% Branding and Domestic Sales 73 25.8% Branding, Upgrading and Domestic Sales 111 39.2% Total 283(1) 100%
(iii) Major Business of Applicant Enterprises
Number of Percentage Applications Manufacturing Industry 103 36.4% Services Industry 149 52.6% Manufacturing and Services Industries 31 11.0% Total 283(1) 100%
Note:
(1) One hundred and four applications received under the first batch and 179 applications received under the second batch. The figure has excluded 14 applications withdrawn by the applicant enterprises.
Organisation Support Programme
(i) Key Nature of Applications
Number of Percentage Applications Branding 4 11.1% Upgrading 0 0 Domestic Sales 9 25% Branding and Upgrading 2 5.6% Upgrading and Domestic Sales 3 8.3% Branding and Domestic Sales 18 50% 648 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
Number of Percentage Applications Branding, Upgrading and Domestic Sales 0 0 Total 36(2) 100%
(ii) Target Beneficiary Sector of Applications
Number of Percentage Applications Manufacturing Industry 15 41.6% Services Industry 11 30.6% Manufacturing and Services Industries 10 27.8% Total 36(2) 100%
Note:
(2) Nineteen applications received under the first batch and 17 applications received under the second batch.
(b) The first batch of 104 applications received under the Enterprise Support Programme had been vetted:
Number of Average Funding
Applications Amount Applications approved 12 Around $325,000 Applications approved with 43 (1) conditions Applications that require the applicant enterprises to provide 4 (2) supplementary information Applications rejected 45 Not Applicable
Notes:
(1) The exact funding amounts have to be confirmed with the individual applicant enterprises.
(2) Applications require further vetting.
The funding amounts of individual approved applications are listed at Annex 1. For the 45 rejected applications, the major reasons include: the applicant enterprise does not fulfil the eligibility criteria LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 649
(for example, it cannot prove that it has substantive business operations in Hong Kong); the holistic business plan provided by the applicant enterprise is too broad-brush or lacks clarity; lack of substantive implementation details; the budget cannot meet the funding rules; or the applicant enterprise cannot show that it has sufficient ability to implement the proposed project, and so on.
The first batch of 19 applications received under the Organisation Support Programme had also been vetted. Twelve applications were approved, with an average funding amount of around $3.8 million. The funding amounts of approved applications are set out at Annex 2. For the seven rejected applications, the reasons are similar to those under the Enterprise Support Programme, for example, the project proposal does not provide complete information, is too simple or lacks implementation details, or the applicant organization fails to show clearly the benefits/effectiveness of the project.
(c) As the Secretariat of the Enterprise Support Programme, the Hong Kong Productivity Council (HKPC) has been maintaining close contact with the trade. During the daily processing of applications and promotion of the Programme, the HKPC proactively collects and listens to the views of the trade on the operation of the Programme. Since the launch of the BUD Fund in June 2012 and until the end of September 2012, the HKPC had held eight public seminars to promote the Programme to and have exchanges with over 1 000 persons from the trade and industrial sectors. It had also taken part in more than 10 events organized by business and sectoral associations to introduce the Programme to their members and listen to their views. As for the Organisation Support Programme, the Trade and Industry Department (TID) has also been closely liaising with the trade, and has handled nearly 400 enquiries or meetings. The TID will continue to closely monitor the views of the trade and the applicants through various channels to refine the implementation details of the Programme.
(d) Subject to the funding balance, the application period of the BUD Fund is expected to last for five years. We will closely monitor the operation of the Enterprise Support Programme and Organisation 650 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
Support Programme, and review their effectiveness at an appropriate time.
Annex 1
Funding Amounts of Approved Applications Under the Enterprise Support Programme
Reference Number Funding Amount Approved (in order of funding amount) 1 $25,000 2 $73,750 3 $114,500 4 $220,000 5 $259,152.5 6 $352,500 7 $357,300 8 $500,000 9 $500,000 10 $500,000 11 $500,000 12 $500,000 Average Funding Amount $325,184
Annex 2
Funding Amounts of Approved Applications Under the Organisation Support Programme
Reference Number Funding Amount Approved (in order of funding amount) 1 $1,391,400 2 $2,534,040 3 $3,462,300 4 $3,820,500 5 $3,870,900 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 651
Reference Number Funding Amount Approved (in order of funding amount) 6 $3,914,100 7 $4,144,455 8 $4,204,800 9 $4,429,058 10 $4,489,200 11 $4,542,750 12 $5,000,000 Average Funding Amount $3,816,959
Care and Assistance Provided to Persons Suffering from Dementia
18. MR CHEUNG KWOK-CHE (in Chinese): President, according to an estimate by the Department of Health, in Hong Kong, more than 60 000 elderly suffering from dementia lived in the community in 2010, and the number was on the rise. Some practitioners in the social welfare sector have told me that, among the users of services provided by residential care homes for the elderly (RCHEs) and day care centres for the elderly, the proportion of persons with dementia is also rising. As patients with dementia need a higher level of care, service units have to increase manpower in order to cope with the demand for services. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the number of elderly suffering from dementia at the end of each year in the past five years;
(b) of the respective numbers of demented persons receiving services in subvented RCHEs and day care centres for the elderly in the past five years (set out in the table below);
Day care centres Year Subvented RCHEs for the elderly 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012
652 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
(c) of the total amount of dementia supplement (DS) provided by the authorities to subvented RCHEs, as well as day care centres for the elderly, for taking care of demented persons, and of the total number of demented persons benefiting from DS in the past five years (set out in the table below); and
Subvented residential Day care centres care homes for the elderly for the elderly Year Total amount Number of Total amount Number of of DS beneficiaries of DS beneficiaries 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012
(d) given that some members in the sector have relayed to me that the current amount of DS is not adequate to pay for the wages of additional staff hired to take care of demented persons, whether the authorities will review the arrangement of DS; if they will, of the details; if not, the reasons for that?
SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Chinese): President, my reply to Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che's question is as follows:
(a) The Administration does not keep any statistics on the number of people suffering from dementia in Hong Kong. The numbers of demented patients followed up by the Psychiatric Department of the Hospital Authority (HA) in the past five years are as follows:
Number of demented patients followed up Year by the Psychiatric Department of the HA (rounded to the nearest hundred) 2007-2008 9 700 2008-2009 10 000 2009-2010 10 000 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 653
Number of demented patients followed up Year by the Psychiatric Department of the HA (rounded to the nearest hundred) 2010-2011 10 600 2011-2012 11 300
Note:
Demented patients may also suffer from other diseases and are followed up by other specialty departments of the HA. The above figures do not cover the number of demented patients followed up by other specialty departments.
(b) The Social Welfare Department (SWD) does not have the actual number of demented elders receiving services in subsidized RCHEs (including subvented RCHEs and private RCHEs participating in the Enhanced Bought Place Scheme (EBPS)) and day care centres/units for the elderly (DEs/DCUs).
Based on the existing method of estimating the number of beneficiaries(1) in calculating DS, the SWD estimates that the numbers of demented elders receiving services in subsidized RCHEs and DEs/DCUs are as follows:
Year Subsidized RCHEs(2) DEs/DCUs(3) 2007-2008 2 358 N.A. 2008-2009 2 542 N.A. 2009-2010 3 962 N.A. 2010-2011 4 161 N.A. 2011-2012 4 547 449
Notes:
(2) Including subvented RCHEs, as well as EBPS homes which started to receive DS since 2009-2010
(3) In 2011-2012, the coverage of DS was extended to elders receiving services at DEs/DCUs
(1) Estimated number of beneficiaries includes:
(i) The number of demented elders residing in subvented RCHEs, who have been assessed and confirmed to be eligible for DS by the psychogeriatric team of the HA; and
(ii) The number of demented elders in EPBS homes and DEs/DCUs as estimated by the SWD with reference to (i). 654 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
(c) In the past five years, the total amount of DS allocated to subsidized RCHEs and DEs/DCUs and the number of estimated beneficiaries are as follows:
Subsidized RCHEs DEs/DCUs Total amount Estimated Total amount Estimated Year of DS number of of DS number of ($million) beneficiaries ($million) beneficiaries 2007-2008 22.4 2 358 2008-2009 24.3 2 542 N/A 2009-2010 42.5 3 962 2010-2011 42.5 4 161 2011-2012 67.1 4 547 4.0 449
(d) The Government reviews from time to time the needs of people suffering from dementia and enhances the support to them through provision of additional resources. Over the past few years, the coverage of DS has been extended from subvented RCHEs to include also private RCHEs participating in EBPS and then DEs/DCUs. The amount of DS has also been substantially increased. With an additional provision of $137 million this year, the annual total allocation for DS is about $208 million, nearly three times that of last year.
Having regard to their individual needs, service units can make use of DS flexibly to engage additional professional staff, including occupational therapists, nurses, social workers, and so on, or to purchase relevant professional services. DEs/DCUs can also use DS to provide training courses and services to demented elders as well as support services to their carers where necessary.
Public Transport Fare Concession Scheme for the Elderly and Eligible Persons with Disabilities
19. MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Chinese): President, the concessionary fare scheme (the scheme) put forward by the Government of the last term for elderly people aged 65 or above and eligible persons with disabilities which enables LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 655 them to travel on trains, buses and ferries at a concessionary fare of $2 per trip was launched on 28 June this year. The scheme initially covered the Mass Transit Railway (MTR)'s domestic services and was extended to the bus services provided by four franchised bus companies on 5 August; it is expected to extend to the services of the Lantau buses and over 20 ferry lines early next year. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council:
(a) of the daily average number of person-trips benefiting from the scheme and the daily average amount of subsidies provided to the various public transport operators since the implementation of the scheme, with a breakdown by mode of transportation from Monday to Sunday; the expected annual number of person-trips benefiting from the scheme and the amount of public expenditure incurred annually;
(b) whether an initial review has been conducted on the implementation of the scheme; if so, of the result; as it has been reported that some elderly people have complained that after the implementation of the scheme they have to pay more for the fares, whether the authorities have received related complaints and looked into such situation; whether the situation involves the scheme's failure to dovetail with the existing interchange concession schemes; whether any public transport operators have, after the implementation of the scheme, cancelled the interchange concessions and other concessions previously provided, resulting in the elderly people having to pay more for the fares, and taken advantage of the opportunity to obtain more government subsidies; how the authorities will follow up such situation; and
(c) whether the authorities will consider afresh extending the scheme to cover more target beneficiaries (for example, covering people with a lower degree of disabilities and disabled children aged below 12) and more modes of transportation (for example, green mini-bus); if so, of the lead time required, according to the estimation of the authorities, for applying the technologies, as well as putting in place the data management and settlement platform involved, and the expected time for implementing the extended scheme at the earliest?
656 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Chinese): President, my reply to Mr Frederick FUNG's question is as follows:
(a) Under the Public Transport Fare Concession Scheme for the Elderly and Eligible Persons with Disabilities (the Scheme), the Government will use a Centralized Settlement Platform tailor-made for the Scheme to obtain accurate daily patronage record for calculating, on an accountable basis, the fare revenue forgone that needs to be reimbursed to the public transport operators concerned. To benefit the elderly and eligible persons with disabilities soonest possible, while time has to be taken to develop the Centralized Settlement Platform, the Government has already implemented the Scheme on the MTR on 28 June this year, and extended the Scheme to four franchised bus companies (namely the Kowloon Motor Bus, Citybus, New World First Bus and Long Win Bus) on 5 August. Since the staff of the Transport Department have to prudently and directly examine the applications made to them by public transport operators on an accountable basis for reimbursement of their revenue forgone, the process takes time. The initial data show that by the end of August this year, the daily average number of beneficiaries who used the abovementioned public transport and enjoyed the $2 concessionary fare was about 608 000.
The Government is closely liaising with the New Lantao Bus and ferry operators for further extending the Scheme to these operators in around the first quarter of 2013. The Government estimates that the amount of revenue forgone to be reimbursed to the public transport operators concerned would be around $400.1 million in 2013-2014 when the Scheme is fully implemented. In estimating the revenue forgone, we have taken into account the projected growth in elderly population and the number of eligible persons with disabilities. However, we do not have adequate information to factor in additional patronage induced by the Scheme, the impact of future fare adjustments and other changing circumstances.
Besides, we estimate that there would be an annual recurrent administration and staff expenditure of more than $20 million, which is mainly for the employment of auditors to audit the operators' LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 657
reimbursement applications for fare revenue forgone that needs to be reimbursed and relevant internal monitoring system (including the computer system), as well as for conducting patronage record checks and other anti-abuse measures.
(b) We have been monitoring the implementation of the Scheme and will conduct a comprehensive review of the Scheme three years after it has been fully implemented to assess the long-term financial, transport and welfare implications.
Under the Scheme, the elderly and eligible persons with disabilities can travel on designated public transport at $2 per trip. If the fare of the designated transport service is above $2, the elderly and eligible persons with disabilities need only to pay at most $2 per trip. The Government will absorb the difference between the nominal fare and $2.
With the introduction of the Scheme, the elderly and eligible persons with disabilities will only pay less when they travel on the public transport covered by the Scheme. For cases quoted in the question on a "higher fare paid by the elderly", as we are aware, different franchised bus companies offer different fare concessions according to their operating conditions. This is an arrangement beyond the Scheme. Before the launch of the Scheme, bus operators offered the "$2 Holiday Fare Discount for the Elderly" (Holiday Fare Discount) mainly through the Passenger Reward Arrangement to enable the elderly to travel on buses at $2 concessionary fare a trip on Sundays and public holidays. If an interchange was involved in a journey, bus companies, when calculating the second trip holiday concessionary fare for the elderly, would deduct the interchange discount from the $2 fare offered under the Holiday Fare Discount. Nevertheless, as the balance of the Passenger Reward Arrangement was exhausted, bus companies have ceased the Holiday Fare Discount since 29 July 2012.
After cessation of the bus companies' Holiday Fare Discount, elderly passengers should have been paying the same fare on holidays as that on other days, that is, a higher fare compared to that under the 658 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
Holiday Fare Discount. However, as the Government has extended the Scheme to the four franchised bus companies since 5 August 2012 (the first Sunday after the Holiday Fare Discount has expired), the elderly passengers now only need to pay at most $2 per trip on any days. This adheres to the principle of the Scheme, that is, with the implementation of the Scheme, beneficiaries will not need to pay a fare higher than that before the launch of the Scheme.
(c) The Scheme aims to help build a caring and inclusive society by encouraging the elderly and eligible persons with disabilities to participate more in community activities. When determining the coverage of persons with disabilities under the Scheme, consideration has been given to the past deliberations of the "Subcommittee to Study the Transport Needs and Provision of Concessionary Public Transport Fares for Persons with Disabilities" (the Subcommittee). After rounds of discussion and having regard to the views of persons with disabilities and public transport operators, the Subcommittee was of the view that recipients under the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance Scheme aged between 12 and 64 with 100% disabilities and recipients of the Disability Allowance of the same age group are most in need of assistance and encouragement for social integration. The MTR Corporation Limited (MTRCL) has also launched a fare concession scheme for this same group of persons with disabilities since 2009. The group of eligible persons with disabilities under the Scheme has been defined against the above background and considerations.
As we are aware, various major public transport operators are currently offering fare concessions to children aged below 12, and children aged three or below are given free rides. The MTRCL is also offering free rides to children aged between three and 11 on Saturdays, Sundays and public holidays during the period between 28 July and 30 December 2012. Having said that, we are studying the feasibility of extending the Scheme to children with 100% disabilities aged below 12.
For the suggestion of including green minibuses into the Scheme, the Government has already set up a working group with the green LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 659
minibus trade to study the feasibility. The Working Group is also studying the technical and detailed arrangements involved, including accounting, auditing and enabling the green minibus operators to use the Centralized Settlement Platform to apply for the Government's reimbursement of the revenue forgone arising from the implementation of the Scheme; the technical enhancement for the green minibuses' fare collection system; and feasible anti-abuse measures. There are at present quite a large number of green minibus operators. Many of them are of small-scale with different modes of operation and financial positions. We expect that it will take time to study in detail and to discuss with the trade the above technical and implementation details.
Development of Sports Facilities
20. MR MA FUNG-KWOK (in Chinese): President, it is learnt that the Kai Tak Development project involves the construction of a multi-purpose main stadium with a capacity for 50 000 spectators, a secondary stadium and an indoor sports arena. The Financial Secretary and the Secretary for Home Affairs said respectively in August and July this year that the Government had commissioned a consultancy study on the construction and financing arrangements for the above venues. On the other hand, after the Government's funding bid for hosting the 2023 Asian Games was voted down by this Council last year, the Secretary for Home Affairs had indicated that the authorities would actively pursue the construction of those venues under planning while enhancing the existing venues in districts. In this connection, will the Government inform this Council of:
(a) the progress of the aforesaid consultancy study and its conclusion so far; of the timetable for the planning and construction of the sports venues concerned according to the present progress, and whether the works will commence in 2014 and be completed in 2019 as scheduled; if not, the reasons for that;
(b) the measures that the Government will implement to consult the sports sector and other stakeholders in the process of planning and designing the sports venues in Kai Tak, so as to ensure that the 660 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
facilities will meet the needs of the sports sector and the community; and
(c) the locations of the new venues planned to be built and the existing venues planned to be renovated in districts; the details of related plans and progress and the timetable for submitting the relevant projects to the Legislative Council for discussion?
SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS (in Chinese): President, after several years of study and public consultation regarding building of major new sports facilities at Kai Tak in East Kowloon, the HKSAR Government selected a site and proposed the construction of a multi-purpose sports complex at Kai Tak.
The Kai Tak sports complex will be a major sports park for Hong Kong people, with a mixture of high quality public sports facilities, open space, park features and retail and dining outlets, which will be open to the public throughout the day, seven days a week. Apart from providing sports venues and open space for the community, the high quality sports facilities at the Kai Tak sports complex will also alleviate the shortage of local venues for hosting major international sports events.
The proposed facilities for the Kai Tak sports complex include:
- a 50 000 seat-stadium with a retractable roof to allow the hosting of major international sports and cultural events to be held under all weather conditions, and to contain possible noise nuisance from events such as large-scale concerts;
- a public sports ground with permanent seating for 5 000 spectators. The ground will be a venue for public jogging, athletics training and matches, and football and rugby matches as well as a warm-up venue for major sports events at the stadium; - an indoor sports centre with a main arena with permanent seating for 4 000 spectators and a secondary arena with seating for 400 spectators to accommodate sports such as basketball, volleyball, badminton, table tennis and wushu; LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 661
- park features suitable for use by people of all ages, such as children's play areas, tai chi areas and fitness stations;
- office space of at least 10 000 sq m; and
- commercial space of at least 31 500 sq m that can accommodate retail and food and beverage outlets.
My reply to the different parts of the question is as follows:
(a) In taking forward this project, in 2011 we commissioned a consultancy study on the construction and financing options for the sports complex, which included reference to recent experience with the procurement and financing of major local and overseas projects. The consultant has affirmed that the most effective approach is to build a comprehensive sports complex on the selected site instead of dividing it into separate elements. The consultant's initial findings suggest that a "Design-Build-Operate" approach to the project would help to ensure the most effective delivery of the project from the design stage through to its long-term operation. The consultant has also pointed that as social infrastructure projects sports facilities are different from economic infrastructure projects in that a relatively higher debt-to-equity ratio can be allowed at early stage. The consultant has also recommended a combination of government and private financing for the project. We are now considering the findings of the consultancy in consultation with the Sports Commission.
We shall study in detail the recommendations of the consultant when taking forward the comprehensive planning of the project. In view of the scale and complexity of the Kai Tak sports complex as well as the substantial investment involved, we will need to co-ordinate this project with other infrastructural projects within the Kai Tak Development to workout the relevant project timetable.
(b) As this will be Hong Kong's largest ever sports project, the sports complex at Kai Tak will require careful planning. Since its establishment in 2005, the Sports Commission has commented 662 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
regularly on the proposed facilities, financing arrangements and other aspects of the project. During the design and planning stage, we will consult the sports sector, various stakeholders and members of the public to ensure that the sports complex meets the needs of the sports sector and the community.
(c) The Government is committed to providing sports facilities in line with our policy objectives for sports development in Hong Kong and to address the needs of residents of individual districts. Since 2010, we have completed a large number of new sports facilities and upgraded existing facilities, including the conversion of the secondary pool of Lai Chi Kok Park Swimming Pool into an indoor heated pool (already open to the public); a sports centre in Area 101, Tin Shui Wai; and swimming pools in Lam Tin North and at the Swimming Pool Complex in Area 1 (San Wai Court), Tuen Mun (to open to the public shortly). Details of these projects are at Annex A.
Nine sports facilities are under construction or will soon begin construction, with a total investment of over $7.3 billion (see Annex B). Major projects include an indoor velodrome-cum-sports centre in Area 45, Tseung Kwan O; the redevelopment of Victoria Park Swimming Pool Complex; an indoor recreation centre in Area 3, Yuen Long; a sports centre between Tsuen Wan Park and Tsuen Wan Road, Tsuen Wan; and a sports centre in Area 14B, Sha Tin.
As regards new sports venues under planning, we propose to build a new sports complex with an indoor heated pool in Area 4, Tsing Yi, and we will consult the Legislative Council on this project in the 2012-2013 Legislative Session. Subject to funding approval, construction is tentatively scheduled to start in the third quarter of 2013 for completion in the fourth quarter of 2016. We will continue to plan and build new sports venues, and convert and upgrade existing facilities in line with our strategic policy objectives for sports development in Hong Kong.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 663
Annex A
Recently Completed Sports Facilities
I. Sports Facilities Recently Opened for Public Use
Item No. Project Title Sports Facilities Opened in 2010 1. Indoor Recreation Centre, Community Hall cum Library in Area 17, Tung Chung, Lantau 2. District Open Space in Area 18, Tung Chung, Lantau
(including a seven-a-side hard-surfaced soccer pitch and a skateboard ground) 3. District Open Space in Area 9, Tsing Yi
(including an 11-a-side artificial turf soccer pitch, two basketball-cum-volleyball courts, cycling and skateboarding areas) 4. Ngau Chi Wan Recreation Ground, Wong Tai Sin
(including a basketball court) 5. District Open Space at Po Kong Village Road, Wong Tai Sin
(including a cycling track and two cycling areas, and a multi-purpose artificial turf pitch for two soccer-cum-rugby pitches and one cricket pitch to be superimposed onto it) Sports Facilities Opened in 2011 6. Swimming Pool Complex in Area 2, Tung Chung, Lantau 7. Reprovisioning of Kennedy Town Swimming Pool (Phase I) 8. Siu Sai Wan Complex
(including indoor heated swimming pools and a sports centre) 9. Tseung Kwan O Complex in Area 44, Tseung Kwan O
(including a sports centre) 10. Tin Shui Wai Public Library cum Indoor Recreation Centre
(including a sports centre and an indoor heated swimming pool) 664 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
Item No. Project Title 11. Local Open Space in Area 25, Fan Ling/Sheung Shui
(including a skateboarding ground and a BMX cycling ground) 12. Sun Yat Sen Memorial Park and Swimming Pool Complex 13. Improvement works for Mongkok Stadium 14. District Open Space in Area 37, Tseung Kwan O
(including an artificial turf bowling green) Sports Facilities Opened in 2012 15. Sports Centre in Area 28A, Fan Ling/Sheung Shui 16. Conversion of Secondary Pool of Lai Chi Kok Park Swimming Pool into Indoor Heated Pool
II. Sports Facilities with Construction Completed and to be Opened Soon
Item No. Project Title 17. Swimming Pool Complex in Area 1 (San Wai Court), Tuen Mun 18. Lam Tin North Municipal Services Building
(including indoor heated swimming pools) 19. Sports Centre and Community Hall in Area 101, Tin Shui Wai
Annex B
Sports Facilities Projects Under Construction/with Works to Commence Soon
Estimated Actual/ Tentative Item Project Anticipated Works Project Title No. Cost Works Start Completion ($M) Date Date 1 Redevelopment of Victoria Park 1,197.70 08/2009 Late 2014 Swimming Pool Complex 2 Redevelopment of Kwun Tong Swimming Pool Complex and 1,323.80 11/2009 Late 2014 Kwun Tong Recreation Ground LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 665
Estimated Actual/ Tentative Item Project Anticipated Works Project Title No. Cost Works Start Completion ($M) Date Date 3 Town Park, Indoor Velodrome-cum-sports Centre in 1,129.70 03/2010 Early 2013 Area 45, Tseung Kwan O 4 Public Library and Indoor Recreation Centre in Area 3, Yuen 704.10 07/2010 Mid-2013* Long 5 District open space, sports centre and library in Area 74, Tseung 749.20 09/2011 Late 2014 Kwan O 6 Open space in Area 117, Tin Shui Wai
(Including an artificial turf pitch 232.30 08/2012 Mid-2014 suitable for 11-a-side football or 15-a-side rugby with a covered spectator stand) 7 Development of a bathing beach at 208.20 Late 2012 Late 2014 Lung Mei, Tai Po 8 Sports centre, community hall and 1,084.00 Late 2012 Early 2016 district library in Area 14B, Sha Tin 9 Sports centre between Tsuen Wan Park and Tsuen Wan Road, Tsuen 765.60 Early 2015 Late 2017 Wan Total: 7,394.60
Note:
* Under review
MEMBERS' MOTIONS
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Members' motions. Two motions with no legislative effect. I have accepted the recommendations of the House Committee: that is, the movers of motions each may speak, including reply, for 666 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 up to 15 minutes, and have another five minutes to speak on the amendments; the movers of amendments each may speak for up to 10 minutes; and other Members each may speak for up to seven minutes. I am obliged to direct any Member speaking in excess of the specified time to discontinue.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): First Member's motion: North East New Territories New Development Areas Planning and Engineering Study.
Members who wish to speak in the debate on the motion will please press the "Request to speak" button.
I now call upon Ms Emily LAU to speak and move the motion.
NORTH EAST NEW TERRITORIES NEW DEVELOPMENT AREAS PLANNING AND ENGINEERING STUDY
MS EMILY LAU (in Cantonese): President, I move that the motion, as printed on the Agenda, be passed, urging the authorities to withdraw the proposal on "North East New Territories New Development Areas Planning and Engineering Study".
President, in 2007, then Chief Executive Donald TSANG listed in his Policy Address the planning for the North East New Territories (NENT) New Development Areas (NDAs) as one of the 10 major infrastructure projects for promoting economic growth in Hong Kong. In October the same year, the Government announced the "Hong Kong 2030: Planning Vision and Strategy" (the HK2030 Study). The authorities proposed to take forward the NDA Planning in Kwu Tung North, Fan Ling North and Ping Che/Ta Kwu Ling, which was called the Three-in-One NDAs, to cater for the housing demand in Hong Kong in the long run and to provide employment opportunities.
President, two years later, in 2009, the authorities launched the Stage One Public Engagement exercise to consult the public of their aspirations and expectations on the NDAs and to achieve consensus on the development. One year later, President, that was 2010, the Government carried out the Stage Two Public Engagement, hoping the public would express their views on the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 667
Preliminary Outline Development Plans (PODPs) of the NDA. And two years later, President, that is, this year, the Stage Three Public Engagement was carried out. The Government hoped to consolidate the views and conduct a technical assessment. It spent an unknown amount of money to commission consultants to draft the Recommended Outline Development Plan, hoping the public would express their views, and then it would formulate the detailed development plan. The deadline for submission of views was set at 31 August originally, President, but due to the great controversy, it was postponed to the end of September. On expiry of the deadline, about 10 000 submissions were received.
(THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, MR ANDREW LEUNG, took the Chair)
Deputy President, the plan involves 787 hectares of land, among which, 533 hectares are listed as developable land. During the Stage Three Public Engagement, the authorities proposed to provide about 150 hectares of housing land supply for a total of 53 800 new residential units to accommodate about 151 600 persons. Deputy President, if Members read the paper submitted by authorities to the Panel on Development on 28 June this year, they would know that the authorities had already consolidated the views of the public at that time and pointed out inter alia that there were both supportive and opposing views on the NDAs project. It was stated that objections came mostly from the existing residents in the areas who demanded "no removal and no demolition" while some residents in Fan Ling also objected to any further urban development in Fan Ling and Sheung Shui. Some members of the public considered that the proposed Comprehensive Development and Nature Conservation Enhancement Area zone for Long Valley would open the floodgate for development and fail to protect conservation of the ecological value of the Long Valley area. It was also stated in the paper that many landowners criticized that the proposed zoning would freeze their development right without compensation. The authorities also said that most of the comments received were related to implementation, particularly on land resumption, compensation, rehousing and reprovisioning arrangements. It said that generally speaking, the affected locals would object to the proposed NDAs project in the absence of an improved package for land resumption, compensation, rehousing and reprovisioning. It was also stated in the paper that some people proposed private sector participation. However, some said that the mere discussion of private sector participation had prompted private landowners 668 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 to evict their tenants, making them homeless even before confirmation of the development plans.
Deputy President, we know how worse the situation is by merely reading such information. Regarding the mode of development, the Administration has been wavering in its attitude. In the beginning, it said that the "public-private partnership" approach would be adopted. Later, it said that the "resumption prior to development" approach would be adopted. It then changed its position again. To date, it has not yet made a decision. This wavering attitude has provoked conflicts among indigenous residents, non-indigenous residents and other people, increasing the tension of the already strained atmosphere.
The conflict in society was further intensified in August, Deputy President, when a report stated that the think-tank of Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying, the One Country Two Systems Research Institute, proposed opening up the Frontier Closed Area and setting up a special zone allowing visa-free entry of mainlanders, where the three aforesaid NDAs in the NENT would be included in the special zone. It was reported that the Institute proposed the special zone be developed into a region serving supporting functions in commerce, accommodation and leisure activities and stated that the plan could be implemented in five years.
Deputy President, you know that these proposals would definitely stir up a hornet's nest. The people of Hong Kong are extremely worried about urban integration and the protection of their rights being undermined. At present, we have to compete with mainlanders for various items, from milk powder to Yakult, beds at hospitals and housing, and so on. Many Hong Kong people have told us that they have been pushed to the limits. Regrettably, neither the Chief Executive nor any of the government officials has come forward to speak for them. They were extremely upset about this, and they would not tolerate the authorities forcing through the implementation of the plan. Deputy President, on 18 August, the authorities staged a public forum at Cheung Wah Community Hall in Fan Ling. Since the hall could only accommodate 300 persons, many people intending to join the forum were not allowed in. It was natural that there would be a hubbub, and the forum was forced to cut short. The public rebuked the Government for holding bogus consultation. An incumbent Member of the Executive Council, Mr Bernard CHANG, had come forward and stated that the authorities might have overlooked the views of society as a whole, and that despite the consultation on various fronts, the proposal would eventually be LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 669 banned. He cited the case of the subject on national education as an example, and urged the authorities to cease using the outdated consultation approach. He added that the Government should consider increasing the use of social media network, and so on, in conducting consultation, for this will reach out to young citizens.
Deputy President, on 22 September, the authorities conducted another public forum at a lawn somewhere in Sheung Shui, claiming that thousands of people had taken part. When the Secretary was speaking on the stage, the people on the floor confronted each other and kept talking. Deputy President, how could consultation be conducted under such circumstance? Therefore, the authorities should realize that the public are terribly discontented with the whole issue now, and they have many different views, so we in the Democratic Party propose that the authorities should withdraw the proposal and conduct consultations afresh.
What should be taken into consideration? The Administration should give regard to the population development, housing needs, employment, environment, conservation, restoration of agriculture and the rehousing of residents, and it should at the same time consider whether this is necessary under the policy on the integration of Shenzhen and Hong Kong. Besides, it should address the problem of estate developers adopting improper and coercive practices and causing distress to the residents. Certainly, Deputy President, some people say that the present deadlock of the incident should be attributed to the lack of participation by residents during the formulation of the content of the project by the authorities. Some even say that the project has been monopolized by members in the rural committee camp.
Deputy President, we have been discussing this subject since 2007, but nothing has changed. As such, we urge that the proposal be withdrawn for a new round of consultation, which is indeed necessary. Of course, we note that if Hong Kong is to follow this course, our luck will run out. Mr CHAN Hak-kan also said that discussion on the subject had started in 1998, and that it had been 15 to 16 years since, but Hong Kong was still the same. The Government governing Hong Kong is definitely incompetent and incapable. It has intensified the conflicts in Hong Kong to such an extent that I believe it can hardly make any progress.
670 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
Deputy President, on 17th this month, the Chief Executive came to this Council and said some people in society had highly politicized the incident. He mentioned that some claimed the project was "turning Hong Kong red" and "selling out Hong Kong", and he said that such claims did not reflect the views of the majority Hong Kong public. However, he said that attention should be paid to this for it might have a negative impact on the normal relationship between Hong Kong and the Mainland. I hope that the Government, including the Chief Executive, will understand the anger in the hearts of the people of Hong Kong, which can be sensed without going to Sheung Shui or the North District. The Administration should examine the causes of worries and hatred in Hong Kong society as a whole, instead of making a simple remark to deny the existence of such concerns. If the Government governs Hong Kong in this manner, I think Hong Kong people will find you absolutely incompetent.
Deputy President, many people say that the territory has been reunited, but not the heart of the people. The NENT development project has brought to light the intense fear of many people, for they think that the Government has ignored their rights and they will soon lose their rights. Deputy President, I thus hope that the Government will not insist on implementing the project instead of withdrawing it, for it will have 43 votes and the project will definitely be passed. As I have said repeatedly, Deputy President, we are the minority in this legislature, but outside the legislature, we are the majority. We represent the people of Hong Kong and give voice to their worries. We hope that the Government will not force us all to take the streets on every issue.
Ms Emily LAU moved the following motion: (Translation)
"That the proposal of the North East New Territories New Development Areas Planning and Engineering Study put forward by the authorities has aroused extensive discussion and great controversies in society due to the large-scale development involved; in this connection, this Council urges the authorities to withdraw the relevant proposal, conduct extensive consultation and take account of Hong Kong's policies on population development, housing demand, employment, environmental conservation, rebuilding the agricultural industry, rehousing non-indigenous inhabitants and Hong Kong-Shenzhen integration, etc. as well as problems such as property developers' unscrupulous land resumption practices and the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 671
situation of the affected persons before launching studies on the relevant planning proposal."
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Ms Emily LAU be passed.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Six Members wish to move amendments to this motion. This Council will now proceed to a joint debate on the motion and the six amendments.
I will first call upon Mr Frederick FUNG to speak, to be followed by Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr James TIEN, Mr Abraham SHEK and Mr Gary FAN respectively; but they may not move the amendments at this stage.
MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, Hong Kong was thrown into a raging storm soon after the new Government commenced operation in July. With the Government's reorganization proposal ending in a miscarriage, the Government is already in a sorry plight just 100-odd days after LEUNG Chun-ying took the helm. From "brainwashing" national education to the "multiple-entry Individual Visit Scheme (IVS) endorsement" measure aimed at relaxing travel restrictions on Shenzhen non-permanent residents, the North East New Territories (NENT) New Development project, the recent storm over the "silencing" of the Digital Broadcasting Corporation Hong Kong Limited, and so on, most of these issues involve the Mainland element ― from ideological and livelihood impacts to the implementation of "one country, two systems", the intervention from the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government (LOCPG) in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, and so on. Most ironically, LEUNG Chun-ying, who made use of the doubly non-permanent resident pregnant women issue during his election campaign to highlight the conflicts between the Mainland and Hong Kong in order to demonstrate his concern about the interests of Hong Kong people, now finds himself tripped by the conflicts which he himself has a role to play to breed.
672 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
In the face of these storms, including the motion on the NENT Development today, Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying appears to be mediocre without any organization at all. He has merely used the tactic of either "hypocritical rhetoric" or diverting attention by launching half-baked measures hastily in an attempt to bribe public opinion within the shortest time. The arrangement for white form applicants to purchase Home Ownership Scheme (HOS) flats in the secondary market without the payment of premium is one such example. It will apparently push up the prices of HOS flats and fuel the property market. Furthermore, when the "multiple-entry IVS endorsement" measure was initially launched for Shenzhen non-permanent residents, the authorities wasted no time in thanking the Central Government and welcome the measure. It was only for electoral considerations that their attitude took a quick twist later. Another example was the attempt last Friday to force through the funding application for the "Old Age Living Allowance" scheme. Such a move was not only short-sighted but also ruthless in its means. Moreover, extensive efforts were made to conduct publicity and exert pressure before the approval of the funding application. What is more, no efforts were spared to stir up conflicts in society purely for the sake of bribing people's hearts. This has fully reflected the ulterior motive of the authorities, that they will go to great lengths to achieve their goal. Even if their plans are not well conceived or will produce a result contrary to their expectation, they will still not hesitate.
No matter how the Chief Executive beats about the bush, he is doomed to failure. Not only do the apparent problems remain unsolved ― which way should the NENT New Development Areas go, for instance ― there is a serious lack of public trust in more important key issues, and the core values of Hong Kong people are on the verge of destruction. Deputy President, Hong Kong people do not in the least expect that LEUNG Chun-ying could have not only failed to ease the deep-rooted conflicts after taking office ― including the disparity between the rich and the poor, unitary development of the economy, a closed political system, and so on ― but also contributed to another kind of deep-rooted conflicts leading to confrontation and a lack of trust between the community and government officials. After all, Hong Kong people simply do not know this person, who has long been nurtured and protected by the Communist Party of China. Thanks to the LOCPG's repeated attempts to back LEUNG Chun-ying to ascend to power, seeds of harm in the future have been sown. After ascending to power, LEUNG Chun-ying has stopped at nothing to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 673 pay back to the LOCPG by putting its wishes above the interests of Hong Kong people. As a result, they feel that their core values are under threat.
Unfortunately, Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying prefers muffling his ears while stealing the bell. Not only is he reluctant to face the truth, he has even dismissed the problem of a lack of trust with a laugh as well as "hypocritical rhetoric" ― by either blaming the problem on the Government of the last term or believing the discontent and rebound of society to be a normal phenomenon ― so as to deceive himself and others. As a result, this attitude of shirking responsibility and placing the blame somewhere else is spreading within the Government like a contagious disease. As the saying goes, "If the upper beam is not straight, the lower ones will go aslant". In the face of controversies, such as the NENT project, the Government as a whole made a serious mistake in placing its focus on a wrong point and demonstrated a lack of prudence. What is more, vigourous efforts were made to organize supporters to counteract by resorting to the most primitive means of struggle and provoking conflicts. As I pointed out in my amendment proposed to this motion today, in addressing the issue of the NENT project, the Government has deliberately stirred up disputes between the so-called indigenous inhabitants and non-indigenous inhabitants and even fuelled conflicts between the two groups of inhabitants at the consultation forum. The new Government is very disappointing indeed.
Deputy President, with regard to the controversy surrounding the NENT project, I am very grateful to the non-government organizations for coming forth boldly and speaking out the whole truth with a realistic and rational attitude, so that we can witness once again how civil society brings people's power into play for yet another time. The authorities have lifted an apparently district-based issue to a higher level, including "the reality of the economy", an expression often mentioned by LEUNG Chun-ying ― a kind of economic integration which is nearly regarded as justifiable and proper. However, should we take a new look at this idea? What should economic integration embrace? Is its impact on the development of the local economy good or bad? Can Hong Kong's ancillary facilities support it? To what extent will people's livelihood and commodity prices be affected?
Furthermore, civil society has also raised other issues worthy of careful consideration by all. For instance, is the efficiency in the use of land within the development zone too high or too low? Has the land in urban areas and fringe areas been put to the optimal use? Members of the public have also found 674 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 during the discussions that a large reserve of land has been earmarked for the construction of small houses, an initiative that has not been be given serious discussion in society at all. In fact, the unfairness and unreasonableness resulting from the use of land under the small house policy is pretty obvious. Given the "unlimited demand for small houses", this method of reserving land can simply not sustain. Civil society has once again reminded us that we are talking about not only disputes between indigenous inhabitants and non-indigenous inhabitants, but also the problem of use of land in Hong Kong being seriously distorted by the small house policy. Hence, the policy must be reviewed in a comprehensive manner, and the privilege enjoyed by indigenous inhabitants must come to an end one day.
Next, there are considerations for agricultural development, too. Is it true that there is no room for survival of agricultural development in Hong Kong? How should agriculture be positioned in the overall economy? Can agriculture and urban development complement each other? Can the two enjoy sustainable development? Why is it possible for quality agriculture to thrive in Taiwan? In fact, some clear self-sufficiency rates of agriculture have been prescribed in many countries or regions ― such as Singapore, Korea and Taiwan ― for food safety and national security considerations. What about Hong Kong? Hong Kong continues to take food quality lightly with its sole reliance on the Mainland for food imports. How can the financial services industry feed and support Hong Kong's population of 7 million? Deputy President, all this precisely demonstrates the need for Hong Kong to review its positioning and identify a new one. Given the truth revealed by the NENT project, should we not take the matter seriously?
Nevertheless, the Government simplifies these problems as land disputes or uses inadequate land supply in the future as an excuse. What is more, it has even denied any advocacy for economic integration, as if it is undoing what it has done with its own hands by imagining that it can put an end to the suspicion and discontent in society through raising the public housing ratio in an attempt to conceal the truth of the issues. The Government is merely adopting an "ostrich policy" in response to the various issues warranting careful consideration, as I mentioned just now.
Worse still, Deputy President, the Government has gone from bad to worse recently. It regards the bottom-up change as not only an act to overthrow the established consultation system, but also an attempt to rock the Government's LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 675 authority in governance. Moreover, the change proposed by the Chief Executive is regarded as justifiable and proper as well as the priority. The best case in point is the decade-long Sports City plan for Kai Tak, which is now open to exploitation. The authorities appear to have the intention of developing Kai Tak into a new Kowloon Walled City by repeating the past mistake made in coming up with a suffocating distribution and design of densely laid out buildings. May I ask if this is the life of a livable city that Hong Kong society has been pursuing? What are the ulterior motives of the authorities? To act hastily, divert attention, provoke conflicts, or increase the number of bargaining chips for the NENT New Development project?
I have proposed this amendment today in the hope that the LEUNG Chun-ying Government can refrain from acting in a tyrannical and stubborn manner, stirring up any more conflicts and diverting attention, so as to engage society in in-depth discussions and truly listen to public opinion.
I so submit.
MR CHAN HAK-KAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, now the people of Hong Kong are facing three problems in housing: high property prices, high rentals and difficulty in being allocated public rental housing (PRH) units. Just how high are property prices? Property prices have risen to beyond the level of the year 1997. Just how high are rentals? The rental for the so-called "coffin rooms" per square foot is more than $60. By being difficult in getting a PRH unit, just how long should applicants wait? Now applicants on the Waiting List for public housing are close to 200 000 in number. To solve these three major problems, we can only increase land and housing supply.
So the DAB agrees with the statement of the motion proposed today, that is, we support the North East New Territories New Development Areas Planning and Engineering Study. We think that the Government must give proactive consideration to the views and aspirations presented by the public and stakeholders during the consultation period. But we do not agree that the plan be withdrawn. This is because once the plan is withdrawn, it will mean that all the studies, planning and consultation done for more than a decade will be scrapped and they have to start from scratch again. This is most unfair to those 676 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 members of the public who have all along been not allocated a PRH flat, or those who have to bear the high rents and those who are unable to buy a home.
There are views that now the Government has got a total of 2 100 hectares of residential land and the amount is almost three times more than the NENT NDAs or the commonly known Three-in-One New Development Area (NDA), and so there is no need for the Government to open up any new development area. But I wish to point out that this kind of talk is no more than talk by an armchair strategist, which detached from reality. We have to look at what reality is like. In these 2 100 hectares of land, deducting the amount of land which is only suitable for low-density village-type development and the some 400 hectares of land composed of man-made slopes, roads, passageways, and so on, only some 390 hectares can realistically be developed.
Although it is said that 390 hectares are not small in amount, such land is situated mostly in the New Territories and not all of it is suitable for high-density development. Government figures show that some parts of the land are suitable for high-density development such as public housing construction. But this kind of land, that is, land for Residential (Group A) development only amounts to 65.8 hectares. If we use half of this amount of 65.8 hectares, that is, 33 hectares, to build public housing blocks and Home Ownership Scheme (HOS) blocks, at the plot ratio of seven times and the saleable floor area of about 400 sq ft per unit, only about 50 000 units can be built. This amount can only meet the demand for some two years.
There is also this view that if this amount of 391 hectares is not enough, there are still 1 200 hectares of land for village-type development. Even if we ignore the demands of residents living in Dr LAU Wong-fat's constituency and even if we brush aside the small house policy, we can see that these lots of land are actually not very suitable. Many of these lots are scattered all over different corners of some villages, not suitable for large-scale housing developments, and they are only suitable for some small standalone buildings. If we are bent on having our way and start to build a large number of these standalone or pencil buildings, where are we to build other matching facilities? I do not think this is something the people would wish to see. I know that there is some public concern for village-type development land, and even for what we have said, that is, the small house policy as mentioned by Mr Frederick FUNG just now, the authorities should undertake a review of these issues and make a response. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 677
However, we should not mix and bundle up these with the development and planning of NENT.
Deputy President, according to some figures, we can see that during the 10-year period from 2001 to 2011, the number of households in Hong Kong has increased from 2.05 million to 2.37 million. The rate of increase is close to 16%, and it is much more rapid than the 5.3% growth in population as forecast. Unless we want to see a situation where numerous tenants cram inside a single flat, the authorities should open up more land to meet the increase in households and housing demand even if population growth slackens. If we use the present density of development for projection, an increase of every 1 million people would require 25 sq km of land, of which 11 sq km are for residential development and 14 sq km will be used for the building of such matching facilities as hospitals, schools, community facilities, and so on. Based on the latest revised population projections by the Government, in 2041, our population will have increased by 14.9 million. In other words, we have to find 35 sq km of land, and land in this Three-in-One NDA will take up one fifth of the total. If we were to withdraw this project for the NDAs which has been brewing for 10 years, it would certainly affect land supply in the medium and long terms and there might even be a vacuum in the interim.
Deputy President, we would think that the Government should consider seriously the views collected during the consultation period in order to improve the present proposal. Of course, we can see that there is great public concern about the tremendous land interest involved in the opening up of the new areas. Will the so-called transfer of benefits happen in the process? Will there be any so-called favouritism of the developers? The Government must do whatever it can to dispel public misgivings about this. This is because if there are queries right from the beginning, it would be difficult to proceed with the development plans. In our opinion, irrespective of whether the conventional mode of new town development or a public-private partnership approach is adopted, the most important thing is to provide more residential units expeditiously in order to meet the housing needs of the people.
Deputy President, this Three-in-One NDA is a valuable land resource. But if we can only build 23 100 PRH units on 787 hectares of land and not a single HOS flat, this will definitely fail to meet public expectations. We think 678 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 that in terms of land planning and allocation, the authorities should at least make three major revisions.
First, the plot ratio for residential land in the development areas must be raised so that the development areas can house more population. Specifically, reference can be made to the density of development in the planning of new towns in Fan Ling and Sheung Shui nearby. If we review the development of Fan Ling and Sheung Shui in the past, we would find that their area was about 768 hectares in total, almost the same as the Three-in-One NDA. However, the abovementioned two new towns have a total population of 290 000 people as compared to the NDA which only houses 150 000 people. Hence I think that there is a great room for adjustment and increase.
Second, in order to shorten the waiting time for PRH units and provide more HOS flats, the authorities should adjust the proportion of public sector housing from the present 43% of the total number of flats available to at least 50% or even more.
Third, about the private residential units in the NDA, a certain percentage of these units should be set aside to meet the relevant land lease condition specifying that the same shall only be sold to Hong Kong citizens. This is to ensure that priority will be given to Hong Kong citizens in the sale of flats completed in future. This is also meant to achieve the aim of making it possible for Hong Kong citizens to be given priority in the use of land resources in Hong Kong.
Deputy President, I would like to talk briefly about the DAB's response to the several amendments today. First, as I have said, we object to scrapping the whole plan and start from scratch. So with respect to Ms Emily LAU's motion and the amendments from Mr Frederick FUNG and Mr Gary FAN respectively, in which mention is made of withdrawing the proposal, we oppose them. As for the amendment from Miss CHAN Yuen-han, her suggestion of keeping the proposal instead of withdrawing it and maintaining a dialogue with the people is close to our position. But in her amendment, the so-called "simulated planning" makes us feel concerned that the whole proposal may be pushed back to square one. In that case, it may cause delay to the commencement of the entire project. With respect to the idea of private sector participation proposed by Mr Abraham SHEK as the development approach to be adopted, we can see that there are LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 679 misapprehensions in society for this kind of approach and we are afraid that once adopted, the aim of earliest implementation and attaining social harmony as advocated in Mr SHEK's amendment may not be achieved. Therefore, we will abstain on Miss CHAN's amendment and Mr SHEK's amendment. Finally, the amendment from Mr James TIEN is in line with the position of the DAB and the principles upheld by us, and so we will vote in favour of it.
Deputy President, Hong Kong is plagued with the problems of high property prices, high rentals and a difficulty in buying a first home. These problems will not go away without a large amount of land becoming available. We cannot avoid opening up NDAs to cope with the housing needs and even the needs of economic development. So we hope that all sectors across the community can focus on how this planning for the Three-in-One NDA can be made better and how issues like compensation and rehousing of residents affected can be addressed in a rational and sound manner. In addition, problems like conservation and rebuilding the agricultural industry should be tackled effectively. With all this, the development proposal can be put into practice soon. Later on, Members from the DAB will speak on this in greater detail.
With these remarks, Deputy President, I propose my amendment.
MISS CHAN YUEN-HAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I noticed that there have been very strong reactions in society since the Hong Kong Government announced the development of the NENT. These strong reactions are caused by many worries in society. From what happened over a period of time in the past, people have had the feeling that "development" would benefit property developers. Besides, the public are concerned about whether this development project will turn the NENT into a back garden for tycoons in Shenzhen. These aside, there are, of course, indigenous inhabitants and members of the agricultural industry putting forward plenty of views. Various sectors of the community have provided a lot of input on the development of NENT, and I have profound feelings about this.
I think this area does need development. This is why I have deleted the wording on the withdrawal of the development plan in the original motion. Despite the need for development, a complete consultation procedure must be carried out in tandem with development. Mr CHAN Hak-kan expressed grave 680 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 worries earlier about the "simulated planning" proposed by me. I think that the time for which he has joined this Council is still short. At a meeting of the Legislative Council in the term from 2004 to 2008, I proposed that "simulated consultation" be conducted on that site in West Kowloon, for I considered that only in this way could the Government clearly listen to views and that it would be meaningless to listen to views after the plan was finalized. Mr CHAN said earlier that we would be caught between two stools. I will further respond to this point later on. I will abstain in the vote on his amendment.
Deputy President, I think Hong Kong people hold these views because the Government has consistently failed to ensure transparency in the land policy tilted to major property developers, slanting towards a policy led by this intangible hand of the market and slanting towards covert transfer of benefits. This is why the public must remain vigilant and actively convey their views through phone-in radio programmes. In view of this, the amendment that I have proposed today is based on a number of key views that have been expressed, which are also issues of great concern to the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions.
In our view, it is normal that many views are put forward during a consultation exercise on the development of an area, be it old or new. But in the process, I think the SAR Government should not be confrontational with public opinions, for this would be quite a fiasco. In the course of the development of the old airport site, I had had discussions with the Secretary for as long as 18 years, and during these 18 years, there had been no confrontational sentiment between us. I had also taken part in three large-scale consultative sessions on changes made to the plan and there had never been such scenarios as those during the consultation conducted by the Secretary in the NENT ― to put it nicely, it was a consultation carried out by the Government but to put it bluntly, it was the Government bringing pressure to bear on the people, and both sides had kept hurling abuses at each other. No one will eventually come out winners and the Government's plan will have to be aborted as a result.
I certainly hope that the Government will not adopt this approach, and I guess the Government will not do such a thing. But it was a very bad experience. We can find out from the Planning Department why there was not such problem in the entire development plan of East Kowloon. The development plan has spanned as long as 18 years. Three major changes were LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 681 involved in the process, and views were diverse among various sectors of the community. Since 18 years ago, I, CHAN Yuen-han, have always proposed that the Government should conduct a genuine consultation, not a bogus one. The authorities must make all officials at the middle level take part in the "simulated planning" and set aside factional rivalries. The past practices of the Urban Renewal Authority (URA) are an example ― I have no idea about its current practices ― the URA liked most to adopt this strategy in handling different views in the community.
Besides, I would also like to say a few words on the views espoused by the Secretary during his meeting with me at the eleventh hour. My advice to the Government at the time was that the Government must not adopt a take-it-for-granted mindset by only commissioning a consultancy to carry out consultation and then casting the area into the mould of Tin Shui Wai and the mould of Tung Chung. This is not what we are asking for. Hong Kong people are gravely worried that all the original economic activities on the sites for development will be removed and that the place will be moulded into another development model, as if it is using a bulldozer to replace the old with the new. This is not organic development, and this is what I am most afraid of seeing.
Deputy President, I have taken part in the overall development of the old district to which I belong for as long as 18 years. It was only after I had repeatedly given advice to the Government that there is now a Kai Tak River in East Kowloon. The river water is even clearer than the Cheonggyecheon Stream because the Government has heeded our views. I hope that Mr CHOI Ngai-min will not act rashly in respect of the development of the old airport site. The authorities made their decisions after conducting repeated consultations for 18 years and so, he must not rashly make suggestions about finding other sites elsewhere. He should ask the Director of Planning how public views have been sought and heeded over the past 18 years. This is our worry. We are worried that the Government will adopt a "moulding" approach of development by casually looking for 20 hectares of land for housing development and suggesting that the old airport site be used for housing development when the original site is considered not feasible for such a purpose. This is not an appropriate attitude. The authorities should forge a consensus through consultation and finally draw up an ideal plan.
682 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
Deputy President, I wish to stress another point, which is the third point that I wish to make. I asked the Secretary this question time and again during our meeting. LEUNG Chun-ying expressly stated in his election platform the wish to develop the agricultural industry, and some 11 or 12 years ago when the Hong Kong economy was in the doldrums, the Government had, in fact, introduced an agricultural land rehabilitation scheme which attracted numerous people to take up farming in the New Territories. These people, who included members of the media sector, have since engaged in farming and earned a living from it. Some of them grow ordinary vegetables and some grow organic vegetables. Numerous traditional or organic farmlands like these and a wide variety of agricultural developments can now be found all over the NENT.
I wish to stress ― and as I said to the Secretary earlier on ― that there are some 40 hectares of agricultural land in Long Valley, five hectares of such land in Ho Sheung Heung, 10 hectares in Ma Shi Po and 31 hectares in Ta Kwu Ling, totalling 98 hectares of agricultural land, of which some 40 hectares are farmed. Many people are still waiting to take part in the agricultural land rehabilitation scheme, as some 200 applications are still on the Government's waiting list. In view of this, I think the reply given by the Secretary to a question this morning was frivolous. Just now I heard him say in the Ante Chamber that the Government can find sites for them if farmland is inadequate. But where can he find these sites? Land in the New Territories is now hoarded by two blocs, namely the private property developers and the Government. The Government knows this only too well, and it is deceiving the people in saying that compensation will be made for those 98 hectares of agricultural land. I hope that the Secretary will specifically respond to this point.
Why is CHAN Yuen-han so concerned about the development of agricultural land? There is a reason. To put it plainly, I advocate diversified economic development and the creation of jobs, thereby enabling farmers to lead a happy life. Why should I not do it?
I went to Long Valley last week and talked to a group of "brother farmers". The scenery is very beautiful there. I would like to show the Secretary the pictures taken by me. The scenery was so beautiful that I was like visiting Japan or Mainland China. Please take a look at these pictures. How picturesque the scenery in these pictures is. This is a paddy field in Long Valley. How beautiful it is! Why do we have to destroy it? In such scenery in the pictures LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 683 not beautiful? These are the flowers of morning glory, and there was a puppy too, but I failed to capture it in time.
What I wish to say is that despite such wonderful scenery, the developers simply take no notice of them ― the Secretary also neglects them completely ― and they are going to drive them all away hastily, saying that other sites would be found for them. But is it possible to find sites for organic farming? Let me stress that it is "organic" planning, "organic" economy. Why do the authorities refuse to allow a developed industry to operate continuously? LEUNG Chun-ying has said that he is supportive of agricultural development, and the Secretary also said in reply to me the other day that the Administration has an agricultural policy.
As such, I, being a staunch supporter of diversified economic development and creation of jobs who had dressed up as a farmer to canvass votes during the election, wish to tell the Government that the agricultural industry does have great potentials for development.
In addition, I wish to further cite another example to explain why I support the agricultural industry. During the decade when I had cancer, it was nature that I relied on in achieving my recovery. I relied on hiking, and I personally went to the countryside to relax myself. Seeing such beautiful farmlands, my whole body just loosened up. I saw scenes of pets, paddy fields and trees, which were spectacular indeed. If all these were destroyed one by one, could we still enjoy all this scenery in future? While there may not be problems in replacing paddies with vegetables, what will happen when trees are grown there instead? Land is not good for growing just any species, and it takes the toil of a few generations in farming the land before the beautiful Long Valley and beautiful Ma Shi Po can be created today. I hope that these places can become the back gardens of Hong Kong people. It was not a holiday on the day that I took these pictures. My pictures were taken at that time.
Deputy President, I can, of course, give a detailed account of the merits of the agricultural industry. Due to the time constraint, I have to respond to the original motion and Mr Frederick FUNG's amendment. Frankly speaking, I think that it is not necessary to shelve the plan. The authorities should proceed with the development plan, just that they must conduct consultations properly. It is very important to conduct consultations in parallel with development. I 684 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 have consulted the views of all "brother farmers" and they told me not to call a halt to it. They are worried that once the plan is halted, they do not know what would happen to the agricultural land where farming activities are carried out now. They are worried that disputes would then arise, and the property developers, in recovering their farmlands, might refuse to provide land to them as compensation, in which case they would be in great miseries. As we all know, this vast expanse of farmland has become so beautiful thanks to the efforts made by two or three generations. How can the authorities handle it haphazardly?
While we appreciate the different views expressed by colleagues, I call on Members to gain a fuller understanding of the different views held by the residents. Some indigenous inhabitants or residents living in these places have called for the withdrawal of the development, and I certainly understand this point. There are different strata with different interests in society. I have handled problems relating to removal and redevelopment for over a decade, and I think that it is entirely possible to identify a solution. There may not necessarily be confrontation.
Furthermore, with regard to Mr CHAN Hak-kan's amendment, I have already said that I do not support it. It is because the removal proposal made in point (f) very much conforms to the wish of the Government. The residents must be removed so long as the Government says so. Has he thought about how those 98 hectares of land would be disposed of? I hope that this Member who has worked in the New Territories for years can listen to the views of the farmers. Let me go with him on a visit to these places some day.
I think Mr TIEN's amendment is meaningless. His proposal is still a copy of the old concept and application to the development of this area. Mr Abraham SHEK, sorry, it is because of your sector that I do not trust you, as I do not trust property developers. Deputy President, as I support the traditional mode of development, I oppose the amendments proposed by Mr TIEN and Mr SHEK, and I will abstain in the vote on the other three amendments. Thank you, Deputy President.
There is still a little time for me to say a few more words. I hope that all colleagues who are interested can join the green groups to visit this beautiful place. Let me stress once again that this is a very beautiful place which is really worth a visit by Members. The farmlands are so beautiful. Let me show these LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 685 pictures to Members again. How beautiful the scenery is. This is where the seeds of morning glory are saved, and the flowers are just beautiful. Do they not look like those magnificent oilseed rape flower fields in China? I urge Members representing the farmers to give me their support.
Moreover, I do not wish to waste time, and I would like to say that I also saw eels on that day. I also took pictures of them, just that I do not have time to show them to Members.(The buzzer sounded) …… All in all, I hope that we will keep the plan. Thank you.
MR JAMES TIEN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, despite my absence from the Legislative Council in the past few years, from 1988 to the present, I have served as a Member on and off for a number of years. I also think that Hong Kong, after the transition from the British-Hong Kong era to the era of the SAR Government, has become worse off in the preparation of land supply over the past few years. I also noticed that in the past few years, our economy as a whole seemed to have stalled. I wonder if one of the reasons is the serious problems in our hardware and software. Today, we are not discussing the problem of software, nor are we discussing manpower training or professionals. What I wish to talk about is the issue of hardware.
Let us look at our competitiveness in the international arena these days. Not to mention such distant places as Shanghai or Singapore ― the day before yesterday was Monday and yesterday happened to be a holiday. Since I had some time, I made a visit to Shenzhen. Over there, in Qianhai in Nanshan District, there is a large-scale project which I had all along wanted to examine for two reasons: First, politically, it is necessary to understand the development of neighbouring regions and second, I also invest in properties and property developers throughout the world, including those from Hong Kong, are welcome to invest in the projects there.
My impression is that although the project was proposed only four or five years ago, if Members have the opportunity of visiting the place for a look, they would find that at present, on that piece of land in Qianhai, the work relating to land acquisition, clearance and minor reclamation works have already been accomplished. Of course, this is probably because it was a joint project carried out by the Urban Planning, Land and Resources Commission and the Shenzhen 686 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
Municipal Planning Bureau. We can see that their concept of Qianhai is a "special zone within the Shenzhen Special Economic Zone" and it is said that finance would be the main pillar. At present, an offshore Renminbi centre is being developed in Hong Kong and Renminbi can be deposited into Hong Kong banks. However, it is not possible to offer loans in Renminbi. If banks in Hong Kong or other international banks establish offices in Qianhai, they are permitted to both borrow and lend in Renminbi, so would this make some international and Hong Kong banks think that there is greater development potential over there? I think that Shenzhen and many other places are moving faster than Hong Kong in terms of visionary development.
Turning back to Hong Kong, in the past few years, the West Kowloon Cultural District project has actually been delayed for a number of years and hopefully, the works can start soon because even the Hong Kong Wine and Dine Festival to be organized by the Hong Kong Tourism Board next year will have to be moved to somewhere else. Next, if we look at Kai Tak, we will find that except the cruise terminal, all the other projects are taking one step forward, then a step backwards and recently, they are moving backwards again and now, it is even said that consideration will be given to cancelling the sports stadium project. If all projects are discussed extensively and extensive consultations are carried out on them for 10 years but they all take a step forward, then a step backward, I think the overall development of the Hong Kong economy in the next five, 10, 15 or 20 years would lag far behind that of other places.
Therefore, concerning the SAR Government, although I have all along criticized our constitutional design as being flawed and after the former Chief Executive, Mr TUNG, had taken office for a few years, then stepped down and was replaced by other people, and after Mr LEUNG took over following the end of Mr TSANG's term of office, if the planning launched previously cannot be completed within the five-year or 10-year term of a Chief Executive, we will have to carry it out over an extended period of time and there will be a lack of continuity, so do we still want to develop our infrastructure? Back then, in the British-Hong Kong era, we said that in the construction of the airport at Chek Lap Kok and the Tsing Ma Bridge, too many British products were used and at that time, many people had reservations about whether or not the money should be given to the United Kingdom. The conclusion was that although the funds may have gone to the construction of airports and bridges in the United Kingdom, in fact, for the past decade or so, Hong Kong has also benefited quite a lot. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 687
Therefore, Deputy President, I think that in judging whether or not such infrastructure projects should be implemented, we should look at how much benefit Hong Kong itself stands to gain from them, apart from worrying about whether or not others would take advantage of them.
Deputy President, since I have so much time, I am coming to the subject matter, that is, the NENT NDAs planning, only now. The Government has carried out consultations for a long period of time, but the original motion proposes that the relevant proposal be withdrawn and extensive consultation be conducted. We in the Liberal Party consider that any amendment that carries no reference to withdrawing the relevant proposal and conducting extensive consultation can be discussed and examined. We will support such amendments.
However, if it is now proposed that the relevant proposal be withdrawn and extensive consultation be carried out again, in that event, I must ask: Since planning has been carried out for a decade and a great deal of work has been done, can such work be considered consultations? Or can these consultations only be considered simple consultations that are not extensive enough, so it is necessary to carry out extensive consultations anew? Do we have to march at the same spot, go back to where we were a decade ago and start anew? Can we support the Government in continuing to take forward the project now and in this process, continue to carry out extensive consultations and pay attention to the problems nowadays, rather than those of a decade ago?
As regards the problems observed nowadays, Deputy President, this time around, in the course of taking part in the direct election in New Territories East, I have gained a better understanding of them. I also know that in New Territories East, there are many issues of concern to residents of North District. In this regard, I think we can address their concerns while paying regard to development. Of course, on the development of land in the NENT, which is being discussed now, since it is inhabited by tenants or property owners, whereas some land is owned by property developers, so if the Government has to resume land, I think that consideration should be given to the public-private partnership approach which is proven in Hong Kong.
If Members are worried and do not want to give people on the Mainland investment opportunities here, this may not be realistic. Many Mainland 688 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 property companies are listed in Hong Kong and after the Government has completed the planning and when it starts to auction the land, these companies may also make investments. Separately, if consortia in Hong Kong are prohibited from making investments for fear of transfer of benefits, this would lead to the question of who will carry out the development. After the Government has resumed such a large stretch of land and completed the construction of roads or other necessary community facilities like community halls, sports grounds, swimming pools, hospitals and schools, there is no reason not to carry out other kinds of development. After the Government has completed the construction of these facilities, other types of diversified property development should be carried out in the public-private partnership approach, I believe. This will prevent the Government from suffering losses because many sites will be auctioned and developed only in a linked manner. Of course, in that case, we think that if under the relevant proposal, half of the flats completed can be earmarked as "Hong Kong properties for Hong Kong residents" for purchase or occupation only by Hong Kong residents, a balance can be struck between the interests of both parties.
As regards the plot ratio, I also think that the ratio for residential properties in the New Territories can be higher than five, that is, six or 6.5 times, so that the supply of residential units can reach more than 50 000 or 70 000 or 80 000 units. This is because there are many residential plots in the urban area with plot ratios as high as nine, so even if the plot ratio reaches five and even six or seven, the buildings would still not be too packed and the amount of open space would not be reduced.
As regards public housing, if the proportion can be increased to about 50%, we would absolutely support it. At present, over 200 000 people are waiting for public housing. Using a three-member household as the basis, 50 000 to 60 000 families would have to wait for four years. If the proportion was increased, the waiting time could be reduced significantly in the future, so this measure merits consideration.
In addition, on the complementary transport facilities and other areas, later on, I will ask Mr Frankie YICK of the Liberal Party to talk about the complementary transport facilities, whereas Mr Tommy CHEUNG will also talk about our general views on the other amendments. In sum, the Liberal Party believes that this project must be carried out full steam ahead but of course, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 689 residents and all sectors in the area must receive reasonable compensation first. However, if it is demanded that everything be shelved and overturned and starts anew, we would not support doing so. Thank you, Deputy President.
MR ABRAHAM SHEK (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I would like to spend a few minutes to respond to Members' points on property developers and the conventional approach of development.
First of all, I would like to say that property developers, as members of society, have made significant contribution to Hong Kong's development as a whole. Many areas in New Territories East, New Territories West or New Territories North have been developed by property developers through land acquisition in these regions in a sensible, reasonable and lawful manner over the past decades.
In her original motion, Ms Emily LAU has criticized property developers for unscrupulous land resumption practices. As Hong Kong is ruled by law, she can file a lawsuit against the property developers if she considers their approach illegal. How can she make such a sweeping criticism to tar everyone with the same brush? Deputy President, this is inappropriate. She may raise the issue if she considers it problematic. But as a Legislative Council Member, she should be responsible for her remarks. If she considers that property developers have engaged in any unlawful practices ― she is competent and always engaged in lawsuits ― she may file a lawsuit against them. In my opinion, she should make what she says in practice instead of blowing hot air. This is not proper.
Miss CHAN Yuen-han said that she did not trust me because I am a representative of property developers. How could she say that? Under the principle of calling a spade a spade, I trust you although I do not agree with your views, Ms CHAN. In making a judgment, we cannot dislike something because of its nature. This is wrong. Ms CHAN, please remember that the flat in which you are living is also built by property developers. Even if your flat is resumed, it is resumed by property developers. You have to agree that it is most important that each piece of land is handled in such a manner. Deputy President, we have to adhere to the principle of calling a spade a spade, making our judgment on the basis of facts, rather than criticizing the others by pinning labels on them. 690 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
Mr CHAN Hak-kan indicated that he disagreed with my amendment. He neither understood the meaning of "public-private partnership" model for development nor the conventional approach. He only believed in the conventional approach mentioned by the Government. What does conventional approach mean? The conventional approach mentioned by the Government is in fact "unconventional". I will explain it later on. What does "unconventional" mean? Let me tell all of the 69 Members here that the conventional approach mentioned by the Government has never been adopted over the past 140 years in Hong Kong because the lands …… If a person owns a piece of land in a certain area, the Government will resume the land from the person. Such a "privatization" approach is more ruthless than that of the communists decades ago. The lands resumed by the Government will be re-sold to that person and this is the so-called "conventional approach" according to the Government.
Deputy President, this is in fact an unconventional approach. I have no idea why the Government calls it a conventional approach. Under the so-called conventional approach, a person who owned a piece of land would be granted land ownership by the authorities in the development process of the New Territories in the past. We had the so-called "Letter A", "Letter B" or even "Letter C". "Uncle Fat" may be well-versed in that. The landowner could sell his land to the Government according to the prescribed procedures. If the landowner wanted to develop the land, he might do so by modifying the original conditions of lease. This is the conventional approach for the development of the New Territories as a whole. Therefore, the private-public partnership is the conventional approach.
The conventional approach mentioned by the Government now …… we should not be misled by the Government. Rather, we should gain a genuine understanding of the historical development instead of believing what the Government says without thinking. Particularly, the incumbent government officials do not have any experience. We should heed the views of experts. I am not urging Members to support me. It does not matter if they do not or no conclusion can be reached on this issue. However, they should never think that what the Government said is the conventional approach. Deputy President, what the Government said is actually not the conventional approach.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 691
Deputy President, today I will not support the original motion. I will support Mr James TIEN's amendment only.
Deputy President, I am going to read out my prepared speech now.
MR ABRAHAM SHEK: After 14 years of conceptualizing the development of North East New Territories (NENT) and four years of consultation, we must admit that the views of stakeholders remain diverse, if not controversial. Nevertheless, the Government should not impractically and irresponsibly write off years of hard work at one stroke having listened to Ms Emily LAU and start all over again. This is not reasonable.
The three-stage consultation was not a mere cosmetic exercise. The time and effort that have been invested should not be ignored and the adjustments made to the plan following each stage of the consultation should not be disregarded. We must not get trapped into the stalemate of non-stop consultation without understanding and resolving some fundamental problems.
It is a hard fact that Hong Kong has 200 000 applicants on the public housing waiting list and demand for home ownership continues to rise. Meanwhile, commercial and industrial sectors see the NENT development project as a promising business opportunity, creating vast employment for our citizens. In light of such urgent needs for land, should we spend another four years on further consultation? Furthermore, given our limited land reserves, Hong Kong is also facing an urgent need to optimize planning and development in order to meet our growing population.
My fellow Members, indecision will only serve to further jeopardize Hong Kong's competitiveness and create more problems for our deep-rooted problems in housing. Moreover, starting the development project all over again is definitely against the overall interest of Hong Kong. The Hong Kong Government should not consider such groundless and irrational proposal. A responsible government must not only serve its citizens; it must have the courage to do what is right and according to the law.
Deputy President, the focus of my amendment today is to urge the Government to adopt the long-standing practice of allowing landowners, be they 692 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 developers or original landowners, to participate in development when taking forward the relevant planning proposal. The SAR Government should ensure that private ownership is respected and protected and encourage private development as well as public-private participation in the said area.
I believe that my proposal is focused on long-term development and is in Hong Kong's best interest. Looking back at the first and second stages of the public consultation on the NENT development, the SAR Government initially proposed to adopt public-private partnership in this development project. However, an abrupt change was made on 28 June 2012. The SAR Government proposed to adopt the "Conventional New Town Approach" (the so-called "conventional approach") for the development of new towns.
Given that the amount of Government land within the New Territories is small, the adaptation of the "conventional approach" (the new approach, so I think) would involve spending a significant amount of time and public money and coming to the Finance Committee for $40 billion to $100 billion on land resumption. This is a nightmare for you, Paul. The subsequent conflicts and legal challenges would surely affect efficiency and further discourage the early implementation of this plan.
On the other hand, the so-called "conventional approach" involves compulsory resumption of private land, unfairly depriving landowners of the right to pursue their own development for their land, where private ownership of land in the designated area amounts to over 60% of the land. I must throw doubts on the so-called "Conventional New Town Approach", which is not conventional and possibly not legal, and violates Articles 6 and 105 of the Basic Law in respect of private property right.
The Government says that it believes this approach will enable them to accelerate the production of land, which is deceptive. It anticipates that by adopting this approach, land could become available for development in 2019, which is indeed a wishful thinking. I would ask them to think again. Don't underestimate the resistance of private land owners against land resumption and don't pretend that there would not be legal challenges from them to protect their own property rights. You do not need to go far way back into history to know about this. Choi Yuen Tsuen is a very telling example demonstrating how land resumption could be fraught with obstacles and social disruption. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 693
And I must challenge the use of the word "conventional". The Government says it is a conventional approach used in the development of previous new towns. It is anything but conventional! Apart from the fact that most of the previous new towns included large tracts of reclaimed land, land resumption, for genuine public purpose, was at that time supported by Letters A and B whereby the development rights of private land owners were protected by the issuance of such land exchange entitlements. Letters A and B were issued for the purpose of avoiding lengthy negotiations and disputes.
I do not see any such similar measures proposed to go in tandem with the so-called "Conventional New Town Approach". Quite on the contrary, a proposal of massive resumption of private land, not only for public uses, but also for private developments through subsequent land sales, is quite unconventional and unacceptable. This is dictatorial, and Hong Kong cannot survive from this type of tactics.
And, is the public-private partnership approach (The buzzer sounded) …… an unconventional approach?
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Abraham SHEK, your speaking time is up.
MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the Chief Executive, LEUNG Chun-ying, addressed the Council on his philosophy of governance in this Chamber last week. He discussed in detail the conflicts between China and Hong Kong. He said, "During the consultation exercise, some people in the community have highly politicized the problems and even alleged that the North East New Territories (NENT) development project seeks 'turning Hong Kong red' or 'selling out Hong Kong'."
However, we can see that the purpose of the Chief Executive's speech is not to resolve conflicts, but to conceal his purpose of mainlandizing Hong Kong. Once again, he publicly made some untrue remarks in this Chamber. He has tried to cede the SAR in order to materialize his idea of Shenzhen-Hong Kong integration. What is the Chief Executive actually doing? He is sabotaging "one country, two systems". He wants to cede the three districts in the NENT 694 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 which account for more than 770 hectares of land, involving Kwu Tung North, Fan Ling North and Ping Che/Ta Kwu Ling, with an area equivalent to 32 Victoria Parks, or an area extending from Tsim Sha Tsui to Jordan, Yau Ma Tei, Mong Kok, and Sham Shui Po, for occupation by the rich in Shenzhen. As a result, a dozen villages will be demolished, affecting 1 700 families and nearly 10 000 residents. This is what the Chief Executive is doing.
Why did I say all this? In fact, apart from the papers provided by the Government, all the interviews and remarks of government officials in the past are recorded in black and white. Such evidence brooks no denial. Let me discuss a few points: First, in the consultation document this time around, the Government claims that the development areas are meant to support the development of the Lok Ma Chau Loop. The Government claims that it aims at promoting the socio-economic development of Hong Kong and Shenzhen with a view to providing more opportunities to the people.
Second, the 2007 Study Report on Hong Kong-Shenzhen Metropolis ("《建 構港深都會》") by the Bauhinia Foundation Research Centre, which is the Government's beloved think-tank, has made it clear that the development of Lok Ma Chau Loop aims at allowing the free entry of mainlanders and serves as a pilot scheme of promoting Shenzhen-Hong Kong integration.
Third, it is also mentioned in the Hong Kong 2030: Planning Vision and Strategy by the SAR Government in 2007 that the continuous internationalization of Hong Kong is essential as an echo of the planning of Shenzhen.
Fourth, in 2006 or the year before the publication of the aforesaid government document and the Study Report by the Bauhinia Foundation Research Centre, Shenzhen passed a report entitled "Shenzhen 2030 Development Strategy" ("深圳2030城市發展策略 ") in which the idea of building a Shenzhen-Hong Kong metropolis was espoused.
Fifth, in March 2008, LEUNG Chun-ying, who had yet to be the Chief Executive, published a series of articles on the strategies of ruling Hong Kong in Ming Pao. In one of the articles titled "Promoting sustainable economic development by the development areas at the Frontier" ("以邊境發展區促進經 濟持續發展"), Mr LEUNG proposed in detail that all or most of the frontier areas be designated as Shenzhen-Hong Kong Development Areas with the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 695 purpose of facilitating Mainland residents in travelling to Hong Kong for shopping, business, investment, education, medical treatment and utilizing other services in Hong Kong. Mr LEUNG proposed relaxing the immigration restriction at the Hong Kong-Shenzhen border so that Mainland residents would be entitled to "visa-free entry to the development areas".
Sixth, in an interview by the Southern Metropolis Daily in December 2009, Mr Jimmy LEUNG, the Deputy Director of Planning of Hong Kong, revealed that land would be earmarked for the construction of a large-scale shopping mall similar to that of the Times Square at Causeway Bay in North District of the New Territories in order to facilitate spending by Mainland residents in Hong Kong.
Lastly, Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying told the Oriental Daily News in a series of interviews in June this year that he wished to create or construct a special zone in the SAR. This video clip can be found on the Internet instantly.
All the evidence illustrates the planning objectives of the NENT. Honourable colleagues, I mean the planning objectives. Before me, many Honourable colleagues have spoken. In particular, Mr CHAN Hak-kan mentioned the development process of the NENT development project. However, he has not answered a very important and the most crucial question: For whom it is developed? The objectives of the NENT development project espoused by the Chief Executive is actually urban integration of Shenzhen and Hong Kong, and the building of a special zone in the SAR. So, when Mrs LAM, the Chief Secretary for Administration, denied visa-free access for the mainlanders, she was lying. When Secretary Paul CHAN said in a consultation meeting that the NENT development project is the development of traditional new towns and reiterated that the development areas were not related to the opening of the frontier, he was also lying. Or perhaps, he had helped himself to some beer.
I was surprised at hearing the many questions raised by Mr CHAN Hak-kan. As a "newcomer" in this Council, I should be able to learn from many senior Members. But on hearing the speech of Mr CHAN Hak-kan of the DAB, I found that the contents are the same as those of official statements in previous consultation meetings. We, elected by the voters as Legislative Council Members, should speak for them. I do not understand why Mr CHAN's speech is so similar to the arguments of the Government. This project, which has 696 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 strategic significance in its objectives, is called the New Development Areas (NDAs) rather than new towns. Even though Secretary Paul CHAN calls them new towns, the scale, planning and objectives of the project as a whole fall outside that of traditional new towns. This should not be mistaken.
It is certainly understandable that Hong Kong cannot be alienated from its neighbouring regions in terms of economy, people flow and cargo flow. However, when it comes to China-Hong Kong integration, co-operation and economic development, we must understand or accurately uphold the premise, and that is, mutual benefit. We should adhere to the system of Hong Kong, and place emphasis on the local economy, values and culture of Hong Kong. The SAR Government should not disregard the sentiments of Hong Kong people and the capacity of our lands. After the door has been thrown wide open, the principle of "one country, two systems" will be damaged. In an attempt to sell out Hong Kong, the future development of Hong Kong is conceptualized purely from the perspective of the Mainland. Having given up Hong Kong's autonomy in land planning, villages would be destroyed and homes of civilians would be bulldozed for property investment. Therefore, I must emphasize that Hong Kong people should be given priority in the NENT development project. The prime concern and overriding objective is to serve the local people. Only in doing so will the project be worth supporting.
Why should the consultation be withdrawn? There are justifications. It means that the Chief Executive has to adopt a totally different approach. He has to be frank and sincere. He has to give up the partial or misleading dissemination of information in the past. While public discussion should be relaunched, the planning should be conducted through a bottom-up consultation. He should also unequivocally discuss the planning objectives with Hong Kong people. Only in doing so will it tie in with the overall interests of Hong Kong and regain public confidence in the Government. Therefore, in my amendment, I agree to the idea of urging the authorities to withdraw the relevant proposal as suggested in Ms Emily LAU's original motion. I have also proposed an additional request for a bottom-up democratic planning and consultation. What means by bottom-up? We have to give up the Government's past approach of relying on technocrats. The Government should provide more information and accurate data. With the disclosure of relevant information which will become more transparent, the Government should pool their wisdom together with the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 697 stakeholders and the Hong Kong people in dealing with such a large-scale NDA project.
Speaking of the need to take care of various stakeholders, some Honourable colleagues mentioned the local agricultural industry just now. I also agree that the local agricultural industry should continue to stand as an industry with potentials of development in the future. Let us take a look at the current situation of the NENT, in which Ta Kwu Ling/Ping Che is the only agricultural base in Hong Kong, with a daily produce amounting to $743 million. Hence, the agricultural industry in Hong Kong is still promising. I hope that the Government will provide the public a list of all idle Government lots, and the land utilization plan in the next decade so that we can get sufficient information to continue to discuss with the Government on how best lands can be utilized in an effective manner for building our homes.
Deputy President, I shall stop here for I shall make some supplementary points later on. I so submit. Thank you.
SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): Deputy President, recently quite a number of people in society have expressed concern about the North East New Territories New Development Areas (NENT NDAs) project. Today, I would like to take this opportunity to explain to Members the brewing process of the project and its importance.
First of all, I have to emphasize that the NENT NDAs project has all along adhered to the guiding principle of serving Hong Kong people. This new town seeks to respond to Hong Kong people's aspirations for a quality living environment and cater for the long-term housing and employment needs of Hong Kong people. The public rental housing (PRH) flats and Home Ownership Scheme (HOS) flats in the NDAs are certainly built for Hong Kong people. Most of the private housing flats are small- and medium-sized residential units that meet the needs of Hong Kong people by suitably including clauses on "Hong Kong property for Hong Kong residents". The commercial activities and employment opportunities in the areas are also planned for Hong Kong people. Therefore, the allegation that the NDAs will become the "backyard of Shenzhen" or "city for rich doubly non-permanent residents of Hong Kong" is totally unfounded, and the allegation of "selling out Hong Kong" is even nonsense. 698 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
It is necessary for us to develop land continuously for supply of land to meet the housing demands of the people and the needs of socio-economic development. This is an indisputable fact. According to the needs of land utilization statistics compiled by the Planning Department, the total area of land in Hong Kong has increased from 1 075 sq km in 1990 to 1 108 sq km in 2011, representing an increase of 3 300 hectares of land. Among these lands, the area of built-up land has increased substantially by more than 80% from 146 sq km to 265 sq km, representing an increase of 11 900 hectares. Meanwhile, land for residential purpose has also increased by more than 50% from 50 sq km to 76 sq km, representing an increase of 2 600 hectares. It is worth noting that regardless of whether it is the total land area, or area of built-up land, or area of residential land, the growth in recent years has slowed down significantly because land development work has been halted on the one hand, while a lot of challenges have been encountered in the development of land resources in the past few years on the other. As a result, there is a shortage in the supply of residential land. These challenges include: the replanning of southern Tseung Kwan O to lower the overall density; the "zero reclamation" approach for redesigning the development of Kai Tak; review of the high-density development projects; and the need to tackle problems in legal procedures.
Given the tight supply in housing and land in Hong Kong, the Government is duty-bound to solve the housing needs of the people. There are nearly 200 000 applicants on the public housing waiting list and the residential property prices have also risen to beyond the 1997 level, while the rentals of residential flats are rising. An increased land supply is the prerequisite of solving the housing problem. Besides, all economic activities need land. For instance, the tourism industry needs hotels, tourist spots and shops; the logistics industry needs transport infrastructure and back-up land; and all industries and trades need offices. Land is needed for all these purposes. The Government has to increase the supply of land in order to fundamentally reverse the imbalance in supply and demand, thereby enabling the people to live in peace and work with contentment and ensuring a steady pace in socio-economic development.
We should also understand that, apart from the continuous growth in the population as a whole and the decline in the average household population, more land for development is needed to meet the various demands of the public. For instance, the people have expected that their living environment can be improved, the development density reduced, the screen-like buildings avoided, the living LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 699 space per capita improved, the open space and public facilities increased, and obnoxious land uses can be removed away from residential areas. While these form the focus of our discussion, I hope that our discussion should be zeroed in on how best to increase land supply, rather than debating whether or not there is a need to increase land supply.
In this regard, the Government is determined to increase the land supply. We will continue to adopt a multi-pronged approach to increase land supply in the territory in the short, medium and long terms. On 30 August, the Chief Executive announced a series of short- and medium-term measures to increase the supply of housing and land. In these 10 measures, 36 lots of Government land will be set aside for residential purpose, and studies will be conducted to explore optimization of the use of industrial land and buildings and converting them to residential use under the policy of revitalizing industrial buildings.
In respect of medium- and long-term measures, the Government is actively exploring land resources in the hope that a land reserve can be created. The authorities have proposed a series of measures including the release of industrial land; the development of rock caverns for the reprovisioning of public facilities, so as to release such sites for housing development; to look into the use of green belt areas that are devegetated or formed; to review the "Government, Institution or Community" sites; and to review the situation of used land mainly for industrial purposes, temporary storage or deserted agricultural land in North District and Yuen Long. The development of NDAs and examination of the feasibility of reclamation outside the Victoria Harbour are an important source of land supply in the long and medium term.
The NENT NDAs project is the forerunner among various NDAs under planning, and the main source of land supply within the next decade. According to the planning stipulated in the paper of the third-stage consultation, the NDAs will provide a total of 533 hectares of land for development, including 150 hectares of housing land which will provide 53 800 residential units, and 52 000 local job opportunities. The intake for the PRH units is expected to start in 2022 at the earliest. During the consultation period, we have listened to a lot of views. As reiterated by the Development Bureau earlier, we are now viewing the development density of the NENT NDAs in the hope that we can build more housing for more people. On the other hand, we will increase the proportion of 700 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
PRH flats, including the construction of HOS flats, apart from raising the proportion of public housing to more than 50%.
The idea of the NENT NDAs did not come up in recent years. In the Territorial Development Strategy Review launched in as early as 1990, the Government proposed the study of the strategic growth potential in the NENT. In the Planning and Development Study on NENT published in 1998, Kwu Tung North, Fan Ling North and Ping Che/Ta Kwu Ling were selected as NDAs, and public consultation was conducted on the proposed development plans in 1999-2000. However, given the slackening housing demand in 2003, the development plans were shelved.
Subsequently, in the Hong Kong 2030: Planning Vision and Strategy published in 2007, it was recommended that Kwu Tung North, Fan Ling North, Ping Che/Ta Kwu Ling, and Hung Shui Kiu be developed into NDAs to meet Hong Kong's long-term housing needs and provide employment opportunities. In the 2007-2008 Policy Address, the planning and development of NDAs was announced as one of the 10 major infrastructure projects for promotion of economic growth.
Subsequently, the NENT NDAs Planning and Engineering Study, which was relaunched in June 2008, aimed at formulating the planning and development framework of Kwu Tung North, Fan Ling North and Ping Che/Ta Kwu Ling NDAs, apart from preparing the development plans and implementation strategy. A three-stage Public Engagement has been carried out for the Study. While the first stage of consultation was conducted at the end of 2008, the relevant papers, which can be found online, were submitted to the Legislative Council in November 2008. According to the papers, there is no preconceived idea in the first stage of consultation. It is hoped that we can explore the strategic roles of the NDAs, the sustainable living environment, the planning of a people-oriented community, as well as the arrangements for the implementation of the plans. We have also discussed with Members the principle of planning and the vision of the NDAs. In the second-stage consultation at the end of 2009, discussion was held on the Preliminary Outline Development Plans formulated by us. At both stages, the authorities have consulted the Legislative Council, in addition to extensive consultation with various stakeholders.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 701
Deputy President, in fact, according to page 2 of the relevant paper on the Stage Three Public Engagement launched in June this year, we have taken on board quite a lot of views collected in the Stage Two Public Engagement. For instance, concerning the designation of Long Valley as a Comprehensive Development and Nature Conservation Enhancement Area, there were views that the ecological value and conservation of the area could not be protected. Therefore, in the third-stage consultation, Long Valley was designated as a Nature Park to enhance and conserve the existing ecologically important environment, as well as compensate for the wetland loss due to the development of NDAs. Another example is found in the same paper. With reference made to the views collected during the consultation, it was decided that the development density of residential sites in the NDAs be increased by relaxing the plot ratios to 3.5 and two respectively. These are only some of the examples.
Deputy President, the three-month Stage Three Public Engagement launched in June this year seeks to conduct consultations on the Recommended Outline Development Plans (RODPs) formulated after the two stages of Public Engagement. The Legislative Council Panel on Development was also briefed on 28 June. Then, we have the new-term Government and the new-term Legislative Council. When the Stage Three Public Engagement was drawing to a close in end August, there was a sudden surge of dissenting voices partly due to the concern that the NDAs would become the "backyard of Shenzhen" or "city for rich doubly non-permanent Hong Kong residents". However, as I said just now, such misunderstandings are unfounded. In order to listen to more views, the authorities decided that the Stage Three Public Engagement be extended to the end of September, during which we would continue to listen to the views of local residents. After the end of September, I have also taken the initiative to meet with various organizations. The door of consultation remains open when various organizations come to express their views to us.
Deputy President, by giving Members a detailed account of the origin of the NENT NDAs and the Public Engagement exercises conducted by the authorities since 2008, I hope Members will understand that it has taken a very long time from the brewing to the formulation of the development plans. I also wish to state that the authorities have put a lot of efforts into the Public Engagement exercises conducted in promoting the planning of the NDAs. Even now, we are still prepared to listen to everybody's views though the Stage Three Public Engagement has been concluded. 702 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
We are collating and analysing the views collected. According to preliminary statistics, we have received more than 10 000 written submissions. We will carefully listen to the public views, apart from conducting a preliminary technical assessment in response to the views in a cautious manner. Furthermore, we are considering making appropriate adjustments to the planning of the NDAs, including amendments to the RODPs, and the proposal on relevant amendments will be presented to the public as soon as possible. The direction of our amendments will include: to examine the feasibility of increasing the density of the NDAs, to increase the number of housing units as a whole, to raise the proportion of public housing, to construct new HOS flats in the NDAs, and to suitably include clauses on "Hong Kong property for Hong Kong residents". We will also consider agricultural resite mentioned by Members just now and local residents earlier.
We will brief Members on the majority views collected in the Stage Three Public Engagement and some of our preliminary views at the meeting of the Panel on Development next week (30 October). Views collected will be compiled into a report for the reference of the community and the Legislative Council.
Concerning the planning of the NENT NDAs, there is certainly room for modification and adjustment. The purpose of public engagement is to allow the authorities to listen to the public views so that modification can be made to the plans. We will continue, with an open mind, to listen to the views of all sectors, including the views of Members and the public, particularly views on how best to perfect the development plans by adjustment, so that these plans can take account of the aspirations of various sectors in a more suitable manner, strike a balance for the urgent housing needs of the general public, and make suitable rehousing arrangements for the affected residents in the districts.
Deputy President, I would like to emphasize that adjustments can be made to the development plans which, however, cannot be withdrawn. It will take a very long time, a lot of efforts and the participation of many people in the planning of a NDA. The NENT NDAs, as the new towns for Hong Kong people and the major source of land and housing in future, must not be given up or halted. If we overturn the planning of the NENT NDAs and start from scratch, it will deny not only the efforts of various parties in the community and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 703 government departments in the planning of the NDAs over the past few years, but also brush aside the major source of land supply in the long term. A responsible government will never do this.
With these remarks, Deputy President, I hope Members will, for the well-being of the people, oppose the motion that proposes the withdrawal of the NENT NDAs. I will humbly listen to Members' views and try my best to respond to them later. Thank you, Deputy President.
DR ELIZABETH QUAT (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the original motion and some of the amendments propose withdrawing the "North East New Territories New Development Areas Planning and Engineering Study" proposal ……
(A person in the public gallery shouted aloud)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): The person in the public gallery must leave immediately and should not shout aloud.
(The person in the public gallery still kept on yelling loudly)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Colleagues of the Secretariat, please escort the person out of the public gallery now.
(Several security officers helped escort the person in the public gallery out of the public gallery, but the person continued shouting aloud)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will the person in the public gallery stop shouting aloud.
(The person in the public gallery was still reluctant to leave)
704 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Elizabeth QUAT, please continue.
(The person in the public gallery, who kept on shouting aloud while Dr Elizabeth QUAT was speaking, left the public gallery with the assistance of some security officers.)
DR ELIZABETH QUAT (in Cantonese): They have also suggested that the planning proposal be studied only after conducting an extensive consultation exercise. In my opinion, however, the North East New Territories New Development Areas (NENT NDAs) proposal has been discussed since the 1980s and hitherto the subject of study and consultation. Today, our discussion should not focus on whether the project should go ahead. Instead, we should take several more strides and discuss how best to perfect the development planning of the NENT.
Just now Mr Gary FAN repeatedly raised the question of "for whom it will be developed". In our opinion, his question can be dispelled if the Government can give the following three objectives priority with a view to improving the planning. First, to meet the housing needs of Hong Kong people; second, to enhance the quality of life of the people; and third, to tie in with the future development of Hong Kong. Are excessive speculations and conspiracy theories necessary or constructive? I would like to share with you my views on these three major objectives as follows.
For one thing, the current housing supply in the market undoubtedly cannot meet the housing needs of the people. According to the Government's projections, the population of Hong Kong will have increased by 1.4 million by 2041. Given the people's rising aspirations for hosing and the environment, the current planning density will be lower than before. As mentioned by Mr CHAN Hak-kan just now, an additional 35 sq km or 3 500 hectares of land is needed to accommodate these 1.4 million people. The 787 hectares of land to be provided by the NDAs will only meet 20% of the future needs.
If the planning proposal is now withdrawn or postponed, the medium- and long-term land supply will be affected. This would cause the housing demand of the whole territory to become keener, thereby driving up property prices. As a result, it will be more difficulty to achieve home ownership. To cope with the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 705 housing demand of the general public, we not only hope that the NDAs proposal can commence expeditiously, but also support that the proportion of public housing supply be increased to more than 50%. Moreover, we hope that the introduction of the "Hong Kong property for Hong Kong residents" policy can ensure that the housing needs of Hong Kong people will be given priority consideration.
Regarding the view on rezoning the 1 200 hectares of "Village Type Development" sites for residential use, I have received a lot of complaints concerning the difficulty in finding sites for small house development, not to mention the fact that many sites are too remote for public housing construction. I hope that the Secretary will elaborate on this so as to enhance our understanding.
Deputy President, one of my considerations in supporting the NDAs planning proposal is to enhance Hong Kong people's quality of life. I disapprove of the approach of "squeezing in" buildings on small plots of land in different areas as a measure to tackle the housing shortfall when there is a lack of corresponding supporting community facilities. It is because this will exacerbate the problems of over-crowdedness, shortage of community facilities and inadequate transport arrangements. Moreover, local residents will also voice objections. Hence, it is infeasible. On the contrary, Hong Kong people deserve a better living environment.
I hope that family-friendliness and a green living environment for residents will be incorporated into the planning and design of the NDAs as the top priority. Apart from providing adequate parks and recreational facilities, the authorities should also, by seizing this opportunity offered by the NDAs project, build and promote a thematic living area with emphasis placed on alternative lifestyles, such as an agricultural lifestyle. The people's quality of life could be enhanced by encouraging residents to enjoy family life in the rural areas nearby during holidays.
The development of many trades and industries such as data centres and the green industries in Hong Kong has been hindered partly by the lack of land. However, the NDAs will precisely offer a rare opportunity. Hence, Deputy President, I think planning should be made to tie in with the future development needs of Hong Kong. On the premise of environmental concern and 706 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 conservation, lands in the NDAs can be reserved for agricultural, industrial and commercial uses. Apart from providing suitable lands for the development of the agricultural industry, the high technology industry as well as the green industry, the NDAs can also provide more high-quality employment opportunities.
In the face of keen competition from foreign countries, Hong Kong cannot afford any further delay because the planning of the NDAs will be conducive to Hong Kong's economic development as a whole. In fact, the most recent large-scale new town development projects were Tung Chung and Tseung Kwan O, which were completed more than a decade ago. It will take at least 10-odd years from planning to the completion of a new town. According to the Government's original plan, the construction of the NDAs will commence in 2017 and the intake for residential units is expected to start in 2022 at the earliest. In the face of an urgent housing demand, we cannot wait any longer and the people do not want to see any further delay either. If the NDAs proposal is really overturned, we have to relaunch a consultation exercise which will take several years before the construction works can commence. Under such circumstances, the land supply in Hong Kong will become even more strained. Will Hong Kong people be happy to see that our housing supply is disrupted and the development of our industries hindered due to the shortage of land, thus resulting in another stagnation of Hong Kong economy?
With these remarks, Deputy President, I support Mr CHAN Hak-kan's amendment.
IR DR LO WAI-KWOK (in Cantonese): Deputy President, as shown in this debate today on the original motion and the amendments, the planning of the NENT NDAs has really led to great controversies. The increase of local housing supply and job creation are major issues of people's living which the SAR Government must address. The question of how these problems can be solved is inevitably tied in with rational and effective planning. For this reason, friends in the engineering profession with whom I have contact basically agree with this new town development project and they hope that a consensus can be reached in society soon on the relevant planning.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 707
In order to solve the problem of housing shortage, there must be a policy on land development and on top of it, land for housing supply should be increased and there should also be meticulous planning on community development in order to provide a diversified and quality living to the people. In fact, there used to be a development model for new towns in Hong Kong. Examples of such new towns are Sha Tin and Tseung Kwan O and planning for them started in the 1960s and the 1980s respectively. They were turned from rural areas into modern new towns housing hundreds of thousand people each. According to the Recommended Outline Development Plan for North East New Territories, the NDAs of Kwu Tung North, North Fan Ling, Ping Che/Ta Kwu Ling can be expected to provide about 150 hectares of housing land, build 53 800 residential units and house more than 150 000 people. On the premise of a consensus being forged among all quarters, the density of development can be increased as appropriate in order to meet the long-term housing demand of Hong Kong.
The Government must through sound planning try to increase economic activities in the new towns in order to provide as many jobs as possible to the 150 000 inhabitants of the new towns. The development of new towns will help boost economic development. On the one hand, the new towns can support community facilities and services like retail, catering, and so on. These can meet local demand while also solve the problem of some residents having to go to other districts for work. In addition, these new towns can support the development of the six priority industries where we enjoy an edge. For example, the development of an industrial park for green technology industries can provide jobs at the middle and elementary levels, on the one hand, and also hopefully help local residents find jobs and generate some high value-added work types across the districts on the other. Therefore, a sound transport network is a matching facility of the utmost importance. It is estimated that the NDAs can create more than 50 000 new jobs.
Since the planning for the development as a whole would involve many stakeholders, it would be a great test for the SAR Government to balance the different views and demands of people from all quarters. First, efforts should be made to ensure that residents affected by clearance, including both indigenous and non-indigenous inhabitants, will be suitably compensated or rehoused. Second, a flexible approach should be adopted in respect of different land uses in the areas, so as to meet the demands of nature conservation and agricultural activities. The so-called "brown belt", that is, land presently used as container 708 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 storage yards or recycling yards, should be well utilized. Third, consideration should be given to the question of whether the proportion of public and private housing, that is, 43:57, should be raised or not, and likewise, the questions of whether the overall density of development and plot ratio should be raised should also be considered. Fourth, the NDAs should be complemented by sound matching facilities and they should be well connected with all the neighbouring areas. Therefore, the North Link should also be put on the agenda. In addition, different development approaches should be used as appropriate. That is to say, a single development approach should not be adopted. For example, there may be some land lots that are suitable for development by public-private partnership and efforts must be made to ensure that the entire process is fair and transparent.
Deputy President, from the perspective of the engineering profession, for any major infrastructure project, a very long time would be required from planning, design to construction. And efforts must be made to ensure that all of such work is effectively done. In the development of new towns, in particular, the scale of consideration would be very extensive and the problems so encountered would be very complicated. For example, planning should be done on traffic and transport, water supply, power supply, sewage disposal and such matching facilities. Such tasks must never be undertaken in a sloppy manner. The planning for the NENT NDAs is urgent and cannot brook any delay. With respect to the original motion and some of the amendments which urge the authorities to withdraw the planning proposal, I have to voice my objection. As a matter of fact, the planning studies for NENT have been going on for more than a decade. The project was incorporated into the 10 major infrastructure projects in 2007 and public consultation was carried out in three phases and as many as five years were spent on consultations. We must not make any more delays. Now the focus of the issue is not on whether or not there should be any development but on how development can proceed effectively. I will therefore support amendments which are practicable and reasonable, such as the one from Mr Abraham SHEK.
Some Honourable colleagues in this Council and some people in the community are worried that the NENT NDAs will become a backyard through which mainlanders will enter and leave Hong Kong freely or lead to a phenomenon of Hong Kong-Shenzhen integration. Some even go to the extreme and say that this is like selling off the land in Hong Kong. I would think that it is necessary for the SAR Government to offer an explanation and make a LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 709 clarification in order to dispel the misgivings of society. I also believe that if only the SAR Government can make the meeting of the livelihood needs of the people its primary concern, then all these worries about selling off the land of Hong Kong would disappear. In future, if the NENT NDAs can support the six priority industries where we enjoy an edge, such as in the building of an industrial park for green technology industries, then this can bring new opportunities of co-operation between Hong Kong and the neighbouring places. This will certainly be something to be welcomed. The case is like 30 years ago when the Mainland opened itself to the world, new opportunities in the Pearl River Delta became available to the SMEs and manufacturers in Hong Kong. Therefore, I hope that there can be rational discussions in society on all the relevant issues and we must try not to intensify the problem by all means.
With respect to the controversies in society, I think that the SAR Government should adopt an open mind, listen to all the views advanced, conduct a consultation, take account of the voices and demands of the stakeholders and strive to achieve the greatest flexibility and foster a consensus in society, hence achieving a win-win situation for all the parties.
Deputy President, I so submit.
DR LAM TAI-FAI (in Cantonese): Deputy President, doubtless, it cannot be denied that land and housing are the most acute among the many social problems in Hong Kong. They have caused much anxiety and worry in people from the lower and middle classes and our society is becoming more and more disharmonious as a result.
Deputy President, recently there have been the so-called "LEUNG's 10 strokes" from the Government and speaking of the present situation, it is obvious that they are not effective. Now property prices keep on soaring and people from the middle class are still unable to buy their homes and people from the lower class still continue in their exasperating wait for public housing. Recently, we are told by the Chief Executive that his plan to stabilize the property market is ready and it only requires two or three telephone calls before some new measures can be rolled out. However, we are not privy to the criteria used by the Government in deciding when to make such a strike. Members of the public do not know when such telephone calls will be made. So people do not cherish 710 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 any lavish hopes on the Chief Executive and all his talk about new measures in the pipeline.
Deputy President, it is never easy to solve the problems of land and housing. The Government must look for experts with rich experience and great wisdom to offer advice and solutions. Only in this way can sound solutions be devised. If all those policymakers are people who do not care about their job and if they do things rashly and just throw out policies without carefully thinking about the consequences, not only will the housing problem remain unsolved but it will lead to other problems. When problems arise one after another, the result is just disastrous.
(THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair)
Recently, I was very angry and greatly disturbed by the balloon flown by the Government about scrapping the plan to build a Sports City in Kai Tak. The sports sector has not been consulted on this idea beforehand. Like the case of the NENT development project, the Kai Tak Sports City has been under discussion and consultation for more than a decade. The difference is that the idea of a Kai Tak Sports City has gained the consensus of the sports sector and the public and it is recognized by the past two Governments as a task to be completed. If the new-term Government should ignore the development of sports and sacrifice the interest of the public by scrapping the plan of the Kai Tak Sports City and use the land for housing construction, this is actually a reckless and desperate attempt to search for solution, which is not rational at all. This runs counter to the idea of change against a background of stability that the Chief Executive is always talking about.
Secretary Paul CHAN, I do not know if this proposal from Mr CHOI has got the consent and support of the Development Bureau, but I hope that you will deal with the matter by taking into account the macro situation. You must never try to put out a fire by pouring kerosene onto it, so to speak. This is because the blaze will engulf both you and the whole sports sector.
Sometime ago the attempt to push through the introduction of national education has proved to be a failure and caused confrontation between the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 711 education sector and the Government. Society was deeply divided, and many people called for Secretary Eddie NG to step down. In this case if the Government is to sacrifice the development of sports and care nothing about the demands of the sports sector, this will certainly lead to a confrontation between the sports sector and the Government. I am sure many people will take to the streets and call for you to step down. Secretary, you have not yet given an account to the public with respect to your suspected drink driving and the case of subdivided units. If this is coupled with a controversy like the Sports City, I am sure the trauma will be tremendous. Good advice always sounds unpleasing to the ear. I hope that you will handle the matter with prudence and take account of the macro situation. You must never act rashly and the best move to take is to strive for change against a background of stability.
President, the election platform of the Chief Executive mentioned that more resources would be committed to developing sports and in the three major directions of making sports popular, giving support to the elite sports and hosting sporting events. It was also pledged that the sports hub project will be taken forward. If it is found that he is speaking one thing but doing quite another, his credibility and prestige will certainly be undermined and more people will lose their confidence in him. The result is that any policy that he introduces, in the future, including the development of the NENT, will definitely be hampered.
President, you know very well your younger brother Secretary TSANG Tak-shing and I am sure you are very familiar with his thinking and personality. May I ask you this question. If the Kai Tak Sports City and the Lung Mei beach project in Tai Po are both forced to be scrapped, do you think Secretary TSANG will resign and step down? President, if the Secretary for Development steps down and the Secretary for Home Affairs resigns, can this Mr CHOI who has not consulted the sports sector before calling for the scrapping of the Kai Tak Sports City project be able to take care of the work of the two Policy Bureaux?
President, Hong Kong must move forward. I would not oppose the planning project of the NENT NDAs. But I have lots of questions about this project. The planning for the NENT is a development project for the medium to long term. According to information available, a sum of some $130 billion will be spent. But only 53 800 residential units in both the public and private sectors can be provided and 150 000 people will be housed. I think that this is not cost-effective enough. The investment made and the returns gained do not 712 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 match. I hope very much that the Government can look into how more residential units can be provided.
In terms of geographical locations, the NENT can foster the economic integration between Hong Kong and China. I think the Government must offer an explanation to the public regarding the economic benefits and business opportunities related to this integration. Only in this way will the worries about selling off the land in Hong Kong and building a special zone within the SAR be dispelled.
If the planning of the NENT is to become the new momentum driving the economic development of Hong Kong in the medium to long term, there has to be support from the industries and the relevant positioning must be clear. According to the consultation paper, the planning project will create 52 000 jobs and sites will be set aside for the development of certain special industries. This is the first time I have ever heard about special industries. President, I am glad to see the Government lend its support to industrial development. But I am not sure what the words "special industries" mean. They are too elusive. I hope that in the next round of consultation, the Government can give us some more detailed and specific information and explain the directions of development to us. The industrial sector should be told what is meant by "special industries".
President, since the development of the NENT is a diversified development project, I urge the Government to make adjustments in planning the ratios of commercial, industrial and residential developments. It must offer a more specific development plan to the public and explain what its true motives are.
President, I hope that besides engaging in development work, the Secretary for Development and the Government can pay greater attention to the development of the sports sector as well as the industries and they must do their best to achieve a balance in all these kinds of development. I so submit.
DR LAU WONG-FAT (in Cantonese): President, first of all, I wish to declare my interest. I am a holder of land title in the proposed NENT NDAs.
Since 1973, the Hong Kong Government has developed nine new towns in the New Territories and the achievement made is remarkable. Now more than LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 713 half of our population is living in public rental housing units, Home Ownership Scheme flats and private sector housing in the new towns. In order to cope with the ever-growing population and the keen demand for housing, the Government carries on its efforts to develop new towns, which is most natural and justified. But times have changed, and when old policy objectives meet new conditions and new political ecology, the proposed planning development of NENT has caused great controversy recently. It is no surprise and wonder to see that tremendous pressure comes from all sides.
The development of any new town would entail large-scale construction works and the interests of people from many different classes, organizations and companies will be affected. It is never an easy task. The Government has in place a set of policies on consultation, land resumption and compensation and all along it has acted according to the rules. These rules have been effective over the years. However, with the overwhelming changes in the political ecology in Hong Kong, plus the weakness of the Government, this set of old rules has become inadequate. It is certainly a good thing to continue the development of the new towns to address the housing needs of the people and it is worthy of our support. But with prolonged delays, there are unexpected twists and turns. All this has become part of the political reality nowadays. It is therefore not easy to find a solution to this.
About the development of the NENT, it is apparently not true to say that no consultation has been conducted by the Government. Now we can see that people from all sectors, the political parties and grouping, organizations, various holders of land titles and land users have all expressed their vastly different views in a vehement manner. I would therefore think that the question of where should the Government go from here would be a cause of greater concern. The challenge before us is that it is extremely difficult for the development project concerned to satisfy the demands of people from all quarters and hence forge a consensus. In the debate in this Council today, when Members each express their own opinions and present a mixed array of pros and cons, it would not help very much to iron out the differences.
President, I would think that it is only when people from all quarters can effect a change in their attitude and put down their differences and attach greater importance to the overall situation and when they can accommodate and understand each other, that the issue can hopefully be resolved soon. If not, it 714 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 would be futile even if the development proposal is withdrawn and the consultation exercise goes on forever. Of course, the Government must make some reasonable adjustments in certain aspects in order to lay the base for positive and constructive dialogue. An example is the compensation arrangement for non-indigenous residents affected by the planning and development. I would think that there is much room for improvement by the Government in this regard. From the experience of negotiations conducted in Choi Yuen village in land resumption to make way for the construction of the Express Rail and in land resumption for the development of the Lian Tong port, I am convinced that the arrangements made by the authorities to compensate the non-indigenous residents are outdated.
The question is times have changed, and many of these non-indigenous residents have been living on the rural land of the New Territories for decades. Many of them were born and raised there. While they live in houses with a so-called temporary licence, they have their roots planted there. They may own or rent the land or the houses in which they live, but they have developed a strong sense of belonging and they regard the maintenance of this lifestyle their core interest. This kind of emotional attachment is entirely understandable. If the officials in charge do not understand this point and if they do not know how to gauge the pulse of the times, and if they still adopt the outdated mechanism of compassionate compensation in such a rigid manner and apply it to non-indigenous residents who have been forced out of their homes because of land resumption, it would be unthinkable if these officials are not seen as inhumane and unsympathetic and do not attract violent opposition.
President, it does not matter what the purpose of land resumption is, be it for infrastructure projects or development of new towns, since the land is resumed for the furtherance of the overall interest of society, it is only right that a government which stresses love and care should offer reasonable compensation to the residents affected. It is also considered an essential benevolent policy that can ease the tension caused by land resumption and maintain social stability and harmony. I would suggest that the authorities should conduct a review of the relevant land resumption policy soon and raise the amount of compensation offered to non-indigenous residents affected by land resumption. Assistance should be given to non-indigenous inhabitants who are determined to lead a life in the rural areas by rehousing them in another village built on new land. There LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 715 is a saying that a person of benevolence will have long and lasting luck. I would put it this way: a government of benevolence will have more happy days.
President, I so submit.
MR TONY TSE (in Cantonese): President, I have been listening to members of the industry through different channels for their views on the NENT NDAs in the hope of reflecting their expert opinions in this Council. Insofar as the NDAs proposal is concerned, the industry supports in principle its expeditious implementation. Moreover, having regard to the adequate consultation already conducted by the Government, it thinks that the Government should study and analyse the views collected expeditiously, suitably adjust and enhance the existing planning under the principle of balancing the needs of various parties, and adopt a proper approach in execution. In my opinion, this is the only way to serve Hong Kong's best interest. Furthermore, the Government already proposed studying the development of the NENT as early as in the Territorial Development Strategy Review in 1990 and later, during the 10 years from 1998 to 2008, conducted a number of consultations on the planning and development of the NENT. It has been 22 years since the whole idea of the development of the NENT was conceived and the relevant study began in 1990. As the provision of new land and construction of homes take time, if we undo the plan and start afresh now, the imbalance between the demand and supply of land for development will further worsen, thereby resulting in a continual property price spiral. Members of the public will not only find it even harder to acquire their own homes, but also see a drop in their standard of living. This is definitely the last thing I would wish to see. Hence, I will not approve of the motion calling for the withdrawal of the proposal on the NDAs.
One of the most acute problems currently faced by Hong Kong is the inadequate supply of land for development. This problem has indeed been known for more than one or two years. Earlier, the Development Bureau announced that only some 391.5 hectares of unleased Government land throughout the territory may be used for the construction of residential flats in the public and private sectors. As no detailed data are provided by the Government, it is difficult to estimate the quantity of housing units that can be built on these plots of land and the construction timetable. Nevertheless, according to my rough projection made with regard to the Government's usual planning, the 716 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 relevant land can provide 200 000-odd residential units only. Insofar as the current demand is concerned, it will actually be able to meet housing demand for less than six years. Therefore, there is indeed an urgent need to expeditiously implement the proposal of the NENT development, so as to provide more residential land to satisfy the current housing demand. Furthermore, given that the relevant plan can provide some 53 000 residential units only, I hope the Secretary can seriously study ways to increase land supply, in order to ensure that more residential flats can be built in the future to cope with the housing demand of society.
President, my friends in the industry and I hope that a multi-pronged approach can be adopted by the Government to expeditiously address the worsening housing problem in Hong Kong, so as to arrest the falling quality of the living environment. In this connection, I further hope that the Government can expeditiously formulate and implement the proposal and mode of development for the specific implementation of the NDAs proposal. Instead of a homogeneous, across-the-board approach, the mode of development should vary having regard to different circumstances. For instance, if appropriate conditions can be included in public-private co-operation, which has a long established tradition, maximum cost-effectiveness might be achieved within the shortest possible time for the benefit of Hong Kong people. This is why I hope the Government can study and consider this matter with prudence.
On land resumption, if removal arrangements are involved, I hope the Government can take account of the needs of the villagers for the maintenance of neighbourhood relations in the community by allowing them to continue to live in the areas.
I note that the planning proposal put forward by the Government on the NENT NDAs is not purely about long-term land and housing supply. At the same time, conservation of the ecological environment in the NDAs is taken into consideration as well. While the 37-hectare central belt of Long Valley will be designated as a Nature Park, two plots of land near the Park and a site in Fu Tei Au in Fan Ling, providing a site of 54 hectares combined, will be maintained as an "Agriculture" zone. In other words, some 91 hectares of land in the NDAs will become conservation and agricultural areas. Representing some 12% of the 787 hectares of land in the entire NDAs, its size is not small indeed. Hence, I hold that, besides relevant planning, the Government should provide more LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 717 incentive policies and measures for farming in the NDAs with a view to assisting the farmers there in seeking a breakthrough in the development of traditional farming, thereby creating more job opportunities and providing greater income protection for them.
In addition, concerns have been expressed by some members of the surveying profession about these issues: How much in land proceeds will ultimately be brought as a result of the construction of a special industrial zone in the NDAs for the development of special industries and the priority industries? Will it be compatible with the principles of land economy? Has the Government evaluated the expected output of the relevant industries? Meanwhile, the Government should give more holistic consideration to the relevant planning proposal and make public the corresponding policy proposals on agriculture and fisheries industries, industries, and so on, in order that more support from the industries and members of the public can be rallied.
President, I so submit. Thank you.
MR KWOK WAI-KEUNG (in Cantonese): President, the community has been divided in recent months over the Government's various development projects of the NENT. We cannot deny that the existing land supply in Hong Kong is very limited. In the face of Hong Kong people's current and long-term housing need, the Government must explore new land resources to meet the aspiration of the people. Nevertheless, while exploring new areas and developing new housing programmes, the Government must consider whether the relevant developments will destroy the characteristics of the areas. As pointed out by Miss CHAN Yuen-han of the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions in her amendment, although development is crucial, it does not mean destroying the existing places. Hence, I propose that the Government should take into account the environmental conservation, transport and employment issues of the areas in addition to housing and commercial needs in developing the NDAs.
On the housing issue, President, according to the current planning project put forward by the Government, only 787 hectares of land will be designated for residential purposes. It is also planned that 60% of the land will be earmarked for the construction of private homes, whereas the remaining 40% be used for the development of public housing. Just now, the Secretary already indicated that 718 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 this ratio would be revised, and we welcomed his decision. However, we still need to discuss whether the efforts in revising the ratio can help address the problem faced by the public in home ownership. The original proposal has indeed caused anxiety among members of the public ― Is the implementation of the NENT project meant to address housing need in a focused manner? This is because, before the Secretary proposed that the plan would be revised, members of the public were actually concerned that the relevant land would fall into the hands of non-local investors or be monopolized by property developers. The Secretary's current response that the plot ratios in the NDAs could be raised and that the proportion of public housing be increased is welcome news to members of the public. Nevertheless, I still hope he can note carefully that people on the Waiting List feel very strongly about the existing waiting period and hope that efforts can be stepped up to shorten the wait to two years.
The second issue involves the content of the consultation. Many colleagues have mentioned that the consultation exercise for the development plan has lasted more than a decade. It is precisely because it is so long that there has been a constant change in stakeholders. How could the Bureau maintain close liaison with various stakeholders? There is obviously a problem in this respect. Moreover, the authorities have relied too heavily on the views of certain deputations during the consultation, thereby neglecting the personal views of the residents even though they are directly affected. I hope the Bureau can liaise with residents affected by the demolition and removal direct rather than in an indirect manner.
Furthermore, some members of the community query why some local residents insist on "No removal, No tearing down" and question why they cannot allow the NENT project to go ahead in the spirit of "sacrificing themselves for the interest of the public". Nevertheless, we do not consider this spirit applicable to the current development plan because the theory of "sacrificing themselves for the interest of the public" is completely oblivious of the well-being of the local residents. As a result, the Government does not need to consider their well-being, too. In our opinion, the Government can take one more step to examine how it can assist the residents, should they insist on staying put, in integrating into the new development plan? For instance, many city-dwellers will engage in some organic farming activities during their visits to the countryside on holidays, so why can the Government not assist the persons in charge of these farms or farmers in upgrading their services with a view to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 719 integrating them into the relevant economic activities? In this respect, I hope the Bureau can take the initiative to offer more assistance.
President, Hong Kong people are concerned not only about housing needs, but also environmental conservation. A fever of organic farming and buying organic farm produce that began to hit Hong Kong in 2000 has, on the one hand, provided Hong Kong with more organic produce and, on the other, provided Hong Kong people with more activities during weekends. According to the information provided by the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department, as of July 2012, the number of organic farms in Hong Kong has reached 453, with many of them situated within the areas affected by the development plan. I am aware of the views of the local residents and their hope for "No removal, No tearing down". I also understand their determination to defend their homes, and the hope of some of them to continue to run their own farms to provide urban-dwellers with a place to get close to nature where they can learn and enjoy the pleasure of farming while increasing the supply of local organic produce. More importantly, the establishment of organic farms can provide more job opportunities associated with the environmental industry. This happens to coincide with the Government's aspiration to implementing the policy of developing the six priority industries, which has been advocated for years.
President, my speech seeks to make the Government realize that the NENT development plan is not purely and simply a plan aimed at addressing the problem of land supply. Instead, the interests of various parties have to be taken into consideration, too. With the constant growth of Hong Kong population, it is a general trend in Hong Kong to identity new land for housing construction and development of new towns. However, the Government cannot rely solely on launching development projects. Instead, it must roll out a comprehensive and balanced plan to remove the people's aversion to the Government.
I so submit. Thank you.
MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): President, the New Territories' planning and land use development has for years been among issues of concern to the Professional Commons, which has published research reports entitled Reconstructing Urbanscape and Use of Brownfields in New Territories, and so on.
720 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
Members of the Professional Commons shared their opinions with the Secretary for Development several weeks ago regarding the discussion on the NENT NDAs. As then relayed to the Secretary, we consider that the NENT NDAs should be planned afresh in the direction of new town planning, and the positioning and functions of new towns should be re-examined through the following steps. First of all, land quality surveys should be conducted to identify the actual use, land quality and potential function of arable land, village land and brownfield sites in the planning zone and its neighbouring regions. Secondly, social impact assessments should be carried out to identify the present situation and characteristics of all communities in the planning zone and its neighbouring regions, as well as their willingness and adaptability for relocation.
We believe the following criteria should be adopted for planning: firstly, brownfield sites, that is the idle industrial or commercial land which can be reused, should in the first place be put to good use as a matter of priority; secondly, the target of sustainable development of the local farming industry should be given full regard; thirdly, railway stations should be core to the development boundary setting; fourthly, the scope of survey should be expanded to cover areas along the Northern Link from Kam Sheung Road to San Tin; fifthly, better employment opportunities should be provided to new town residents with the concept of Secondary City Centre; and sixthly, an extensive consultation should be conducted with all stakeholders being given equal opportunities of participation and decision-making.
As regards the issues about Hong Kong's land development, new towns and land use, we have set up a study group to continuously follow up on them. However, I would like to particularly indicate today that I will pay special attention to those NENT NDAs which are now set aside for "other special purposes", such as the planning for "commercial, research and development", "research and development for the Lok Ma Chau Loop development" and "Special Industry".
As we understand from the Development Bureau, the Bureau has yet to come up with very specific or even raw concept as to issues like what to be researched and which industries to be covered for development with regard to these suggested purposes. Discussions with other relevant government departments, such as the Innovation and Technology Commission, also appear to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 721 be preliminary, whereas consultation with relevant industries, such as that of innovative technology, information technology, telecommunications and data centre, has yet to commerce either. One just cannot help worry whether the Government's existing supporting policies for innovation and technology, as well as the industry players, will be able to align with the existing planning if it goes ahead. Worse still, it is open to question as to whether projects currently planned for construction, such as the future development of the Science Park, can align with it. Will the NDAs create a synergy effect with or bring in competition for them? I have discussed this with some peers in the data centre industry. They told me that an inland region is actually not ideal for such activity. It is not the most suitable place for such purpose either. This makes us feel gravely concerned. The Government's land development policy will probably become detached from some of the Administration's declared industrial purposes, employment and industry development targets in the future, and fail to achieve the expected results, too.
Judging by the aforesaid criteria, I think we must conduct afresh an extensive consultation. And the new consultation exercise can also be conducted efficiently without dragging on for too long.
For these reasons, we support the original motion moved by Ms Emily LAU and the amendments proposed by Mr Frederick FUNG and Mr Gary FAN. Unfortunately, I cannot support the amendments proposed by other Members as they refuse to demand the Government to conduct afresh a more extensive consultation.
President, I so submit.
MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, Hong Kong was recently ranked by The Economist as the number one livable city in the world. Page 6 of the relevant study report reads, "Hong Kong, the winner, is a very compact city that has managed to maintain its natural heritage, create a dense network of green spaces and enjoy extensive links to the rest of the world. It responded very well to the addition of spatial characteristics to the liveability index …… Hong Kong is the winner because I chose to give prominence to spatial characteristics."
722 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
It is evident that the land and spatial diversity in Hong Kong and the current state of development in which we can find co-existence of urban and rural areas is cherished by other people, and this is precisely a sustainable mode of urban development worthy of our support. Hence, in carrying out land development, especially planning for the NENT, the Government must give the public an account on two fundamental issues: First, the purpose of development; and second, the necessity of the development plan and land use.
In fact, a number of colleagues already talked about the purpose of development just now. According to the document issued by the Bureau earlier, the current development is aimed at promoting integration between Shenzhen and Hong Kong. However, the Bureau changed its claim recently when conflicts between China and Hong Kong intensified, saying that the purpose of the plan is to address the housing demand of Hong Kong people. When it comes to the purpose of the plan, the Government indicates that land supply has to be increased to ameliorate the problem of housing supply in Hong Kong. However, please forgive me for my ignorance, I have to put a very fundamental question to the Hong Kong Government or Honourable colleagues who are present here: Is "housing" being discussed as a commodity or a necessity? If it is a commodity, then a balance can never be struck between its supply and demand. It is because, as everyone knows, the supply of land in Hong Kong is limited. If housing is a commodity, its demand must be unlimited. As Mr Christopher CHEUNG must be aware, the number of stocks listed on the Stock Exchange of Hong Kong will only continue to grow. Their supply and demand can never see a balance, because the larger number of stocks the better. The same goes for demand or supply. Hence, are we talking about a commodity or a necessity?
Let me now get down to business. According to the information provided by the Government, many land lots which can be developed are left idle. Secretary Paul CHAN's earlier response has revealed that the Government currently has 3 900 hectares of idle land, including 2 100 hectares of residential land. After all sorts of deduction, a total of 391 hectares of land is classified as unleased or unallocated Government land within the "residential" and "residential/commercial" land. Let me use this 391 hectares of land as an example. According to a rough projection, if we use the plot ratio of five times to carry out development, 350 000 residential units measuring 600 sq ft each can be provided. In other words, if the 391 hectares of land is developed, the development volume will be 6.5 times the expected construction volume of the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 723
NENT NDAs. This means that the demand of the 200 000 households on the Waiting List today can be satisfied.
Let me cite another example. There have been newspaper reports about the disuse of three government quarters, including the Married Police Quarters in Sai Ying Pun, and the staff quarters of the Housing Department in Kwun Tong and Wong Tai Sin, which have been left vacant from three to 12 years. According to a rough estimation, if the three quarters are converted into domestic units, the built floor area can actually reach 800 000 sq ft, enough to build 1 600 small units of approximately 500 sq ft each to resolve the housing problem for some 5 000 persons.
Does the Government really have no land for development? May I request the authorities to give this Council an account of the figures to illustrate how many government properties throughout the territory are being left vacant? Of these vacant properties, how many can be converted for residential use?
Hence, in discussing the NENT development issues before us, I would like to request the Development Bureau to present to the Legislative Council Panel on Development once every six months data on land use in Hong Kong, including data on the area of Government land left idle, the utilization of government properties, newly added potential land, and the areas and locations of lots on the Application List. In fact, distant water cannot put out a fire close at hand because, according to the NENT NDAs Planning, property developments will not be completed until 2020. In my opinion, the Government should consider giving priority to developing the idle land in urban areas and their vicinity, because better results can be achieved as these areas are already supported by sound ancillary facilities and compensation for land resumption will not be involved.
Lastly, given the aforesaid reasons, I will support Ms Emily LAU's original motion as well as the amendments proposed by Mr Frederick FUNG and Mr Gary FAN that call for the withdrawal of the planning proposal on the NENT NDAs.
President, I so submit.
724 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
MR MARTIN LIAO (in Cantonese): President, it is an indisputable objective reality that land supply in Hong Kong is inadequate to meet demand. Information reveals that developed land and residential sites in Hong Kong account for only 23.7% and 6.9% respectively of the total land area of Hong Kong. With the current property prices hitting new heights again and again, the rents of various types of buildings have risen to such high levels that they have long since gone out of reach of the income raise and purchasing power of most of the people. The serious imbalance in the distribution of social resources in this respect has given rise to a lot of grievances in society. Meanwhile, the housing problem of the grass-roots people is also deteriorating and there is also a trend of it further worsening. In the face of the failure of the free market mechanism in addressing land and housing issues, the Government must make painstaking efforts to tackle the land supply problem and accord priority to resolving the housing problem faced by the public at large before addressing the reasonable expectations of people in different strata for home ownership. More importantly, the Government must ensure that property prices and rents can stabilize for the healthy development of Hong Kong's property market.
President, according to the Government's proposed plan for the development of the NENT NDAs for Hong Kong people, three new towns will be built. However, it seems that the plan is just part of a general policy, not an integrated land policy.
In my opinion, it is necessary for the Government to draw up a short-, medium- and long-term land and housing policy which has proven to be practicable after repeated verification, and such a policy should include the building up of a land reserve. Hong Kong needs a holistic and forward-looking land and housing policy. Members should have heard of a variety of proposals, such as the exploration of land along the West Rail line, the development of land along the boundary, the development of rock caverns to release land, the reclamation of the Victoria Harbour, and so on. However, currently, these proposals are only conceptual discussions. We have yet to see some more professional and credible feasibility study reports, data and arguments as well as comprehensive discussions.
When this Council is tasked with considering the specific policy initiatives and financial arrangements for land development projects in the New Territories tabled before Members in the future, I hope the Administration can present a LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 725 long-term and macroscopic development model for the whole territory with details on land development, the building of land reserves, the projected supply and demand of housing construction, the supply quantity, the public to private ratio, the progress of construction, and so on, for this Council's in-depth discussions and serious consideration rather than just requiring this Council to give individual or partial approval in a piecemeal manner.
President, the criticisms and views voiced in every quarter of the community since the unveiling of the development plan for the NENT NDAs have exposed possible problems with the plan itself, from traffic and transport, medical and health, education services, commercial services, social welfare services, quality of living, local employment to environmental protection, and so on. How can the Government make appropriate evaluations and planning for various ancillary and support facilities having regard to population projections in response to new developments whenever and wherever necessary? This is a critical consideration.
Besides, the NENT, given its remoteness, is far from the urban areas where there are more quality employment and learning opportunities. Moreover, local residents have to meet exorbitant travelling expenses for commuting to and from workplaces or schools. Does the Government have proper arrangements to ease the pressure exerted on them by travelling expenses?
The development plan also involves land resumption, though it is not a new attempt. Before the reunification in 1997, the Land Resumption Ordinance was already in use for many years. The development of a number of satellite towns in Hong Kong in the past also involved a lot of land resumption work involving mostly farmland. The development plan for the NENT NDAs this time around, however, involves 1 700 households, and the land use situation is different, too. Therefore, the issue is more complicated. In my opinion, the Government should, under the principle of respecting private land ownership, proactively discuss with stakeholders of various sides with a view to reaching a proposal acceptable widely by various sides and the community.
President, the NENT NDAs development plan, which marks a major milestone in the attempt to strike a balance among land, housing and conservation development in Hong Kong in the future, has a bearing on the overall long-term interests of Hong Kong's population of 7 million in the future, too. Owing to 726 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 short supply of land, we cannot resolve housing problems through massive housing developments. It is indeed a matter of great urgency to solve these problems which have been accumulated over a long period of time. Recently, the Government has even targeted on a major sports project for the construction of a stadium in Kai Tak, which has been planned for years. Such a move also reflects the urgency of land development. Although land development is a matter of urgency, the Government should engage in careful and serious consideration and refrain from "throwing stones into the woods randomly" and forgetting all about the ideals mentioned by the Secretary just now about quality living environment and exploring living space, because doing so will only raise concern among the community and members of the public about the Government's vision and competence.
There have been great repercussions in society since the NENT NDAs proposal was launched. Some people have queried whether various stakeholders and proposals have not been taken into consideration since the consultation was not in-depth and comprehensive enough. As a result, they have proposed that the Government undo the plan and start consultation afresh. I take exception to this proposal. While some criticisms are lopsided, some are even misrepresentations describing the NENT NDAs proposal as an act of selling out Hong Kong land and turning it into "Shenzhen's backyard". The scale of this development project is so enormous that government officials can simply not cover up everything and act in a hegemonist and arbitrary manner without offering any explanation. It must rely on the concerted assistance and support of the whole community. The housing problems of the public at large are a matter of urgency. If the proposal is undone and started afresh, the efforts of our predecessors will be totally wasted. Moreover, this Council will feel ashamed before the general public with urgent housing needs.
President, I so submit.
MR STEVEN HO (in Cantonese): President, I would like to speak further on point (f) of Mr CHAN Hak-kan's amendment. First of all, let me read out point (f) of Mr CHAN Hak-kan's amendment: "to designate sufficient and suitable land for agriculture in the three development areas or adjacent areas, and allocate resources to assist farmers in rebuilding the agricultural industry".
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 727
There is no doubt that the NENT NDAs Planning can help mitigate the problem of shortage of housing land in Hong Kong. Having said that, while this problem warrants our concern, members of my sector and I myself, being their representative, are gravely concerned about whether the NDAs can have regard to the living of farmers and whether the development plan can facilitate the continuous development of the local agricultural industry.
With regard to the living of the affected farmers, I learnt that the Secretary for Development had said that the Government would do its utmost to make proper arrangements to ensure that eligible farmers would be rehoused and compensated reasonably, and that it would do its utmost and spare no efforts to assist farmers in identifying land for them to resume farming. Compensation is necessary, but as to the question of whether the compensation to be made is adequate or appropriate, I think the Bureau still needs to hold discussions with the farmers.
After making reference to the outline of the planning and engineering works, I found that apart from roughly showing the locations of agricultural land in the NDAs and making undertakings similar to what I have just mentioned, the Administration has indeed failed to provide adequate assistance to farmers in many aspects. Therefore, to allay the concerns of farmers, I hope that the Government can take on board the proposals made by us and the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong as follows.
First, according to the information of the Government, some 200 farmers are affected in the development. But as "every family has a skeleton in the cupboard", the Government must understand that each affected farmer has a different background and problems. In this connection, the Administration should put in place a better mechanism for each affected farmer and take follow-up actions. For example, consideration must be given to whether the dwelling places of the farmers are in the vicinity of the farmlands identified by the Government, and consideration must also be given to such factors as the varieties of crops grown by farmers in the past and their agricultural use, as well as whether they are in line with the direction of future development, with a view to making appropriate arrangements for the farmers.
Second, I hope that the Government will put its words into actions and fulfil its undertaking of doing its utmost to assist farmers in identifying farmlands 728 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 for them. In fact, I have to make a small correction to this remark of mine. As I should say that it is imperative for the Administration to provide assistance in identifying land for farmers to resume farming, having regard to the sustained development of the industry in future. Why do I say so? Because the Government must understand that farmers are a group of people adversely affected by the planning, and they have made considerable contribution. The resumption of farming involves reopening up land for cultivation, and improving the irrigation and drainage systems, farm access, as well as other ancillary transport facilities. The Government must provide assistance in respect of all the costs incurred in the resumption of farming, in order to enable farmers to adapt to their new life as soon as possible and minimize the loss to farmers. In this process, the Government can promote diversified agricultural activities on the new farmlands and provide relevant support to farmers, so as to facilitate agricultural transformation which emphasizes high value products and application of technology, such as using natural farming techniques, practising organic farming and building greenhouses, which are all effective measures.
Cost aside, some farmers have conveyed to us their concern that the new farmhands will have irregularities and other conditions that are unfavourable to farming, as there were similar cases in the past. We have looked up some information and found that on some of these farmlands designated for agricultural use, such as in most part of Fu Tei Au Tsuen, there are fish ponds, squatter huts, highly polluting industrial sites, warehouses and slopes that have been affected by hill fires for many years. Has the Government considered factors affecting farming, such as the soil, microclimate and water sources, in the provision of agricultural land? I hope that the Government, in undertaking planning work, can properly conduct investigations and studies on the relevant sites to be used as farmlands, in order to ensure that the farmlands are suitable for farming and that sufficient support facilities are provided, with a view to protecting the living of farmers.
Farmers have also made another point which is very important. They are worried that many restrictions will be imposed on the new agricultural land to be provided to them in terms of the lease term, farming methods, types of crops, building structures and facilities, which can indirectly deal a blow to their living. Miss CHAN Yuen-han also pointed out earlier on by showing many beautiful pictures to Members that the paddy fields require the efforts made by several generations in cultivating the land before they can be developed to their current LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 729 scale. If the lease term is too short, how should farmers make investments and choices after their relocation to the new land? This will be a great difficulty to them, and a de facto restriction on their development. If they invest too heavily on their land and if the Government resumes their land a few years later or the landlord refuses to renew the lease with them, it would be impossible for the agricultural industry to develop. For this reason, I must remind the Government that it should understand the needs of different farmers and flexibly handle each of these cases on its own merits, in order to ensure that the farmers will live in peace and work with contentment.
Allowing farmers to maintain their original way of living in the course of development can only cure the symptoms of the problem. It is more important to identify ways to enable farmers to maintain their competitiveness in this ever developing society. I think the NDAs can perhaps ― and I stress perhaps ― provide a perfect opportunity for the upgrading of the agricultural industry in Hong Kong.
During his election campaign the Chief Executive proposed the development of rural areas with characteristics. It sounded most appealing to farmers who thought that the Government probably had plans to develop the leisure agriculture industry. I think the Government can take the opportunity of the development of the NENT which is proposed now or the development of other areas in future to develop high-value-added agricultural activities and the leisure agriculture industry in the rural areas. Incidentally, the opportunity may as well be seized to improve and re-examine its policy on the leisure agriculture industry, while assuming the role of a market-enabler. For instance, the Government can provide sufficient and suitable land for agricultural development in the three development areas in the NENT NDAs or adjacent areas and plough in a large amount of resources to this end. Why is it necessary to plough in a large amount of resources? It is because the Government has made inadequate efforts and failed to honour its promises to farmers. Besides, the Government must also build roads, undertake water and electrical works, promote the use of technology or implement other support policies.
In the development areas for agriculture, the Government can even identify land for developing integrated zones for agriculture and setting up an agricultural and fisheries research centre to fulfil the pledge made in the election platform. Thank you, President.
730 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
MR RONNY TONG (in Cantonese): President, many colleagues have put forward a lot of detailed views for discussion on such an extensive issue. Just take a look at the contents of this motion. Mr CHAN Hak-kan's amendment alone has discussed the issue in eight paragraphs. But President, I think what warrants our concern now is not only whether this is a genuine or bogus consultation, but also the quality of the governance of this Government.
With regard to the three stages of consultation conducted on the NENT project, I think no other government in the world conducting consultation on a major development plan would arouse ever stronger opposition as the consultation exercise proceeds from one stage to another, and I think no other government in the world will leave out the affected persons in a consultation exercise after two rounds of consultation have been conducted. In other words, although the din of opposition has never ceased, the Government's attitude remains the same despite having ganged public opinions. Such being the case, how can Hong Kong people not feel extremely enraged? If things go on this way, I utterly do not see how this Government is still deemed qualified for governance.
I requested to speak at the last major consultative forum on 22 September. I personally put a question to Paul CHAN. I asked him, "What pressing reasons are there in Hong Kong that actually call for the NENT Development?" Secretary Paul CHAN gave this response at that time: "Given that land supply is tight in Hong Kong, the withdrawal of this plan is out of the question." President, this reply has actually highlighted two questions that we should discuss today. First, is the Secretary's remark true in reality, and second, is the Government trying to cause divisions in society?
If what the Government has said is untrue or it has presented only a small part of the truth for discussion or public consultation, this is obviously not an attitude that any responsible government should take. But more importantly, if the Government rallies one group in society to attack another and sows enmity between people waiting for the allocation of public rental housing (PRH) and residents in northeast New Territories, people on the waiting list for PRHs will think that residents in northeast New Territories are unreasonable in refusing to move out though seeing that they do not have a place to live in, whereas residents in northeast New Territories will think that Hong Kong has a lot of land, so why does the Government not develop other land but insist on driving them away and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 731 worse still, without making any proposal on compensation or ways to maintain the quality of their living in evicting them? Is this approach taken by our Government acceptable?
President, let me cite some figures with which Members are all familiar. On 4 July 2012, the then Secretary for Development, Mr MAK Chai-kwong, pointed out that 2 100 hectares of land could be made available for residential use, and 952 hectares of it could be designated for comprehensive development. On 20 September, Secretary Paul CHAN said on the radio that excluding the area covering slopes and roads, residential sites in the urban areas might add up to less than 400 hectares. Subsequently, he further disclosed at the consultative forum on 22 September that about 1 200 hectares of these 2 100 hectares of land were reserved for low-density village type development, but he did not explain the meaning of "low-density village type development". On 23 September, the Permanent Secretary stated that what Secretary Paul CHAN had said was not the land reserve, adding that there remained only 480 hectares of land after deducting the land reserved for village type development and the 420 hectares of land which were not suitable for development. On 17 October, in response to a question raised by a Member, Paul CHAN said that only 391.5 hectares of land would be made available for comprehensive development and that some of these sites, which were in irregular shape, might not be suitable for development. President, the reply given by the Secretary this morning was again different as he said that these 390 hectares of land had already excluded sites in irregular shape and areas covering roads or land which were not suitable for housing development, and that as 20 hectares of land were included in the Application List for land sale and ready for grant, 370 hectares of land could be made available for PRH development.
However, he did not answer the first question. He did not answer the question that I asked him this morning. Why is it that in our planning, we can allow 1 200 hectares of land to be reserved for the so-called village type development whereas only 370 hectares, which is just a little more than one third, can be used for PRH development? As for the number of beneficiaries, the number of people who will benefit from these 370 hectares of land may be dozens of times more than that of those 1 200 hectares earmarked for village type development. Is the Government deliberately trying to confuse the public or is it making up excuses in order to prevent us from knowing the true facts?
732 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
President, even if what the Government has said is all true, it is not telling the whole truth. For example, as also pointed out in a commentary in the Hong Kong Economic Journal, 390 hectares of land equal to 42.04 million sq ft and if calculation is done on the basis of a plot ratio of nine, an area of 380 million sq ft can be provided and even after deducting 30% for shopping malls, car parks and public facilities, an area of 260 million sq ft will still be made available. Assuming that the living space per person is 300 sq ft, meaning that three persons can live in a flat of 900 sq ft, which is quite good, this can still provide living space for 870 000 people. President, it is 870 000 people. But what has been said about the NENT project? According to the latest information shown in the papers of the Government, only 167 hectares of land can be made available for housing development and even if 50% of such land is designated for PRH development, only some 80 hectares of land will be involved, and this is a sea of difference compared to the figures that I have just cited. Why did the Secretary say in a public consultative forum attended by 8 000 people that it is necessary to develop northeast New Territories because land supply is tight? President, I think a responsible government should first make clear the facts and should not cause divisions among Hong Kong people.
Thank you, President.
MRS REGINA IP (in Cantonese): President, I would like to state the position of the New People's Party on the NENT Development and how we will vote on it.
First of all, let me state that the New People's Party supports the NENT project. Not only do we welcome this development, we all the more hope that these areas can be developed expeditiously. It is because we have looked up the records and found that the Government, as pointed out by Mr CHAN Hak-kan, indeed started to conduct studies in 1998, and in 2008, the Government's Civil Engineering and Development Department launched the "North East New Territories New Development Areas Planning and Engineering Study" jointly with the Planning Department and conducted consultations. I have checked our records. In December 2008 before the founding of the New People's Party, the Savantas Policy Institute founded by me already submitted our proposals to support this development and put forward views on it. After many rounds of consultation, we further put forward our views in January 2010, and we have also expressed our views recently.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 733
I really wish to know whether those colleagues who are asking the Government to send the project back to the drawing board, conduct consultations afresh or expand the scope of consultation have noticed that the Government already invited public views a long time ago and whether they have expressed their various concerns in the previous phases of consultation. Of course, they can say that perhaps there were not these fears about the urban integration of Shenzhen and Hong Kong, ceding land or Hong Kong being subject to the State's planning back in 2008. But since the Government had already extended the period of the third round of consultation to end-September, I think there was sufficient time for members of the public and various organizations to express their views.
Certainly, I also have fears about the urban integration of Shenzhen and Hong Kong. I have all along held discussions with the Director of Planning on this new development. As I have said, be it the development of the river loop area in Lok Ma Chau or the "Three-in-One" development in northeast New Territories, the cost of development is exorbitantly high in Hong Kong and the process is time-consuming. There is no reason to carry out low-value added activities at such high costs in the New Territories. It is because I remember that some people from the Planning Department seemed to have suggested some time ago that in the NDAs, farming tools can be displayed, or mainlanders can be attracted to cross the boundary to take part in leisure activities, such as taking dim sum. I have pointed out to the planning officials responsible for this project in private that these activities are not cost-effective, because our cost of planning and development is high, and there is no reason to engage in such low-value added business as attracting people to come for barbecue pork buns or selling baby formula at such high costs.
Therefore, I have consistently told the relevant officials that a strategy for economic development and a policy on industries should be put in place whether in respect of the development of northeast New Territories or that of the Lok Ma Chau Loop. The first reason is that Hong Kong is a city where the cost is high. If we wish to maintain the standard of living or even hope that our children can upgrade their standard of living, we must move in the direction of high-value added development. Given the shortage of land in Hong Kong, it is, of course, impossible for us to do what Tianjin has done in inviting Airbus to set up plants for building colossal aircrafts, but we should still promote some industries that give play to the advantages of Hong Kong, such as developing a high-end 734 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 manufacturing industry or technological services relating to a high-end manufacturing industry. Consideration should be given not only to providing space for shopping, dining or buying baby formula, for these are not in line with the strategy of diversification of the economic structure, if the Government has such a strategy.
If we do not wish to see Hong Kong being subject to the State's planning or the urban integration of Shenzhen and Hong Kong …… Earlier on, I heard Members mention the urban integration of Shenzhen and Hong Kong. I actually do not quite understand this concept. How exactly can we be integrated with each other in urbanization? It is because Hong Kong has a sound system of rule of law, and if we have to pursue development jointly with Shenzhen or any other city on the Mainland, be it Dongguan or Foshan, do we have the same system of rule of law? To me, this is indeed very difficult.
However, under the trend of globalization of the world economy, regional co-operation will be an inevitable development. Globalization of production and regional co-operation will become inevitable. In other words, Hong Kong must forge co-operation with Shenzhen, Zhuhai or any nearby city through the very advanced global information system, using the approach of each place taking up one job. Take high technology as an example. Hong Kong does not have the space for large-scale production but Hong Kong certainly has the space or talents for technological research and development at the early stages or the provision of high-end services relating to technology, such as legal services or services for the transfer of intellectual property rights.
With regard to the development of northeast New Territories or the Lok Ma Chau Loop, apart from considering the land supply (because of substantial demand for land in Hong Kong), we also have to consider the demand for land in the development of industries. For instance, should Hong Kong be really developed into a regional data centre hub as suggested by some colleagues in the technology industry? If so, we have to reserve land for this purpose, right? However, we have not seen any strategy for development made by the Government so far. I, therefore, urge the Government not only to provide land to meet the demands for public or private housing, but also draw up a strategy for development and look into how land can be utilized to provide support to the upgrading and expansion of our industrial structure.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 735
In this connection, I hope that the Government can really provide a planning outline at the next stage, in order to look into how development should be taken forward, the proportion of land for conservation, the proportion that needs to be preserved for historical and cultural reasons, the proportion for housing, and the proportion for industrial development. The approach of development should be considered only after planning is completed. Should the conventional public-private sector co-operation be employed or should the approach of new town development be adopted? Is the approach for new town development used decades ago still viable nowadays? All these can be open for discussion by then. Is that right, Secretary Paul CHAN?
Moreover, let me stress that I have always been concerned that the pace of development is too slow, and I have also made this point to a number of officials in private. The Government began its studies in 1998. It was in 2008 that consultation was conducted and yet, it is said that some results can be achieved only in 2022. Where else in the world will development proceed at such a snail's pace? Let us look at our neighbours, be it the Pearl River Delta, Singapore, Taiwan or Korea. How rapidly they have been developing, and how dazzling their achievements are in the development of innovative industries. We cannot act so slowly as we are now. I have raised this point with a number of officials. They said that this is because of the restrictions in law. I hope that Secretary Paul CHAN can pay more attention to this. Legislation can be amended, and so can the policy (The buzzer sounded) …… Thank you, President.
MR JEFFREY LAM (in Cantonese): President, guess what the young people in society and our next generation are concerned about now. According to many young people with whom I have had contact, their concern is that property prices are beyond their affordability and they cannot afford buying their first home.
Now, it is already not easy for many young people to land a good job. They face great pressure at work and cruel competition in employment. They also have to pursue further studies continuously in order to better equip themselves and strive for enhancement. Many young people are worried about the future. They said, "I cannot afford buying a flat and so, I dare not get married". I do not know how their parents feel on hearing their sons say that they dare not get married.
736 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
Hong Kong is a small place with a large population. Property prices have been soaring, and land is so expensive that "an inch of it costs a foot of gold". Apart from external economic factors and investment activities, inadequate supply of residential sites is also a most fundamental cause for the high property prices. It is natural that the economy has its cycles as well as ups and downs. In 2003 when the property market collapsed, some Hong Kong people became owners of negative equity assets and suffered untold hardships. Now that when property prices are on the high side, there are many voices calling on the Government to take measures to suppress property prices and help the people buy their first homes.
The North East New Territories New Development Areas Planning and Engineering Study under discussion now can provide 533 hectares of land for development and supply 53 800 public and private residential units, of which some 23 000 are public housing flats. This plan was put forward for discussion in 1998 and has been brewed for more than a decade, with three stages of public consultation being conducted. For a long time before, no strong views were expressed on the plan, and it is only recently when the plan has become the focus of society that many people have used it as an excuse for voicing their other views and seized the opportunity to gain advantages.
President, this development plan has been brewed for more than a decade. How many decades can we idle away in a lifetime? If this Council and society refuse to conduct discussions and negotiations whenever a controversial policy is introduced and take a confrontational attitude of putting up opposition for the sake of opposition, insisting that the policy must be withdrawn and everything should be started all over again, will our younger generations and progeny put the blame on us?
It now happens that the general demand for housing in society can be met by a new town development plan that has been discussed for over a decade. It can also satisfy the demand of the public to a certain extent and meet the housing needs of the future population in Hong Kong. If the Government will do something only when it is given applauses and flinch when chided by people or withdraw a proposal when controversies are aroused, should this be the approach of development in Hong Kong? Is this in the interest of Hong Kong people?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 737
I understand that the public have many different demands, and in introducing a major policy, the Administration has to consider it thoroughly and strike a balance among the interests of various stakeholders. All these will require the efforts of the Government, and particularly when a plan involves such issues as land interest and sustainable development, different views and controversies are bound to arise. For example, Mr Abraham SHEK mentioned earlier "the mode of allowing landowners' participation in development" whereas the Government has proposed the resumption of land under the Conventional New Town Approach. But regarding the meaning of Conventional New Town Approach, views remain diverse in the community. In any case, I think the Government can absorb the relevant views to enable the plan to proceed in a most peaceful, most convenient and most efficient manner.
For a plan that has been brewed for more than a decade, the thrust of our discussion should be placed on how best to strike a balance among the interests of various stakeholders on the premise of incorporating public opinions extensively and allowing a high degree of transparency, and also on how best to implement the plan, rather than making use of this issue of development to provoke conflicts and incite confrontational sentiments.
During the Stage Three Public Engagement, some reports and views in the community aroused public concern. In my opinion, such unfounded allegations oblige the Government to expeditiously make clarification, refute them, present statistics and set out the facts, in order to remove public worries. It is because if such worries were not removed expeditiously, a lie told often enough will become the truth. Besides, the Government also has to step up efforts in introducing this plan and explain clearly to the public that the policy objective of building these NDAs is to meet the needs of a larger population in future, which is also in line with the long-term development.
Moreover, the northern part of Hong Kong is in the immediate vicinity of Shenzhen and the Pearl River Delta Region. The experience of development for over three decades has told us that ― I have also taken part in it ― exchanges and co-operation with Guangdong Province on various fronts as well as our support to each other mutually are indispensible to the economic development of Hong Kong. As long as the principles such as "one country, two systems" and "a high degree of autonomy" are resolutely upheld in the interest of Hong Kong 738 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 people in the process of integration, co-operation between Guangdong and Hong Kong will be sensible, reasonable and lawful.
If the Government can handle public opinions effectively and give clear explanations to address public concerns, I believe the rumours about this plan will be scotched by facts, and the public will understand and support the implementation of the plan.
President, I so submit.
MR TOMMY CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, given the shortage of land supply in Hong Kong, the addition of a new tract of land of a substantial scale may meet the economic development and housing needs of society, otherwise, there will arise a serious bottleneck in the development of Hong Kong in future. The NENT NDAs will provide over 700 hectares of land for Hong Kong, which is a solution to the prevailing shortage of supply in the property market. Hence, as Mr James TIEN said earlier, there is a pressing need for the NENT project.
During the first two stages of consultation on the project on NENT NDAs, the Government had put forth the idea of private sector participation in developing the NDAs. In other words, the NENT NDA project was originally a Public-Private Partnership (PPP) project. However, at third stage of consultation commencing in June this year, the Government suddenly gave up this plan and proposed that the Conventional New Town Approach be adopted, where the Government planned to invest $40 billion first on land resumption and then carry out the development on its own.
In fact, the PPP approach has seen wide application in various work projects in recent years. Many infrastructure projects are carried out under this approach. The AsiaWorld Expo, which is selected as one of the best three exhibition venues in Asia, is a case in point. The greatest merit of this approach is that the advantages of the market and those of the Government will be fully capitalized. Under the guidance and supervision of the Government, the private market may bring into full play and capitalize on its high efficiency in a fair, impartial and open manner, thus facilitating the expeditious implementation of development projects. Therefore, in terms of the speed of development, the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 739 aforesaid approach will definitely be better than the Government's approach of carrying out land resumption and the development on its own.
As mentioned by Mr James TIEN earlier, the supply of residential sites in Hong Kong can only meet the demand in the next six years, which means there will be a gap of as long as four years prior to the completion of the first batch of private housing in the NDAs in 2022 the earliest. Hence, we should seize the time by leveraging on the private sector to speed up the pace of development and narrow the gap in the supply of residential flats.
Moreover, the Government plans to spend $40 billion on land resumption, which is not a small amount, being approximately equal to 90% of the $45 billion provision on health care expenditure this year. Therefore, if the project is to be carried out under the PPP approach, it will reduce the cost of land resumption borne by the Government, as well as the pressure exerted on public finance by the development project. This will allow the Government to expend the resources on other people with greater needs.
Moreover, during the two stages of consultation, the Government had indicated that private organizations would be allowed to participate in the development of the NENT. Hence, many villages are prepared for this psychologically. Now that the Government goes back on its words, taking a sudden about-turn to adopt the approach of development by the Government, the villagers will be greatly disappointed, for this has remarkably fallen short of their expectation.
In fact, as early as at the first stage of consultation on the project both major landowners and small landowners had already expressed their aspiration for the right to participate in the NENT project. In other words, the change of approach for the Government to carry out land resumption for development will definitely arouse fierce reactions, which will further impede the progress of the development. The Liberal Party hopes that the Government will proactively consider readopting the PPP approach but not to delete or make substantial change to it.
However, we agree that all development and acquisition projects must be carried out by lawful means. The use of improper means like intimidation or violent practices in land resumption or removing residents is unacceptable.
740 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
In the recently completed third stage of consultation, different sectors have expressed a lot of views. We think the Government must listen to the views expressed by all stakeholders and act cautiously. However, we disagree that the entire project should be started anew from the stage of consultation. Such practice will only drag our feet in development, which is in no way conducive to the development of Hong Kong as a whole, as well as the development of NENT. Hence, we will support the amendments proposed by Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Miss CHAN Yuen-han and Mr Abraham SHEK.
On the other hand, we cannot support the amendments proposed by Mr Frederick FUNG and Mr Gary FAN, as well as the original motion, for if their request were accepted and the proposal withdrawn, it would let slip the opportunity of solving the housing problem faced by the numerous members of the public waiting for public housing or looking forward to purchasing their first homes. In that event, it would be very unfair to them. Hence, the NENT NDAs project should be implemented as soon as possible. Moreover, the areas should form the land reserve for Hong Kong in the medium-to-long term, so as to alleviate the tight supply in land. This is the correct direction of development.
President, I so submit.
MR DENNIS KWOK (in Cantonese): President, the principles of "one country, two systems", "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" and "high degree of autonomy", particularly the part concerning land use and land planning, are clearly stated in the Basic Law. It is stipulated in Article 7 of the Basic Law that, "The land and natural resources within the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be State property. The Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall be responsible for their management, use and development and for their lease or grant to individuals, legal persons or organizations for use or development. The revenues derived therefrom shall be exclusively at the disposal of the government of the Region.". President, regarding the NENT Development, has the Government respected the principles of "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong", "high degree of autonomy" and "one country, two systems"? Has it respected and given due regard to the principles and spirit set out clearly in Article 7 of the Basic Law?
The Secretary said earlier that all along, the needs of Honk Kong people have been given due regard in the NENT project and the development is designed LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 741 for the people of Hong Kong. However, is this true? Or the NDA proposal is indeed a planning policy formulated in support of the Pearl River Delta (PRD) development by the Central Government? Is the Government actually paving the way for achieving the ultimate goal of the "assimilation" or "urban integration" of Shenzhen and Hong Kong? What is the truth? We can get the answer by simply referring to the remarks made by government officials on the NENT project in the past. If our policies on town planning and land use are not decided in accordance with the principle of "high degree of autonomy" enjoyed by Hong Kong people, I wonder whether our autonomy under the principles of "one country, two systems", "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" and "high degree of autonomy" carries any true meaning.
The Government always says that the NENT NDA is a new town for Hong Kong people. However, according to the Planning Study on the Co-ordinated Development of the Greater Pearl River Delta Townships announced by the Development Bureau with the SAR Government of Macao and Guangdong Provincial Government in October 2009, the NENT area would be a tourism co-operation region under the cross-boundary regional co-operated development project, which is one of the projects supporting the cross-boundary traffic plan. When the former Director of the Planning Department, Jimmy LEUNG, had an interview with the Southern Metropolis Daily in 2009, since Kwu Tung North and Fan Ling North were the extended development of Sheung Shui and Fan Ling, which were in the vicinity of Shenzhen, the Department had consulted the views of Mainland residents of Shenzhen in the planning study of the closed area, and stated that large shopping malls would be built in the NDAs for the convenience of Mainland residents in shopping.
In an article submitted by LEUNG Chun-ying, now the Chief Executive, in Ming Pao in March 2008, he said that the integration of Shenzhen and Hong Kong should be supported by specific proposals and should not restricted to concepts like "assimilation of Hong Kong and Shenzhen", "urban integration" and "twin-cities". He set out some practical proposals, which included delineating all or most of the area of the frontier as a Hong Kong-Shenzhen border development area to facilitate business negotiations among Hong Kong people, foreigners and mainlanders. Not long after LEUNG Chun-ying had assumed office as the Chief Executive, he mentioned in an interview with Southern Metropolis Daily the visa-free arrangement, the special zone in the SAR and the secondary boundary crossing. He also mentioned the proposals on a frontier 742 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 special zone, special development zone and visa-on-arrival, echoing some of the specific proposals on the integration of Shenzhen and Hong Kong mentioned by him earlier in Ming Pao Daily News.
Given the repeated remarks in this respect, how will the Secretary explain and convince the people of Hong Kong that the NDAs project in the New Territories is genuinely planned for the land use and needs of the people of Hong Kong? Regarding the land planning and management of the right of land use, have the authorities really respected the commitment made under Article 7 of the Basic Law on "one country, two systems", "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" and "high degree of autonomy", as well as the meaning implied in the provision? Does the Government understand the spirit thoroughly?
When the Chief Executive, LEUNG Chun-ying, came to the Legislative Council to make his address, he said that Hong Kong should not "close the door and isolate ourselves from the rest of the world." I do not know who the Chief Executive was referring to when he mentioned the practice of "closing the door and isolating ourselves from the rest of the world", and what kind of reasons had prompted him to think that there was a real danger of "closing the door and isolating ourselves from the rest of the world". To uphold the principles of "one country, two systems", "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" and "high degree of autonomy" is absolutely not against the practice of the so-called "closing the door and isolating ourselves from the rest of the world". The core spirit of "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong", "high degree of autonomy" and "one country, two systems" is to ensure that Hong Kong people may continue to live their life as usual according to their own lifestyle in Hong Kong, and to allow Hong Kong people to enjoy autonomy in land supply and land management.
I hope that the SAR Government will not say that certain people are holding an antagonist attitude and intensifying the problem. In fact, remarks made by government officials in the past and their understandings in this respect definitely fail to inspire confidence among the people of Hong Kong. Regarding the many issues concerning social resources and the law, I hope the SAR Government will respect the spirit of "one country, two systems", "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" and "high degree of autonomy".
President, I so submit.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 743
MR WU CHI-WAI (in Cantonese): President, in my view, the development planning for NENT involves two important subjects. First, it is about the policy on the integration of Hong Kong and Shenzhen, as mentioned by many colleagues earlier. Actually, concerning this issue, the SAR Government has had a lot of discussions behind the scene, but when one or two officials bring up the issue in certain courses of planning unexpectedly, this makes the public feel very much concerned. Regarding the course of integration, is public participation allowed? Are we going to spur Shenzhen or other cities in the Mainland to make improvement premised on the superior institutions and legal system in Hong Kong, as well as its superior status under "one country, two systems"? Or are we just being "subject to planning" as the public repeatedly claim?
As far as the practice is concerned, if the transparency remains inadequate, suspicions and apprehensions of this kind can never be removed. Actually, Hong Kong being under "one country, two systems" and we being Chinese look forward to the development of the country. We hope that our country will proceed in the direction of becoming more advanced and civilized. In this connection, Hong Kong may play a significant role and fulfil enormous functions. However, in the past 15 years, we noticed that the SAR Government had often caused the superior status of Hong Kong to be dwarfed. It seems that the authorities would often go to the Mainland to seek certain initiatives, yet in most cases, the demerits of these initiatives prevailed over their merits, thus failing to remove the worries of the public in the course of development.
Therefore, we should not regard integration as a scourge. Yet, we should attach importance to the aim of the integration, that is, to facilitate the development of the country in being geared towards a good direction with Hong Kong's competitive edges, civilized society and established systems. The premise for ensuring the willing acceptance of the course of integration by the general public is that the SAR Government should first announce its ideas to the public in an honest and clear manner.
Earlier, I have heard some other points raised by many colleagues on the Public-Private Partnership (PPP) in the planning of the NENT as a whole. I have listened to them for a long time. Why would the PPP approach prompt considerable worries among the general public? One of the key issues is the housing difficulties prevailing in Hong Kong, for it is difficult for people born 744 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 and grown up in Hong Kong to find a shelter. As stated in the paper on the planning of NENT, some 50 000 flats accommodating 150 000 people are planned to be built under the original plan. However, if the PPP approach is adopted, only some 20 000 flats will be provided for Hong Kong residents. As for the remaining flats, they will be sold at high prices, which is a prevailing phenomenon in Hong Kong society nowadays. Private flats in Yuen Long and New Territories are sold at $7,000 to $8,000, or even $10,000 per square feet. As such, I think it is extremely difficult for the general public to find homes.
For this reason, Members often argue whether the PPP approach should be adopted during the entire discussion. Yet, the entire discussion has substantiated the phenomenon of collusion between the Government and the business sector, which Hong Kong people have noticed all along. The Secretary has said that more than half of the sites in the development area in NENT are in the hands of the private sector. It is possible that a considerable proportion of the sites are in the hands of private estate developers. As mentioned by some colleagues earlier, many estate developers have long since hoarded a large number of agricultural sites awaiting the development plan initiated by the Government. If the Government fails to remove the worry of the public in the course of the planning of NENT about the large-scale development plan being nothing more than collusion between the Government and business instead of a wholehearted and sincere attempt to solve the housing problems faced by Hong Kong residents, society will fall into the vicious cycle of endless discussions, where no direction can be set for addressing the housing difficulties.
In fact, I agree that the Government should increase the land reserve in addressing the housing difficulties in Hong Kong. Also, it should adopt the new town development mode covering a vast area, for land development is the most effective method to address the housing difficulties faced by Hong Kong people. We notice that the only way to remove the worries of the public is to ensure that the target of land development is to address the housing difficulties of Hong Kong people. As mentioned by Chief Secretary Carrie LAM, the New Town Development Approach should be adopted, so that land will be resumed and comprehensive planning made again. Under this approach, the interests of Hong Kong people will be afforded the greatest protection throughout the course of development, whereas the worries of the public may be removed. Moreover, concerning the agricultural policies now under discussion and the various new modes of economic development, the authorities may carry out a comprehensive LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 745 assessment in the context of the development plan. It is different from the present situation where the authorities in some measure have to wait for the private sector to cope with the policies of the Government. I wonder whether the present practice can really answer the aspiration of the public. In fact, this will also arouse growing suspicions among the public.
In the present motion, the Democratic Party proposes that the proposal should be withdrawn first and be followed by consultation. One of the reasons is that since the commencement of the consultation process in 2003, a lot of assumptions on planning have already changed. Given these changes, if the proposal is not withdrawn as a whole and the issue scrutinized anew, any amendments made in the process will only be piecemeal, and the worries of the public will never be removed. As Mr Ronny TONG said earlier, the more such consultation the more opposition it meets. Is this the phenomenon we want to see? I therefore support the original motion proposed by Ms Emily LAU, and the amendments proposed by Mr Frederick FUNG and Mr Gary FAN. Thank you, President.
MISS ALICE MAK (in Cantonese): President, development is necessary in Hong Kong. However, we have to find out clearly for whom, why and how each development plan is made.
Concerning the NENT NDAs project, I agree that through development, we can build more flats to address the housing difficulties faced by Hong Kong residents. In this connection, how can it be assured that the residential development in the NDAs will truly help Hong Kong residents? The arrangement of "Hong Kong property for Hong Kong residents" and the adjustment of the ratio of public housing to private housing mentioned by the Secretary earlier may be helpful. Therefore, I hope the Secretary will announce the details after the adjustment as soon as possible to let the public understand the case and to remove their worries.
Land is necessary for development. The problem now is that private land accounts for a higher proportion than Government land in the NDAs, thus rendering the approach adopted in land resumption to take on greater significance and obliging it to be fair, transparent and lawful.
746 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
On the issue of compensation, the authorities need to provide reasonable compensation to the landowners, and they should not overlook the compensation for land users, including the residents of squatter huts with temporary licences. We hope that the Secretary will engage in sufficient communication with stakeholders and avoid creating division among residents.
President, I would like to talk more about this. I notice from the speeches of other colleagues the claim of landowners that the Government has not consulted them on the approach to be adopted in land resumption, that is, whether the Public-Private Partnership approach or the Conventional New Town Development Approach will be used. Landowners or leaseholders also pointed out that the Government had not consulted them on the relevant planning in the past few years. In view of this, I think the Secretary should be especially careful with the work in this respect. He should maintain close communication with all stakeholders, consider and accept their views, and avoid causing more intense conflicts.
Lastly, I will come to the most important point, that is, how to carry out the development. The Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions (FTU) always thinks that ……
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Miss MAK, do you have any electronic device around you? If yes, please move it away from you.
MISS ALICE MAK (in Cantonese): The FTU always thinks that both economic development and land development should be employment-based. We do not wish to see the Government continue using the model-town planning approach, imposing the shopping mall culture in Tin Shui Wai, Tung Chung and Tsueng Kwan O on the NDAs. Particularly, the agricultural development on the existing sites and the historic and cultural sites worthy of conservation should not be marginalized.
In fact, there is a growing demand for organic agricultural products in Hong Kong, and Hong Kong people's interest in farming is increasing. For sites where agricultural produce is yielded, the authorities may develop the sites into produce markets. Some well-developed market towns in Hong Kong, such as LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 747 the Shek Wu Hui in Sheung Shui and the Luen Wo Hui in Fan Ling, also began as produce markets and gradually developed into market towns offering a wide range of products and goods. These market towns provide convenient shopping for residents, and in the course of such development, employment opportunities in the same district can be provided for residents. This is a win-win situation.
For these reasons, we hope that the planning of the NDAs will set aside sites for the establishment of produce markets. It can be produce markets, artsmarts or general bazaars, for the most important point is that the rent is cheap and Hong Kong people may start small businesses. The arrangement will not only enable stall-holders to make money, but also provide employment opportunities to the public. Residents may buy goods at cheaper prices, for stall-holders do not need to fork out their profits for the rental which will go into the pockets of estate developers and owners of shopping malls.
Finally, I hope that the Government will combine the concerns for agriculture, history and culture, conservation and employment with the concern for addressing housing difficulties, with a view to achieving sustainable development and humanization in the planning of the NDAs.
President, I so submit.
MR FRANKIE YICK (in Cantonese): President, first, I declare that I am a Director of The Wharf (Holdings) Limited.
As early as the 1960s, in order to cope with the needs of development and the growth in the population of Hong Kong, the authorities began to plan for the development of new land and new towns. With regard to such new towns as Tsuen Wan and Sha Tin to the third-generation new towns in the 1990s, such as Tung Chung, Tin Shui Wai and Tseung Kwan O, although there are many praise-worthy aspects, quite a number of views also pointed out that the infrastructure projects in new towns often lagged behind the pace of development. Therefore, when developing the NENT in the future, the complementary infrastructure must be put in place first, or they should at least be developed simultaneously, so as to avoid giving members of the public moving into the area the impression of being "sold down the river" and prevent the emergence of other social problems.
748 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
A case in point is Tin Shui Wai, where there has been a lack of appropriate industrial and commercial development, thus resulting in an inadequate number of job opportunities. Therefore, the great majority of residents living in Tin Shui Wai have to go to Hong Kong Island or Kowloon for work, thus wasting their time and effort and imposing an onerous burden of transport expenses on them. Moreover, since residents have to cross districts to work, not only is a heavier burden imposed on the road network, family members also have less time to get together, so they are likely to feel estranged from one another and family problems are likely to arise. Consequently, Tin Shui Wai was once called "the city of sadness".
Now, the northeastern part of the New Territories, which the Administration proposes to develop, is also located on the periphery and is remote from the urban area, just like Tin Shui Wai. It is estimated that the population will increase by at least 150 000 people after the development has been completed. No matter how well-developed the facilities in new towns are, some of the residents will still have to cross districts to work or take part in other social activities. Therefore, a well-developed and diversified public transport system is indispensable. The present development project for NENT, which covers the three NDAs of Kwu Tung, North Fan Ling and Ping Che/Ta Kwu Ling, will eventually enable the Northern Link ― a conceptual project to connect the East Rail with the West Rail and to the Lok Ma Chau Spur Line Control Point, as mentioned in the Railway Development Strategy 2000 presented by the Government in May 2000 ― to see the light of the day again. However, an imperfection is that, the Northern Link being planned currently will only have railway stations at Kwu Tung and Kam Sheung Road, which are areas with greater development potential, whereas Fan Ling North and Ping Che/Ta Kwu Ling, which are the remotest, will only have road transport connections. It will have to wait until the populations in these areas have reached the targets before railway extensions will be considered. This being so, the transport needs of close to 70 000 residents in these areas will be neglected.
Should we decide to extend the railways to such NDAs as Fan Ling North and Ping Che/Ta Kwu Ling right now, or should we wait until the populations in the NDAs have reached specific numbers before mass transit systems are developed? This question is perhaps just like the chicken and egg argument and it is difficult to say for sure. However, what is certain is that without a convenient public transport system, members of the public will certainly have LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 749 little incentive in moving into these districts, so eventually, these new towns would become isolated islands.
In addition, the relationship between Hong Kong and the Mainland is getting ever closer and in the future, cross-boundary traffic flow will increase continually. As early as 2008, the Shenzhen and Hong Kong Governments already decided to put in place another Boundary Control Point at Liantang/Heung Yuen Wai, with completion scheduled for six years later, that is, it can be commissioned in 2018. According to estimates, by 2030, the Liantang/Heung Yuen Wai Boundary Control Point will be used by about 20 600 vehicle trips and 30 700 person trips daily.
The Liantang/Heung Yuen Wai Boundary Control Point is precisely located in the NENT, close to the Ping Che/Ta Kwu Ling NDA. It is only separated from Shenzhen by a river, so access to the Mainland is very easy and people who have to travel frequently to the Mainland may be attracted to move there. In other words, the transport network of the Ping Che/Ta Kwu Ling NDA will have to meet the needs of residents in the area for connection with the urban area in their daily life as well as the need for cross-boundary transport, so the capacity of the roads is a cause for concern.
Although the Government said last Monday that a dual-lane and dual-carriageway road would be built to connect the Liantang/Heung Yuen Wai Boundary Control Point to the Fan Ling Highway to shorten the travel time and divert traffic, there are still many variables in the NENT NDAs project. It is possible that the population capacity of the area will be adjusted upwards. I am worried that the Administration's failing in planning will cause mischief again, thus resulting in infrastructure development lagging behind other kinds of development and as a result, after the completion of the control points and NDAs, the road network may not be able to cope with the actual transport needs. For this reason, I ask the Government to ensure that the transport design for the area must be reviewed after the green light has been given to the NDAs project to ensure that the large volume of traffic can be accommodated in the future.
Since the NENT Development will have implications on the demography and economic development in the future, the Liberal Party hopes that when the Administration carries out planning on the NENT NDAs, it would do so carefully. We must understand that good infrastructure, a well-developed 750 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 transport network and complementary facilities are essential to the successful development of new towns. I so submit.
MR WONG YUK-MAN (in Cantonese): President, ever since the planning of NENT was exposed to be a ceding of land and betrayal of Hong Kong, there has been a general uproar among the public. Officials under the accountability system, led by LEUNG Chun-ying, had difficulty explaining away their lies. Even though they argued that such claims as "visa-free Individual Visit Scheme", "city for rich doubly non-permanent residents" and the "backyard of Shenzhen" are sheer fabrications and tried to increase the proportion of public housing to please Hong Kong people, they have difficulty in allaying public concern. The idea of a special zone near the boundary was like something discarded by a philanderer and the relevant planning now looks like child's play. The People Power solemnly demands the withdrawal of the plan. The Government must give an honest account of the present situation in respect of the land reserve and consult all members of the public on Hong Kong's overall planning.
Since 1 July 2003, the Communist Party of China (CPC), in order to strengthen its control over Hong Kong and silence dissent, has carried out purges in the mass media, political parties and civil groups and infiltrated them. At the same time, through the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong SAR, it has stepped up its intervention in Hong Kong affairs. Even so, the CPC still wants to go further and in the guise of integration, wants to destroy Hong Kong's economic autonomy and impose colonial rule. To open up the Frontier Closed Area, thus blurring the boundary and merging Hong Kong with Shenzhen, is precisely designed to destroy the "one country, two systems" arrangement in geographical terms step by step, so as to achieve economic integration through spatial integration, before proceeding to the integration of political systems stealthily. This is designed none other than to make Hong Kong degenerate into another Chinese city.
In fact, the design to use Shenzhen to annex Hong Kong was hatched long ago. As early as November 2007, in the Shenzhen City Master Plan (2007-2020), a plan formulated by the Mainland to merge Shenzhen and Hong Kong, the two cities would merge into one by 2020 and this plan was approved by the former Ministry of Construction.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 751
In 2008, the CPC proposed the Framework for Development and Reform Planning for Pearl River Delta Region (2008-2020) in an attempt to fashion the Pearl River Delta Region into a livable region that is only suitable for the rich and powerful to live in, and it is called the "Action Plan for the Bay Area of the Pearl River Estuary". Hong Kong was assigned such roles as "the City Hallways" and "Cultural Village". The Development Bureau headed by Carrie LAM at that time put Hong Kong under the regional planning of the Mainland without consulting the public, thus depriving Hong Kong people of their due right of participation. Even Paul CHAN was perhaps kept in the dark.
In line with the plan devised by the CPC, Kwu Tung North, Fan Ling North and Ping Che will be forged as the "Shenzhen-Hong Kong belt" to give Shenzhen an opportunity to annex Hong Kong. In May last year, Mr Albert CHAN and I cast an opposing vote in the motion debate on "Promoting regional economic integration between Guangdong and Hong Kong" moved by Mr Andrew LEUNG, so it can be seen that we have foresight. The great majority of friends in the pro-democracy camp voted in favour of it.
So far, the implementation of the Individual Visit Scheme has impacted on property prices, the prices of goods and the healthcare system in Hong Kong seriously. Not only has the Government not conducted any review in earnest, it is even going to surrender the land in Hong Kong for the sake of economic benefits, thus sacrificing a dozen existing villages and the natural environment in the area.
The Government said that it had carried out consultation for a number of years but in fact, when Stage Three consultation on the planning for NENT was carried out in late June this year, the affected villagers were still kept in the dark and almost all of the affected villages are inhabited by non-indigenous villagers, so it can be seen that the Government likes to bully nice people and is afraid of those who are fierce.
Moreover, the Government even manipulated mainstream public opinion by claiming that the planning was designed to provide more land to meet the demand for housing, so as to overwhelm the villagers with pressure. When interviewed, some villagers said that so long as they had voiced their views on the planning in their submissions, even though they had rejected compensation or rehousing in public housing in their views, they were still considered to have 752 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 expressed support for it. It can be seen that the Administration does not respect the rights of residents in any way. At present, villagers have only given such general responses as in-situ rehousing and rehousing in public housing, but the social networks among individuals and family members and in society would all disintegrate as soon as the planning is implemented.
This so-called "special zone within the SAR" involves such territory-wide issues as virtually setting the boundary back from the existing one, the influx of non-Hong Kong residents, the forced integration of Guangdong and Hong Kong and the use of huge sums of public funds on compensation for land resumption. The consultation forum organized by the Government stealthily was jam-packed with members of the public, but it is not true that there were many people who were not the subjects of consultation, as an Executive Council member, Bernard CHAN, put it.
For many days in a row, the Chief Secretary for Administration, Carrie LAM, denied that the NENT NDAs project is actually an integration of Shenzhen and Hong Kong and she even lambasted such a claim as sheer fabrication. However, reviewing the papers, including the paper on Stage Three consultation, one may note that from the beginning, the key note of the project on the NENT NDAs is to enable the NDAs to connect with the control points leading to the Mainland, for example, there will be complementary transport facilities at Kwu Tung North that connect with the Lok Ma Chau Control Point, whereas Fan Ling and Sheung Shui are connected to the Lo Wu and Man Kam To Control Points and Ping Che/Ta Kwu Ling will be connected to the new Boundary Control Point at Liantang/Heung Yuen Wai. The consultation paper states clearly that this is the "integration of Shenzhen and Hong Kong". All the relevant development initiatives mentioned therein are designed to promote cross-boundary economic activities and the integration of Guangdong and Hong Kong.
When it comes to being shameless, no one could outdo LEUNG Chun-ying. The idea of establishing development areas at the boundary to allow Mainland people to enter Hong Kong visa free and provide services in shopping, business, investment, education, medical consultation and other Hong Kong-style services is stated very clearly in two articles entitled "Promoting sustainable economic development through development areas at the boundary" and "Dual-track development to facilitate internal interaction and perform functions ".
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 753
When LEUNG Chun-ying was interviewed by the Southern Metropolis Daily in 2010, he said that the Frontier Closed Area would be opened up to allow Mainland people to enter visa free and the three NDAs in NENT would be combined with the special area at the boundary, so that they would become an adjunct that serves complementary commercial, residential and recreational functions in support of the special zone at the boundary. All these were also stated very clearly but now, he said that they were sheer fabrications. In fact, he has simply produced his political platform and reiterated his intention to implement it.
Hong Kong people's awareness of defending their homeland is getting ever stronger. In the Question and Answer Session in the Legislative Council, LEUNG Chun-ying tarnished the campaign to defend Hong Kong as "close the door and isolate ourselves from the rest of the world" and rebuked that the accusations against him were absurd (The buzzer sounded) …… defending himself by saying that the accusations by the public were exaggerations ……
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WONG, your speaking time is up.
MR WONG YUK-MAN (in Cantonese): …… it does not matter. Even though he painted other people black, this cannot vindicate himself and heaven will see ……
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WONG, please stop speaking.
MR WONG YUK-MAN (in Cantonese): …… that Hong Kong has to accept the reign of a Hong Kong communist who contradicts himself and is schizophrenic ……
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WONG, please stop talking immediately. Members please observe the Rules of Procedure.
754 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
MR MICHAEL TIEN (in Cantonese): President, the NENT Development has triggered heated discussions in society on development and land supply. I believe the comments expressed so far have been too politicized. Moreover, the discussions involve a host of complicated issues, such as the integration of two places, development, conservation, housing supply, land reserve and the concessionary rights of male indigenous villagers. We believe the crux of the matter lies in whether or not the development of NENT is in public interest and whether or not there is an urgent need for development.
According to the figures released by the Administration, at present, there are only about 391 hectares of land for residential development in Hong Kong. Moreover, the area of each piece of land is small and the sites are scattered. Therefore, there is an urgent need to carry out large-scale development, so as to increase land supply and meet the need of the people for public and private housing. For this reason, I believe that if this development project is now withdrawn and consultation is carried out anew, and afterwards, planning is carried out anew before carrying out development, this would not be in line with public expectation and interests and would only make the public have less and less confidence in the Government and Hong Kong's future. As Mrs Regina IP said just now, at present, in all initiatives, Hong Kong is always a few beats slower than our neighbouring cities. On top of this pace that is a few beats slower, if we go even further by talking about withdrawing the project, what else can Hong Kong do in the future?
Therefore, regarding the original motion moved by Ms Emily LAU and the amendments proposed by Mr Frederick FUNG and Mr Gary FAN, which all demand that the whole development plan be withdrawn, I absolutely oppose them. As regards Miss CHAN Yuen-han's amendment, which proposes that the scope of consultation be extended to give various stakeholders sufficient scope to express their views, I am concerned that this proposal may also cause further delays to this project, so it is not at all different from the effect of the original motion. For this reason, I also have reservation about it.
I believe that the Administration should forge a consensus on the development project in society and under the principle of supporting development, consider in depth various details in relation to planning, conservation and compensation, so as to take into consideration the concerns and interests of various stakeholders. I believe that if the mainstream opinion in LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 755 society agrees that the development of new towns is in line with our overall interests and is an urgent matter, various stakeholders should set aside their bias and make the long-term development of society their ultimate goal.
Now, I wish to talk about the definition of "the need for development". Some people expressed the desire to adjust the direction of the project by cancelling the development of an area for "Special Industry", and focusing on the development of medium-scale and small-scale residential properties, and making meeting the housing needs of Hong Kong people as the sole target. However, I believe that to define "the need for development" solely as the supply of housing is too narrow in scope. The "need for development" should also include two other elements.
First, to promote the diversification of industries as quickly as possible, in particular, to promote the development of high value-added industries, so as to provide diversified job opportunities in close proximity to the homes of local young people, especially the creative ones, regardless of their academic performance. In this way, a ladder of upward mobility can be put in place for our next generation. If these complementary measures are overlooked, the new towns would only turn into another Tin Shui Wai or Tung Chung.
Second, there is a strong demand for quality agricultural and fisheries products in the local market. I believe the existing farmlands in the NENT should be used to develop high value-added agricultural and fisheries industries, and through the optimal use of precious natural resources, which are combined with new agricultural techniques, a reasonable balance can be struck between protection of the ecology and sustainable development. As regards planning, I believe the Government has to regain the initiative, so that the overall planning of new towns can tie in with Hong Kong's overall development. Land resources in Hong Kong are very precious, so the Government's development projects must ensure the optimal use of land resources.
Mr CHAN Hak-kan proposed in his amendment that the three development areas be developed at the same pace. Although this is well-intentioned, I believe there will be some difficulty in actual implementation. Having regard to the fact that the future Kwu Tung development area is located along a railway line and it is expected that the proportion of public housing there would be higher than the 756 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 norm, I propose that the plans for these three development areas should be examined in a holistic manner. Only by doing so can land be put to the optimal use. As regards Mr CHAN's proposal on designating a certain proportion of private residential land for "Hong Kong property for Hong Kong residents", I believe the authorities should also take one step further by considering the introduction of clauses on first-time home buyers in order to help the group of people with the greatest need of home ownership in a targeted manner, and prevent the newly completed residential units there from degenerating into a paradise for speculators. Therefore, I have reservations about some parts of Mr CHAN Hak-kan's amendment, so I will abstain on it. On the development approach, I propose that the Government adopt the conventional development approach, in which the Government is responsible for granting land, so as to ensure that the whole development can cater to the needs of various stakeholders.
Mr Abraham SHEK's amendment proposes that the long-standing mode of allowing landowners' participation in development, that is, Public-Private Partnership (PPP), be adopted, but I do not agree entirely with this. I personally believe that if a piece of land is intended for public use, for example, for the construction of public housing or public facilities, the conventional development approach involving the compulsory resumption of land should be adopted. If a piece of land is used for private development, between the PPP approach and land resumption by the Government, the development approach taking less time should be chosen, so as to increase the supply of residential units and meet public demand as soon as possible. For this reason, I will abstain on Mr Abraham SHEK's amendment.
As regards Mr James TIEN's amendment, since it does not involve the withdrawal of the proposal and its overall goal is to use well-developed infrastructure for the development of self-contained new towns, so his position is similar to mine and I will give it my support. Thank you.
MR CHEUNG KWOK-CHE (in Cantonese): President, in June this year, Prof LUI Tai-lok of the University of Hong Kong published an article entitled "What kind of city does Hong Kong want to become". Here, I recommend it to the Chief Executive and Secretary Carrie LAM, who was formerly the Secretary for Development, as well as to the incumbent, Secretary Paul CHAN.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 757
In this article, Prof LUI Tai-lok pointed out that the Government's attitude and approach in responding to social issues have fallen behind the times. He said, "…… today, we can still see that the thinking of the leadership in the Government has not really recognized the changes that Hong Kong society has gone through and those it is going to face. For example, when Carrie LAM said that in developing new towns in the future, the number of people living in public housing would be limited to less than 50%, so as to avoid the community problems found in the last generation of new towns. Obviously, the underlying thinking when she formulated her policy was still founded on the belief that in the future, the development of various communities is still determined by internal factors (such as population growth and the demography of a community). Therefore, it is only necessary to plan the composition of a certain community appropriately to deal with the problems."
Prof LUI pointed out, "She" ― Chief Secretary Carrie LAM ― "has perhaps never noticed that since 2003, the regional reorganization of the China-Hong Kong region as we call it is no longer an issue of how Hong Kong makes use of the resources of its surrounding areas but a case of Hong Kong having entered the whole China market. Moreover, the influence is mutual. Such integration directly affects the spatial arrangement in Hong Kong (for example, the New Territories has become the activity area of Mainland visitors on day trips). In the future, it may not necessarily be local demographic changes that determine the development of various districts and communities.". These comments were made by Prof LUI Tai-lok.
President, given the analysis and interpretation made by Prof LUI Tai-lok, it can be said that the public's description of the NENT project as LEUNG Chun-ying ceding the land in betrayal of Hong Kong has hit the nail on the head. We have never been convinced that the SAR Government, in carrying out the NENT project, is doing so for the sake of the general public. In the future, the so-called "development" of the NENT ultimately will not benefit Hong Kong people but is geared towards the Mainland market. The final link in the chain of interests is, of course, the "property crocodiles" in Hong Kong, who will be able to continue making handsome profits. It can be expected that Hong Kong will continue to maintain the status of being the freest economy and the most competitive city in the world.
President, it is said that "God made villages and man made cities". In fact, this means that when God created villages, He laid emphasis on the 758 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 harmonious co-existence of man and nature, but in creating cities, human beings, being conceited, impose their will on cities and transform them at will. It is true that cities have their good sides, but is this not also true of villages? The problem is that human beings are conceited and believe that they can handle everything with their own wisdom and think that villages are a thing of the past that can be disdained.
Such conceit is fatal and has given cities innumerable troubles and problems, one of them being the loss of greenery in the urban areas and the loss of natural balance, thus leading to ecological crises in the urban areas. Since the 1970s or 1980s, the Government has already given up on local agriculture and phased out the animal farming industry on the ground of pollution, and condoned the existence of scrap yards and container storage yards. Property developers used various tactics to remove residents and hoard land. Last week, the press reported that a villager in her eighties in Ho Sheung Heung, Sheung Shui, accused the Chairman of the Rural Committee of fly-tipping and vandalism on her farmland as well as illegal occupation of land. This is only the latest case that reveals the tip of the iceberg.
President, urban and rural areas have their respective natural features, and there can be no judgment of good or bad. The aim of urban development is to make life better but if the focus is only on juicing benefits at the expense of harmony between man and nature, and if we are only preoccupied with pursuing the so-called benefits of urbanization, cities would lose their inherent richness and balance.
Fifteen years after the reunification, the people of Hong Kong have already freed themselves from the myth that "the China-Hong Kong integration is the best". The bold vision of the NENT development proposed by the Government amounts only to a heap of figures and specious descriptions. The question of how the quality of life of residents in certain districts can be enhanced has never been clearly addressed.
Earlier on, I passed by Queen's Road East in Wan Chai and found that in the vicinity of the Hopewell Centre, a clutter of high-risers, commercial buildings and fashionable joints have sprung up, so the scene looked very prosperous. However, the Government has already forgotten to what places the residents of the old buildings and tenants of the cubicles over there have been removed. I LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 759 can tell the Government that most of them have become tenants of "sub-divided units" and "sub-divided units" in industrial buildings, an urban crisis that the Government is busy trying to defuse.
Past mistakes can serve as a warning for the future. If the Government does not change its way of thinking by planning new development areas that are oriented towards local economic activities, these social bombs would only proliferate and the political bombs for the Government would also only increase all the time, making it impossible to improve the public's living in any way. From the issue of children whose parents are non-Hong Kong residents to that of "liberating Sheung Shui station", we have been prompted to consider for whom we are bringing about the integration.
At present, the some 50 000 residential units in the so-called NENT Development have been exposed as not being built to resolve the housing problem of the grassroots but a tool for property developers to make money out of Mainland residents. Hence strong reactions have been aroused from all members of the Hong Kong public. In the past month, divisions among social groups have emerged. If the Government continues with its steamrolling, it would only cause even greater social conflicts. For this reason, I support the motion moved by Ms Emily LAU.
With these remarks, I support the motion.
MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): President, the original motion moved by Ms Emily LAU today seeks to request the Government to withdraw the planning proposal for the NENT and carry out a consultation. However, just now, I heard many Honourable colleagues direct two very strong criticisms at her demand of "withdrawal and consultation". The first is that Ms Emily LAU has capitalized on the growing concern in society about this issue, trying to take advantage of this matter. I think such a criticism is pointless. If one can only express views identical to those of the Government in this legislature and the slightest disagreement is regarded as taking advantage of something, what kind of legislature is this legislature? A legislature with just one voice can no longer be considered a legislature. What other duty is required of us? Therefore, I think such a criticism is most shameless and shows a total lack of respect for the legislature because the legislature is precisely a venue for us to voice different 760 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 opinions. Are not people who accuse others of taking advantage of an issue even better at it themselves? May I ask what the point is in saying so? Why can they not be pragmatic and voice their views on other people's views instead of criticizing others with this approach of stigmatization? How shameless! I am most frustrated about this.
The second criticism directed at Ms Emily LAU is that the consultation has been carried out for more than a decade, so why should it be withdrawn today and a fresh consultation be carried out anew now? It is said that this is tantamount to pulling down everything and starting anew, causing a waste of time and effort and impeding development. President, it is true that the consultation has been conducted for over a decade but the problem is that there was a host of problems with the process. If not, I believe Ms Emily LAU would not have rashly dared demand its withdrawal either. In fact, many problems have indeed arisen in the course of consultation, for example, in Stage One consultation, only the heads of villages or indigenous residents were approached, whereas it was not until July 2012, that is, a few months ago, that non-indigenous residents learnt about this matter. A consultation exercise on such major changes to their homes, villages or communities only lasted for a few months. Although the Secretary said that if this is not enough, the period can be extended by one month, would this be adequate? Other people were given a consultation period of more than a decade but for these non-indigenous villagers, the period only lasted a few months, so do Members think that this is fair and just?
Apart from the unfair treatment that some residents have been subjected to, the Government has actually made many changes in the course of the entire consultation. For example, under the earliest proposal, it was originally proposed that 70 000 residential units be built in the area, including 21 000 public housing units and 17 000 Home Ownership Scheme (HOS) units, to accommodate a population of 180 000. However, by 2008, after Stage One consultation, since HOS construction had been halted, coupled with many criticisms of "screen-like buildings" at that time, the Government reduced the production of public and private residential units drastically. At Stage Three, the Government proposed yet again that the flat production be increased from 45 000 units to 53 000 units now but even so, this number is still a far cry from the original plan of building 70 000 units. It can thus be seen that even the Government itself is changing its mind all the time. This being so, why can it not carry out a consultation on these changes anew? LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 761
Just now, many Honourable colleagues kept saying that originally, the Government intended to adopt the conventional Public-Private Partnership approach in carrying out development but now, it wanted to adopt the new town approach when carrying out the development. However, they also admitted that they did not know what they actually were and that they did not quite understand the relevant concepts. Since they do not really have any idea, how can they express support for it? Some Honourable colleagues also pointed out that they hoped a middle-of-the-road approach between these approaches could be adopted, but what exactly is this middle-of-the-road approach? They do not have any clue either, and I believe they are also not sure if the Government would accept it. Given that they do not know anything, why do they think that there are no problems and that it can go ahead as planned? In that case, what will actually be implemented? I am really baffled. Moreover, after the recent residents' meetings, the Secretary also stated a number of times that there was room for change in the flat production for public housing, and the Chief Secretary for Administration also said that there was still room for improvement in many aspects, so what kind of changes would actually be made? Would we be informed of the details? All this is also an unknown. Although many details remain unknown, Members still think that the project can go ahead all the same, so this is really baffling. It turns out that such a major development project can still go ahead even though everything is known.
Just now, Dr LAM Tai-fai explained very clearly that we would spend over $100 billion to develop this new town, but only 53 000 units would be built, so he queried if this number was not a bit on the low side. Will we get our money's worth? Although the Secretary and the Chief Secretary for Administration said that there was room for change, how will it be like after the changes have been made and how can we get our money's worth out of this investment of over $100 billion? It seems we are all in the dark. Therefore, given all of these unknowns, what is Ms Emily LAU's intention in demanding that consultation be carried out anew? It is not intended to pull down everything, rather, it is hoped that the Government would carry out planning anew based on the latest outcomes of consultation and finalize an ultimate proposal having regard to the latest developments. This is not to pull down everything and start anew, rather, this is a quest for an ultimate proposal, an ultimate proposal that is still lacking now.
Moreover, a very serious problem was raised by many Honourable colleagues just now, namely, that of the integration between Shenzhen and Hong 762 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
Kong. How actually should this problem be pre-empted, so as to defend the principles of "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" and "a high degree of autonomy"? This is another political problem rooted even more deeply. However, the authorities only responded with two words, that is, "sheer fabrication". Had it really been as simple as that, there would not have been so much discussion in society. Not only is it necessary for the authorities to make clarifications regarding such discussions, they must also inspire confidence among the public and make us believe that it is really sheer fabrication, rather than simply responding with these two words without giving any in-depth analysis or explanation. Such an approach only amounts to autocratic political conduct and a lack of respect for public opinion. Moreover, such important issues as compensation and rehousing have not yet been sorted out clearly before the decision to implement the project is made, (The buzzer sounded) …… so this is really unfair.
DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, the development of NENT covers hundreds of hectares and involves thousands of residents whose homes will be affected. Some of the villages we are talking about will be demolished and some people who farm or engage in other activities on the land may be forced to switch to other jobs and they will be uprooted from their land.
Coming back to this project, it is right to say that it has been discussed for more than a decade. In fact, the authorities have in their hands data that are sufficient and in their favour. In the year 2007, there was a planning study on the year 2030. According to population projections made, by the year 2030, the population of Hong Kong would have increased by 1.4 million to reach 8.4 million. So more land is needed to provide new homes for the additional population. But at the end of July this year, the Census and Statistics Department released the latest population projection figures and it turned out that in 2030, our population would have only increased by 1.1 million instead of 1.4 million. And if we are talking about the population increasing to 8.4 million, it would be in the year 2041 that it will become a reality.
President, we can see that this planning study is outdated. It transpires that the study has dated forward the population figures of 8.4 million by 11 years. In other words, this proposal can be put on the shelf for 11 more years. And so why the urgency? If the prime concern is that we have not enough land now and LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 763 as our population grows, more land is required to build more homes, then the computations are all wrong. I am not the person who says that the computations are incorrect. It is the government department which says that they are wrong. The Census and Statistics Department apologized and said that the projections made were actually advanced by 11 years. If this is the case, what grounds does the Government have to say that there will be no more room for negotiation after the conclusion of the third round of consultation and so the bulldozers have to start rolling right away? I just fail to see any reasons for that.
Second, with respect to land supply, the development of these three areas with a total area of some 700 hectares is actually about using 167 hectares of land for residential development. Many Honourable colleagues have cited that figure, but it turns out that the amount of vacant land in the hands of the Government now which can be used for residential development is as many as 2 100 hectares. The Government wants to develop these three areas in order to open up some 100 hectares of land for residential development, but actually there are still some 2 000 hectares of land in its hands. Of course, the Government is again playing the numbers game, saying that there are slopes and roads and the sewagers have to be desilted, and so on. It turns out that a large part of this some 1 000 hectares of land is set aside for village-type development. Then it suddenly dawns on us that the so-called village development is reserved for the construction of those small houses. But the Government says that the land will not necessarily be used for building small houses. In some villages, the land will changed from use for village-type development into public housing construction. We can find such examples. If this is the case, then would the Government state clearly, how many of the some 1 000 hectares of land for village-type development will be used for public housing construction? Would the Government state it clearly, instead of trying to come up with some explanation only when pressed by people?
The Government says that the situation of land supply is tight. But the conservation group Green Sense finds out that a land lot near the NENT Development is leased by the Government at a nominal rent of $1,000 to the Hong Kong Golf Club. This golf course is located to the north of Kwu Tung. How large is the lot? It is more than 200 hectares inclusive of the deserted land close to it. President, this is equal to the area of Tsuen Wan. This Hong Kong Golf Club is a club for the rich. I have never been to it. Some Honourable colleagues may go there to play golf sometimes. But how many people is it 764 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 serving? Now there is this stretch of land with an area of 200 hectares serving the rich people. We are making a fuss of the three areas and we can only squeeze some 100 hectares for the construction of residential units. If the Government is really that urgent, why can it not use the land for this club for the rich people, instead of seeking to destroy villages, force people away and take away their means of living? Then what is built on the land? What overriding concern is there that the Government cannot wait?
I do not see any great urgency in terms of land supply. In terms of population, the Government has also made the wrong predictions. What the Government destroys is not only the living of the people but also the farmland in Hong Kong. Do we really have any agricultural policy? In farming, what are the self-sufficiency rates for the vegetables and fruits we eat? What is the case in other places? Is it true to say that we rely entirely on supplies from other places and we can afford to care nothing about our agricultural industry?
Mr YUEN Yick-tin has provided some figures to us. He says that our self-sufficiency rate for vegetables is only 2.3%. But in 1985, the rate was 30%. We used to be able to supply 30% of the vegetables we ate. As a matter of fact, the amount of vegetables grown in these three areas accounts for exactly one third of the local production. Now with one stroke the Government is bulldozing one third of our vegetable production. Our self-sufficiency rate has dropped to 2.3%. We can see that in Beijing, the self-sufficiency rate has increased from 20% to 30%. In Shanghai, the rate is as high as 50%. But there is absolutely no agricultural policy in Hong Kong and nothing is done at all to protect the agricultural industry, even when we have developed organic farming.
President, we must give serious thoughts to the issue and scrap the NENT project. I so submit.
MR NG LEUNG-SING (in Cantonese): President, Hong Kong is a tiny place with a great number of people and it is strewn with hills and mountains. But we do not have any large rolling plains. Ours is a city of 7 million people and we often sigh at the shortage of land. To keep our development sustainable, we have to fight practically for each inch of land.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 765
The area of developed land only takes up 23.9% of the total amount of land available in Hong Kong. Most of such developed land is found in the urban areas of Hong Kong and Kowloon. There should be vast opportunities for development in the New Territories. However, the development of commerce and industry here has long been concentrated on both sides of the Victoria Harbour to the neglect of the New Territories and outlying islands, causing huge crowds of commuters having to travel to places in Hong Kong, Kowloon and the New Territories during the peak hours. This waste of time and effort should be reviewed.
We might as well take a look at Paris and see what the city's experience in urban construction is like. Starting from the 1950s, the French Government introduced a blueprint for the development of Greater Paris. The development of the 20 districts in downtown Paris was restricted. Instead, new towns were built in the Greater Paris region, that is, on Île-de-France. Large numbers of people, universities and even skyscrapers were removed to the suburbs. After half a century, the population in downtown Paris has fallen from 3 million at its peak to 2 million. The suburbs have taken in close to 10 million people and a great number of commerce and industries, including those in finance and the headquarters of multinational companies. This approach is still ongoing.
For Hong Kong, given its present conditions, if a balance is to be struck between development and conservation, the only way is to use the resources generated by development to support conservation efforts and make them sustainable. A responsible government should bear the responsibility of promoting economic development, creating jobs and raising the people's quality of living. It is only when a government adopts such an approach that it will not be seen as engaging in any collusion with the business sector or selling off its land and betraying the interest of Hong Kong.
The NENT is only a stone's throw away from Shenzhen. There has been very rapid development in Shenzhen in recent years. A huge pool of talents from all over China has been attracted to come to Shenzhen, where the service industries are diversified and the municipality has capabilities in hi-tech research and development. Hong Kong can foster closer collaboration with Shenzhen and we can use our soft power to engage in partnership with Shenzhen for development. This can hopefully avert the present situation in which the 766 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 spectrum of our industries is narrow with a high proportion in the finance and real estate industries.
This vast stretch of land in the NENT can be used by Hong Kong for residential and commercial purposes. It can also be used to attract outstanding enterprises from Shenzhen or the Mainland to come to Hong Kong, where such enterprises can see bright prospects by leveraging on the common law system here and vast pool of management talents here.
The experience in Tin Shui Wai and Tung Chung has told us that when residential developments in remote areas are not supported by the provision of jobs in the locality, an imbalance and many kinds of social conflict will emerge. Moreover, transport and logistics costs are also high. Therefore, under this planning project, ideas should be advanced on the provision of more new jobs in the area.
In retrospect, at the beginning of the 1950s, places like Sham Shui Po, Wong Tai Sin and Kwun Tong were still rural areas. During the 1960s and 1970s, places like Tsuen Wan, Kwai Chung and Sha Tin were still villages. Had all of these places not been developed, Hong Kong would still remain a very backward town or fishing village.
President, it has been many years since this North East New Territories New Development Areas Planning and Engineering Study was proposed and it has undergone a three-stage public consultation, in addition to detailed technical assessments that have proved its technical feasibility. When all the relevant statutory procedures and funding application are completed, the works project is expected to commence in 2017 and the first batch of residents will move in by 2022. It can be said that we cannot afford to lose any time and we should start now. Since the project can offer great development potentials to Hong Kong, I support finalizing the planning at the soonest or else we might be sorry for it.
President, I so submit.
DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): President, on this topic of the NENT development project which has caused such a storm of controversies, my LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 767 impression is that the Government has all along been using one lie to cover up another.
In November 2008 when the subject of the NENT development project was brought up again for consultation, it was pointed out clearly in the Administration's papers that: "To capitalize on the strategic location, increasing cross-boundary activities and economic integration with the Mainland"; "Integration with the anticipated development around NDAs"; and "future development in Shenzhen". Paragraph 3.1.6 of the Stage 1 Public Engagement Report pointed out that "We agree that the trend of further social and economic integration between Hong Kong and Guangdong Province is inevitable. In the next stage of the Study, we will examine possible strategic uses to be provided within the NDAs to target for the needs of Shenzhen as well as the Pearl River Delta. We will also make reference to the development trends in the Pearl River Delta."
These are the stuff written by the Government. But both the Secretary and the Chief Secretary, Mrs Carrie LAM, have denied and said that people hold ulterior motives, putting the words into their mouths. The Government denies the stuff that it has written. What is this Government really doing? She said that the NENT development project is not meant to cope with the development of Shenzhen. She even cited many reasons, saying that the area is planned for residential development and it has 167 hectares of land to house 150 000 people. But it turns out that there are many lots of land in the Government's hands, pending designation of use.
Prof Edward YIU of the University of Hong Kong has made an analysis in which he said that there are 4 000 hectares of vacant land classified as Government land and the amount is almost the sum of all the residential land in the urban areas of Hong Kong. Now the land in Hong Kong used to build public rental housing (PRH) and Home Ownership Scheme (HOS) flats is only 1 600 hectares while the amount of land used to build private residential properties is only 2 500 hectares. Combined, they add up to 4 100 hectares. On the other hand, in the 9 800 hectares of land classified for residential use, more than 20%, that is, 2 200 hectares, are vacant. Just why?
The Government has about 2 200 hectares of vacant land that has remained unoccupied for many years. If the Government can really sense the urgency of 768 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 the people and if it can really see so many "sub-divided units" in both residential buildings and factory buildings, then it should ― well, I am sure the Secretary may really want to see a boom in the sub-divided units and that I think we all know why. As a matter of fact, people living in these sub-divided units are leading such a miserable life. For years the Government just turns a blind eye to their housing needs. But all of a sudden, it seems to have been struck by the twinges of conscience, leaving 2 200 hectares of land unused, and tries to dig out 167 hectares of land from the NENT development project.
Well, we might as well talk about our Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying. He always brags that he can do anything. We may recall that before he assuming office, he said that provided that land supply was increased by 1%, it would be enough to house 1 million people and we would not have to worry about a lot of things. In an article published on 14 March 2008 which was entitled to this effect: "A new and holistic approach to the mutual development of Hong Kong and Shenzhen", he made recommendations for Hong Kong-Shenzhen integration. He said that there should be concrete recommendations and we must go beyond mere concepts. According to him, this new approach to the mutual development of Hong Kong and Shenzhen should be positive and underlined by bold thinking. And systematic, specific and feasible policies should be devised, for ideas alone can never solve problems. As regards those newly coined phrases on the new approach to the mutual development of Hong Kong and Shenzhen which are found in the media, such as "integration", "urban integration", "twin cities" and "building the Hong Kong-Shenzhen metropolis", and so on, most of them remain at the conceptual level and there are no specific contents, he said.
Now he is the Chief Executive and so he wants to take these ideas forward and flesh them out with some specific contents. All these terms like "urban integration", "twin cities", "building the Hong Kong-Shenzhen metropolis" and "integration" are actually terms suggested by none other than LEUNG Chun-ying himself. But he denies that he has ever talked about them. The Government is most adept at moving the goal posts all the time, so to speak. When we say that his aim is to achieve integration of Hong Kong and Shenzhen, he denies it and says that it is for the provision of homes. When we say that homes are not enough, he will raise the idea of Hong Kong-Shenzhen integration again.
Mrs Regina IP is not in the Chamber now. After hearing her speech just now, I had a feeling that now that she has been made a rising star in politics, she LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 769 has forgotten all of her remarks made in the past. She has said that it is actually not an issue about housing, for the issue of Hong Kong-Shenzhen integration is also very important. She even cited a pile of examples. And earlier on, Mr NG Leung-sing and the whole bunch of pro-establishment Members have also said that. Now they are no longer talking about housing. I think on the next occasion, the Secretary had better try to align their line. If the Government is to talk about housing, then it should instruct everyone to talk about housing and stop talking about Hong Kong-Shenzhen integration. Or else we would think that it is like she has let the cat out of the bag and leaked some secret by letting people know that the aim of the project is for the integration of Hong Kong and Shenzhen.
How can people live in such places? According to the information available, apart from Kwu Tung North which may have trains going right to its doorsteps, there will not be any mass transit service for Ping Che and Fan Ling North. Do we know how much money people living in Tin Shui Wai, Yuen Long and Tuen Mun have to pay in transport? They pay some $20 for a ride to the city to go to work. In future, they may need to transfer to another train before reaching Ping Che and Fan Ling North. The Government is moving in more grassroots, that is, those who live in PRH and HOS flats, and they must pay the expensive fares. This causes continual serious division in society. This Government is really shameless. It is doing a big disservice to the people of Hong Kong. It has told many lies, saying that all this is just for the sake of building more homes for the people.
In fact, many hectares of land are left vacant and unused. He has not told the truth. Actually, the purpose of the NENT development project is to enable LEUNG Chun-ying to realize his ambition of blurring the boundaries of Hong Kong and Shenzhen. As we all know, this Government is to march with Shenzhen towards the year 2030. Comes 2030, the boundaries may no longer exist. All of his think-tanks have mentioned this. The Bauhinia Foundation Research Centre, and the One Country Two Systems Research Institute have said this. He should stop telling lies.
This NENT project is not meant for the people of Hong Kong. And so there is no reason for us to do something which will lead to the integration of Hong Kong with Shenzhen, something which will do further harm to the people of Hong Kong.
770 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
I support the original motion proposed by Ms Emily LAU (The buzzer sounded) …… Thank you, President.
MS CYD HO (in Cantonese): President, first of all, I wish to make a clarification. Some newspapers have quoted some remarks I made in some past meetings of the Panel on Development and deduced that I greatly support the NENT development project. I would like to make use of this opportunity to make a clarification and the put this on record.
I said on that day to this effect: I urge the Government that it must do the consultation work well because it is only on the foundation of good consultation work done that we can talk about co-operation between Hong Kong and China. If these lines and the words "it must do the consultation work well" are taken out of this context for deduction that I support the development of the NENT, then President, this is grossly unfair. In this connection, the incumbent Chief Secretary, Mrs Carrie LAM, has also not said that I support the development of NENT.
Irrespective of the collaboration between Hong Kong and China, or Hong Kong and Guangdong or Hong Kong and Shenzhen, I have always made my view very clear. During the 1980s when China first opened itself to the world, Hong Kong manufacturers went to the Mainland to run factories and do business, and such co-operation between Hong Kong and China at the economic level is faster and deeper than that between the governments of both places. And speaking of the families in the two places, they have been separated ever since 1949. The people of the two places do maintain ties and their right to family reunion is something we should have followed up a long time ago.
In the 1970s and 1980s, more than half a million single men migrated to Hong Kong and played a big part in making possible the economic takeoff of Hong Kong at that time. When they went to the Mainland to get married, more families living in separation were thus created. We should have done more to address this problem of co-operation between the two places at the social and family levels.
I have also pointed out many times that the basis for co-operation between the two places should be founded on the systems of law both places being LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 771 synchronized. The most obvious boundary between Hong Kong and Shenzhen is not the Shenzhen River but the different systems of law in both places. It is this lack of protection given to the people on either side of the boundary that has led to this separation.
I can cite an example in environmental protection. Currently, many cars run on the roads in both Hong Kong and China. In Hong Kong, we have restrictions on the sulphur content of petrol, but the sulphur content of petrol sold on the Mainland is much higher than that in Hong Kong. A higher sulphur content in mainland petrol is permitted in Mainland law. And on top of that, there are also many unlawful channels through which the legal restrictions can be circumvented. By resorting to bribery and corruption, car owners can use petrol of a higher sulphur content. So if the standards are not made uniform or if there are no filling stations along the border in which cars can change the petrol required, then it would not be possible for cars to run in both places. From this example we can see that if we are aiming at seamless co-operation between the two places, we have to make the standards uniform. Apart from legal provisions, there is also the question of justice and whether laws are equitably enforced. On issues like combatting corruption and independence of the judiciary, we hope that the Mainland can do something to catch up with the standards in Hong Kong and when this is done, there can be greater scope for co-operation.
Coming back to the issue of the NENT development project, I recall that back in 2009, the then Secretary for Development, that is, the present Chief Secretary Mrs Carrie LAM, talked to this Council about reducing the size of the Frontier Closed Area (FCA) significantly from some 2 400 hectares to only some 400 hectares. There are some historical reasons for this. We do not want to see another surge of large-scale illegal immigration, that is, having crowds crossing the boundary. This is true if we talk about the situation on land now and there is no illegal immigration on land and so the FCA can be significantly reduced.
However, in the past many people bought land in the FCA at the price for farmland. Now when it is aid that the FCA is to be reduced, there would be great potentials for development and the first thing that comes to these people's mind is to build luxury homes. I remember that on that day when Mrs Carrie 772 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
LAM led Members of this Council for a visit to the FCA, she told us that she hoped that after the removal of the frontier restrictions, efforts can be made to promote eco-tourism and build some recreational facilities there. In this way, the original lifestyle of the villagers could be preserved and there could also be some green income. At that time, we supported this policy direction and it was not true that we supported the large-scale development of posh homes. We do not want to see, other than Liantang, the erection of mega shopping malls with the size of the whole of Causeway Bay. Such was our position when we lent our support to opening up the FCA at that time.
As for the development of NENT, we should first take into consideration the interest of the Hong Kong people and their wish. Up to this moment, we have not seen issues like conservation, the interest of non-indigenous inhabitants or any agricultural and fishing policy mentioned or discussed in this Council. On the other hand, we have heard about the pilot development of properties and shopping malls. When this is added to reports carried in Mainland newspapers, information released by the Shenzhen Government and remarks made by the Chief Executive, we have an impression that this kind of highly commercialized development in NENT is actually meant to cope with the development in Shenzhen. Land and economic policies are made as window-dressing materials to betray Hong Kong's autonomy in planning and this small number of public housing units has replaced all the work we have done in planning and the interest of conservation.
The NENT is situated right between Hong Kong and Shenzhen. It is our backyard and for Shenzhen, it is best located for the expansion of the town centre. But I bid the SAR Government to remember that you should hold yourselves accountable to the people of Hong Kong. On development matters, you should make the wishes and aspirations of the Hong Kong people the basis of your work. So amidst this clamour of arguments, I ask the SAR Government to have regard for the wishes of Hong Kong people. Withdraw the project, consult the people, and then make new plans. Thank you, President.
MR CHAN CHI-CHUEN (in Cantonese): President, the original motion today urges the authorities to withdraw the planning and recommendations for the North East New Territories New Development Areas and conduct extensive LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 773 consultation. First of all, I wish to say that the People Power supports the motion.
Despite the fact that the consultation period has expired for almost a month, there are great controversies in society and they are even more heated than those found during the consultation period. This morning the Secretary said that the Bureau would continue to listen to views. But when Members from New Territories East and some civilian groups held a consultative forum in The Hong Kong Polytechnic University, the Bureau did not send any officers to attend the forum. The Bureau may say that the public engagement programme has been going on for many years. The programme started in 2008 and underwent three stages and it was extended for one month, that is, from August to September. Although the consultation period has lasted some three to four years, does it mean that a long consultation period will mean a success? Why is it that in this July there were still villagers and members of the public who came to us and said that they found out to their dismay that their village was to be sold to the Government? They only knew at that moment that their village was about to be destroyed. I think the Secretary should ponder seriously over the question of whether anything had gone wrong in the public engagement programme.
The last consultation forum was originally scheduled to be held in a community hall in Fan Ling in end August. It turned out that the hall could only accommodate 230 people. All seats were taken one hour before the forum started. I also went there on that day but I could not get in. In the end, the forum was cancelled because of the uproar of over 1 000 people who could not be admitted. It is thus evident that the Government was working covertly behind closed doors and in a most sloppy manner. Even if it refuses to admit that this is bogus consultation, I am sure it should admit that sincerity is lacking. We know that any village will have more than 200 residents and at a most critical point in time and for the last forum, why was such a small hall chosen?
The Government always gives people an impression that it is not sincere in consulting the public. As in the case of a consultation session for civilian groups to be held tomorrow on old age living allowance. As many as some 80 deputations will attend the session. They will have to take turns to come to the session tomorrow, and Secretary Matthew CHEUNG has planned to hold the meeting until midnight so that he can hear all the views from these some 80 deputations. But is he really sincere about it? He asks an old lady to come 774 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 here at some time after 11 pm so that she may speak for a couple of minutes. Even if he has heard all the views, on Friday he will apply for funding from the Finance Committee. Is this kind of consultation true or just a scam? It is only like people saying: "your views are noted but we will proceed with our plan."
When the Government saw that the consultation forum in end August was forced to be cancelled, it had to extend the consultation period by one month reluctantly. Then it noticed that there was strong opposition from the people, so it changed the venue of the consultation forum to be held in end September from a school to the lawn in Po Wan Road, Sheung Shui. On that day, that is, 22 September, the Development Bureau place full-page advertisements in the free newspapers. Members can find these advertisements for a look. They are good reference materials. But unfortunately, many people have missed them. There are many figures and much information. Now the SAR Government likes to use this tactic. It would place an advertisement, but it is on the last day before the consultation forum is to be held. And nothing is mentioned about the forum in the advertisement. That means, it does not want people to come. Besides, it is hoped that people who do not know the matter clearly will buy the position of the Government after reading the advertisement.
The first sentence of this advertisement reads, to this effect: Hong Kong people want a place to live and land is needed to build homes. We can see that the Government wants to simplify this development project for NENT as a project which solves the housing problem of Hong Kong people. During the election, we held a forum in the NENT. We asked the voters of New Territories East what the target group for North East New Territories New Development Areas was. May I ask, how many people believe that this planning project is really meant to solve or ease the housing problem faced by residents of the NENT? Or is it meant to help the big developers make more money? Or is it actually a plan to achieve the integration Hong Kong and Shenzhen, which many Honourable colleagues have said today, that is, to build a special zone within the SAR for those rich and powerful people from the Mainland, a backyard for them, a city for doubly non-permanent residents of Hong Kong or make it part of the emigration scheme for rich mainlanders? As for the proof, many Members have talked about it, including Mr WONG Yuk-man from our party, and so I would not repeat it. Secretary, of course, you will swear to deny such thing. But how many people in Hong Kong will believe it?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 775
The Government says, the people of Hong Kong want a place to live and land is needed to build homes. Is there really no land in Hong Kong? If this is the case, then with the greatest reluctance, those farmers and village people will have to be sacrificed for a good cause. Or we may even have to sacrifice conservation and set aside land for housing construction. The Government always says that all available land is developed. But if we look at this NENT development project, we know that less than half of the residential land will be used to build public housing units. So is this project really aimed at solving the housing problem of Hong Kong people? Many people would rather think that the development of the NENT is more for the Mainland than Hong Kong. In order to dispel these misgivings, the full-page advertisement from the Development Bureau points out that it will consider adding certain terms on "Hong Kong property for Hong Kong people" in some suitable lots for private residential development. But how large is the proportion of such land of "Hong Kong property for Hong Kong people"? If it is just 10% or 20%, then it is useless. But so far, the Bureau has not made any response.
The advertisement also says that when the New Development Areas are completed, they will create 52 000 jobs at the district level and help promote district economy. What is meant by district economy? Does it mean building shopping malls like Harbour City or those big shopping malls in Causeway Bay? What is meant by jobs at the district level? Will farmers be asked to sell gold and jewelry, electrical appliances or designer handbags? The advertisement also says that it is estimated that 1 700 households will be affected and the Government will spare no efforts in making the proper arrangements to ensure that eligible persons will be reasonably rehoused and compensated. Of this number, the 200 farmers, the Government will help them look for farmland so that they can engage in farming again. Many residents groups have told me that these figures are underestimates. Just how many people will believe that there will be proper arrangements and the Government will really help these farmers find land so that they can resume farming? All this is unknown.
In order to dispel all these worries about the NENT development project, there must be a full-scale public consultation on the plan. Efforts must be made to adhere to the principles of "one country, two systems" and "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" and refuse to allow Mainland interests to override the interests of Hong Kong citizens and residents. If the SAR Government still acts in blatant disregard of the interests of Hong Kong people and shirks its 776 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 responsibility, we have to make our solemn demand on the SAR Government: withdraw the planning proposal first and engage in extensive consultation again.
I so submit.
MR CHAN KIN-POR (in Cantonese): President, having been studied for more than a decade, the NENT NDAs project was listed by the Government in 2007 as one of the 10 major infrastructure projects. However, it was suddenly turned into a political incident when it proceeded to the Stage 3 consultation. Today, a Member has proposed a motion calling for the withdrawal of the NDAs project. Honestly, the project might have scope for revision, but given the present circumstances, it can definitely not be withdrawn.
Inadequate land supply is the most fundamental reason leading to the recent surge in property prices in Hong Kong to a level unaffordable to Hong Kong people. Information has revealed that only approximately 390 hectares of residential land is available. Concerning the remarks made by Dr KWOK Ka-ki just now about 2 000 hectares of land being available, I hope Secretary Paul CHAN can give us a brief explanation because the basis of our comments will be diametrically different if we often hear such messages and believe them to be true. I really wish to find out if the Government is being so ridiculous as to keep making irresponsible remarks despite having abundant land. As the Government's credibility is involved, I hope it can explain this further.
It is estimated by people outside the Government that, as 390 hectares of land is only sufficient to meet the demand in the next several years, it is a matter of great urgency to explore new land supply. The NDAs project, which will provide at least 150 hectares of residential land, will be a key source of land supply in the future. We can envisage that withdrawal of the NDAs project will amount to announcing that the Government's bid for more land supply has again been stalled, which means that land in Hong Kong will continue to be in short supply, so how will the market respond? I believe this situation will definitely be interpreted as another serious shortage of land supply and the unlikelihood of a fall in property prices. That will definitely attract the pouring of abundant capital into Hong Kong, thus pushing property prices to an unimaginable level.
Furthermore, the current number of people on the Waiting List in Hong Kong will soon reach the threshold of 200 000. The rising demand has made it LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 777 necessary for suitable land to be identified constantly. Under the NDAs project, more than 40% of the residential land will be used for the construction of public housing as a major public housing project in the future. I do not think I need to elaborate on its importance here.
In fact, calling on the Government to increase land supply to build sufficient public and private housing is already the consensus of all Hong Kong people. It is also the most fundamental way to stabilize property prices. Hence, in the interest of the community at large, what we should do is to help local residents strive for proper arrangements for removal and resumption of agricultural activities rather than withdrawing the NDAs project.
On the other hand, in the face of future economic challenges, the NDAs project must be launched. Given its focus on the finance industry in the past, Hong Kong economy will be caught in trouble on all fronts in the event of a financial crisis. Hence, industrial diversification is another priority task for Hong Kong. As the NENT is adjacent to various boundary crossings in Shenzhen, it can create many new economic activities and an estimated 50 000-odd jobs for Hong Kong. It has even been suggested that a new industrial zone be developed within the NDAs to interact with the existing industrial clusters in the Pearl River Delta for the development of industries in such realms as information technology, environmental protection technology, logistics, high value-added industries, scientific research, and so on. All these development and newly created jobs will play a key role in initiating improvements to the imbalance of Hong Kong's industrial structure.
As explained, the NDAs project cannot be withdrawn but should have scope for revision. In fact, both the supporters and opponents have various views on the plan. I think that the Government can continue to listen to the views expressed by people from all walks of life. Even though the progress might thus be slowed down, the matter must not be taken lightly.
In my personal opinion, some issues related to the NDAs project, including the growth in population, are still open to question. According to the Government's projection, approximately 54 000 flats can be built in the NDAs to accommodate 150 000 people. However, the entire project, which involves more than $100 billion in investment, can provide a total of 533 hectares of usable land. If it can accommodate only 150 000 people, the valuable land 778 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 resources are indeed not optimized. A number of studies consider it a more balanced approach to increase the number of people to be accommodated there from 150 000 to 250 000. Meanwhile, this can ensure that there is a sufficient population to support a comprehensive transport network.
On the other hand, according to the current planning, there is only 1 hectare of commercial land in the NDAs, accounting for a mere 0.1% of land in the entire project. On the contrary, there are 54 hectares of agricultural land in the NDAs, accounting for 6.9% of land in the entire project. According to the Government's plan, the NDAs should be able to generate adequate job opportunities, so that the local residents can work in nearby places. Nevertheless, it is really doubtful as to whether tens of thousands of jobs can be created on a mere 1 hectare of commercial land. Meanwhile, although only some 200 farmers are affected, the Government has allocated 54 hectares of land for agricultural purposes. The appropriateness of this ratio warrants examination. Furthermore, the Government's information shows that many places in the New Territories are suitable for resumption of agricultural activities, so the NDAs may not be the natural option. I believe the Government will carefully study the relevant issues.
In addition, I very much agree that adequate green areas and open space should be retained in the NDAs. According to the current planning, however, open space, green areas, landscaped areas, ecological parks, farmland, rivers, roads, and so on, have already taken up 55% of land in the NDAs. I dare not say whether or not this ratio is appropriate, but I think that careful evaluation can be made, particularly as the relevant proposal might have been placed on the table for quite a while. Furthermore, should some flexibility be retained in the development of new towns to cope with future needs? Certainly, Members should accept it if various sectors agree that the relevant planning should be retained.
I have always believed that nature conservation and urban development should not be mutually exclusive. With proper planning and supervision, development and conservation can be carried out concurrently.
I so submit.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 779
MR ALBERT HO (in Cantonese): President, the proposed development of new towns in the NENT has highlighted three conflicts. The first one is the conflict between land development, environmental conservation and home conservation. The second one is whether such a mode of development should be led by the public sector, property developers or a joint venture between the public and private sectors? The third one is the conflict between the collaboration between the Mainland and Hong Kong, and even so-called integration as promoted by some people, and Hong Kong's high degree of autonomy.
President, let me begin with the first one. In order to resolve the first conflict, it is very important that the public engagement in the planning process must be fair, open and impartial. Many choices involve public interests, and such public interests will certainly give rise to conflicts between a number of projects and categories. Why must the currently designated area be selected for development? This might give rise to many disputes. Without adequate public discussions, such disputes might simply go on and on. Today, some people will still ask us these questions which might not be easy to answer ― Why should the currently designated area be selected, so that so many people will lose their homes and natural environments be damaged? On the other hand, why does the golf club occupying more than 100 hectares of land not be selected for development but instead, people are made to lose their homes? Regarding these questions, the Government still owes the public an explanation. What is more, it owes the local residents an explanation. The Government must have adequate public mandate before it can convince the public how a decision will be made in public interest. Certainly, when such a large area is developed, adequate measures must be adopted to compensate the people affected.
The various policies and measures for the present development of land are inadequate. Among others, are there any rehabilitation schemes for agricultural land in the villages, as mentioned by a number of colleagues, to make the offer acceptable? Insofar as many squatter huts are concerned, has the rehousing policy been updated? Has consideration been given to relocating the entire village? Such updated compensation measures which can keep abreast of the times are crucial. But our existing measures are completely behind the times.
The second point is the conflict between the public and private sectors. It is actually most ridiculous for Mr Abraham SHEK to call on the Government on behalf of the property sector not to resume their land on the ground that it is in 780 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 breach of the Basic Law to do so. As Members are aware, the provisions in the Basic Law are very clear, that if land has to be resumed in public interest, the Government is empowered to do so, provided that reasonable compensation is offered. In fact, how much land has been resumed over the past decades by various organs, from the Urban Renewal Authority to the railway corporations? In order for a railway to be built for the passage of trains or to become part of the railway system, an entire building, be it a residential building or an industrial building, will be torn down. Hence, it is most important that land resumption must be reasonable and full consultation must be conducted on the line alignment or selection of districts.
As regards the future mode of development, given such a large plot of land, we think that the development of a new town there should be led by the Government to ensure that public interests are fully protected. The use of land for different purposes, including how much land should be earmarked to address the housing needs of members of the public and for communal facilities, is equally important. I have no intention to exclude private property developers altogether, for collaboration is possible. However, the Government must not give them preferential treatment by not resuming their land on the ground that they are property developers. In fact, when it comes to the compulsory sale ordinance, many members of the public have been compelled to see their land acquired, so why can the property developers' land not be resumed for public use? Under certain circumstances, for instance, a property developer has a very large plot of land which can be used for a single purpose, whereas the Government may have a very small share of it, is it impossible for them to co-operate or put up their land for a joint tender? This is not necessarily the case. However, it is crucial that there must be fair and open criteria and policies, which can be invoked in a fair manner in future, rather than taking special measures to tackle special problems on every occasion.
As for the third point, we are certainly gravely concerned that this project will lead to another kind of integration, thereby making Hong Kong's boundary blurred even further. As a result, Hong Kong has been described by many people as a region serving the Mainland or even its backyard, and there are remarks such as "ceding Hong Kong land and betraying Hong Kong", too. Even if we do not criticize this project with such rhetoric, recent developments have indeed given some cause for grave concern among Hong Kong people. Hong Kong has been slowly deprived of its characteristics and advantages, because LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 781 very often we appear to be compelled to cope with the development on the Mainland to progress in a passive and planned environment. This is the last thing we would wish to see. We must maintain Hong Kong's autonomy and advantages. Certainly, I do not oppose collaboration and achievement of complementarity of the two places, but this point is absolutely crucial. Hence, under such circumstances, I support Ms Emily LAU's motion calling for the withdrawal of the project and clarification of the most fundamental principle.
MR ALAN LEONG (in Cantonese): President, Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying stated in this Chamber last Wednesday that a minority of people intended to stand in the way of the integration between China and Hong Kong, saying the development of the NENT would turn Hong Kong red. I felt that he was looking at me while making such remarks. It was not at all strange because "preventing Hong Kong from being turned red" was precisely the slogan advocated by the Civic Party in the last Legislative Council Election. However, do the people mentioned by the Chief Executive really belong to the minority? President, if the Chief Executive really believes that those people are in the minority, I hope Secretary Paul CHAN can convey the message to him that his estimate and evaluation of the public sentiment are a far cry from the actual circumstances, because many Hong Kong people I have contacted are simply worrying about the rapid "communist assimilation" of Hong Kong. President, how should we interpret this "communist assimilation" process when it comes to the development of the NENT?
First of all, we must promote mutual flows of people, cargo and capital on a mutually beneficial basis. A single party must not be allowed to make gains, for Hong Kong will thus be "planned" and "requested to act in a complementary manner". Should it be the case, what benefits will Hong Kong people gain? Hong Kong people are very realistic. Will they object if they really stand to benefit? President, when it comes to communist assimilation, in the course of discussion, we do not wish to see Hong Kong become part of the Mainland expeditiously. Neither do we wish to see Hong Kong lose its own identity, values and systems for the sake of serving the Mainland, and thus become another Mainland city. Does LEUNG Chun-ying not understand that this is what Hong Kong people hate to see? If he does not understand this, I am telling him about this today in the hope that he will finally see what I mean.
782 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
President, perhaps it was because LEUNG Chun-ying realized that public sentiment had begun to run high that he wished to conceal his purpose of developing the three towns in the NENT ― he described them as towns ― that is, integration between China and Hong Kong and denied that those towns were developed to further promote integration between the two places. Nevertheless, his current arguments cannot wipe off his previous articles, his remarks made over the past couple of years, the views expressed previously by his Secretaries of Departments and Directors of Bureaux or, simply, the comments made in the Foreword of the Stage Three consultative paper. He should have admitted frankly his intention to promote integration between China and Hong Kong. Nevertheless, he must explain clearly to Hong Kong people how we can gain advantages and mutual benefits.
Hence, he has now gone so far as to employ some extremist practices and stop at nothing to simplify the whole matter, saying he is "identifying land for the people for the construction of flats". President, I think he is "fudging the numbers" with his remarks that he was looking for land for the construction of flats. Let us put aside everything else and assume that the data provided by Secretary Paul CHAN this morning in response to a question are right, meaning that assuming 391 hectares of land ― not to mention 21 000 hectares of land ― are available for housing construction …… President, do you know how large 391 hectares of land is? It is equivalent to 20 Taikoo Shings, or approximately 20 Victoria Parks. If the plot ratio for Taikoo Shing is used, 800 000 people can be housed there. I am talking about 800 000 people. So, why should the Chief Executive hurry?
Come to think about this, President. How long do you guess it will take to drive from exactly where you are to Ping Che or Fan Ling North? I mean a single trip only, but certainly not on the President's vehicle, "LC1". A trip on public transport will take at least two and a half hours. If those flats are built for Hong Kong people who are unable to purchase their homes, are we telling them to spend five hours a day commuting between their homes and Central? How can he say the NDAs are built for Hong Kong people? However, when it comes to transport …… a funding application will be made for the Liantang/Heung Yuen Wai crossing soon. If we look at its geographical location, we will find the residential area in Liantang is just a stone's throw away from Ping Che or Fan Ling North. Such being the case, do Members think that the NDAs are built for the Mainland or Hong Kong? President, insofar as these matters are concerned, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 783
LEUNG Chun-ying is even prepared to fake internal confrontations in Hong Kong, pitting the sports community against property buyers and people unable to purchase properties against farmers. He is simply tearing Hong Kong society further apart for the sake of concealing his purpose of achieving integration between China and Hong Kong by hook or by crook.
Furthermore, President, if the NDAs are built specifically for Hong Kong people, can he explain why private properties account for more than 70%? Even the current ratio of private properties in the urban areas, particularly Kowloon East, is smaller than 70%. Most flats in Kowloon East are fundamentally public rental housing and Home Ownership Scheme flats. How can he say that the NDAs are built for Hong Kong people? Hence, President, his justifications are completely unacceptable. Very often, the Government will resort to such tactics. Regarding the West Kowloon Cultural District (WKCD) Development Project, similar comments were made, "During the consultation that began 10 years ago, no one expressed dislike for the canopy and the single tender." The same goes for the "brainwashing" national education. He also said that no one expressed any views on the consultation, even though it had been ongoing for eight to 10 years. In fact, it was because he had not revealed his fox's tail yet, and so how could the people speak out? When we speak out on seeing the fox's tail exposed, he said we were not supposed to speak out given that we had embraced so and so over the past 10 years. What sort of a government is this? President, I hope LEUNG Chun-ying can listen clearly that if he has to force his way through, he will only repeat the mistake and face the consequences of the "brainwashing" national education and the eventual scrapping of the single tender and removal of the canopy under the WKCD Development Project. I advise him not to do so.
I so submit.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): President, when you expressed interest to run for the office of Chief Executive, I told you not to do so because you were not up to standard and shameless enough. Sure enough, one has to be really shameless to be Chief Executive. First of all, Paul CHAN, the Secretary known for his involvement in sub-divided units, has appeared here today to address this Council without any explanation for the relevant matter. Second, despite his possession of "illegal structures", the Chief Executive himself has 784 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 chosen not to explain but merely say that he is not in a position to comment because his case is still pending in court. Is he an "idiot"? A politician should be as good as his word. No matter whether he is in court, in a parliamentary assembly, inside a washroom or even before his wife, his words should always be consistent. Now, a regime like this one is addressing this Council. President, the reason for LEUNG Chun-ying's secret being exposed was that pictures of his "illegal structures" were taken when he hosted a private reception for WANG Yang, Secretary of the CPC Guangdong Provincial Committee. Paul CHAN, were you there to keep him company? However, they are still talking to themselves. Both of them are not worth mentioning.
Some people accuse us of procrastinating. Let me start from the beginning to present who is procrastinating. I would also like to invite the DAB to give its own reply. In 1998, "Uncle TUNG" proposed the establishment of an eco-city through the development of the NENT as a political reward. In explaining why the development had to go ahead, he said that Hong Kong's population was projected to increase from 6.8 million to 8.4 million during the period 1998 to 2011. What else could it be if it was not an act of "fudging the numbers"? The DAB followed his line closely and supported the development of the eco-city. This later led to land acquisition by property developers and, consequently, container yards were seen all over the place. Actually, who is procrastinating? In 2003, when "Uncle TUNG" found that the rich people had lost faith in Hong Kong, he advanced the excuse that he had commissioned a new consultancy to conduct a study and the plan, including planning for NENT, was called to a halt because it was found that there was no need to build an eco-city. How many years of delay have we experienced? The answer is five years. Similarly, both the DAB and royalists were there to raise their hands to defend the Government. I wonder if the President was one of them. You might as well look it up.
Why did things change in 2008? It is because the Communist Party of China started to do something after signing the Closer Economic Partnership Arrangement in 2003 and becoming rich after its accession to the World Trade Organization in 2001. Besides its frequent group visits to Shenzhen, the DAB also claimed that it had had discussions with the Shenzhen Mayor and Shenzhen Party Secretary. President, had you ever participated in those activities? Did you meet and discuss with XU Zongheng, as you were a man of fame and prestige at that time? In November 2008, a consultation on the NENT LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 785 development plan was relaunched at a perfect time. On 19 November 2008, XU Zongheng was subject to "investigations at the prescribed time and place" precisely following his meeting with the DAB. In other words, he was in distress right after discussing an ambitious plan with the DAB to make a big fortune. He was subject to "investigations at the prescribed time and place" because of his status as a Chinese Communist Party member, but the DAB was able to get off and enjoy itself here and continue to sit on its laurels. Did the DAB not feel ashamed? Using integration as an excuse, it was actually enjoying drinks with a corrupt mayor.
What was used as the basis for the plan to be reintroduced in 2006? It was because Hong Kong's development was already incorporated into the Five-Year Plan for the National Economic and Social Development. As a result, the then Chief Executive, who had eaten so much abalone that he had diarrhea, revisited the plan in his Policy Address of 2007 by including the NENT New Development Areas as one of Hong Kong's 10 major infrastructure projects, followed by the so-called "six major out-and-out damned industries" to complement the 10 major infrastructure projects ……
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, please watch your tongue.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): He said the entire family had to be involved as well.
It is evident from the aforesaid arguments that it is actually the Government which has been procrastinating. But now, it is talking to us here in this manner. LEUNG Chun-ying said in his manifesto, to this effect "The Border Closed Area is situated in an area where Hong Kong is closest to Shenzhen and other cities in the Pearl River Delta (PRD). Hence, it has great strategic significance and serves as a link in promoting the joint development of Hong Kong and the PRD. We should capitalize on the advantage of "one country, two systems" to proactively make planning for the development of the Border Closed Area into a diversified and characteristic development zone having regard to both economic development and conservation.". This was what LEUNG Chun-ying said in his manifesto. Paul CHAN, you should keep your eyes wide open, though you cannot account for your involvement in the "sub-divided units" incident. 786 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
But, he is telling us now that there is no connection between what he said in his manifesto and the NENT development project. He is bluffing, buddy! It is actually very simple. The land acquired by property developers over the years, as well as the land bought by WONG Cho-bau, also known as "Shenzhen LI Ka-shing", can turn everything into gold. Let me explain this briefly. Henderson Land stated in its annual report in 2011 that it had 5.1 million sq ft of land. Sun Hung Kai is remarkable as it has 26 million sq ft of land, though I wonder whether Rafael HUI has to be thanked for this. Cheung Kong (Holdings) Limited has abundant land near Kwu Tung and Long Valley. New World Development is not behind, for it has 2.26 million sq ft of land. I believe WONG Cho-bau, being "Shenzhen LI Ka-shing", has certainly been acquiring land in this manner. In other words, the one who owns land can definitely become rich in times of regional development. In fact, all the "sinful money" and funds collected by the DAB during the elections have come from such people. The long speeches made by the royalists here are actually aimed at making money for them.
Although everything has been paid for by Grandpa, they are still accepting money privately. Look, President, this is LEUNG Chun-ying; this is WANG Yang; and this is Paul CHAN, the "moron". He really lives up to his nickname now, for he is unable to answer all the queries. These people seem to be proposing a toast for our sweet blood. Will Paul CHAN please act like a man and answer whether or not he has "sub-divided units"?(The buzzer sounded)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, time is up.
MR LEUNG KWOK-HUNG (in Cantonese): President, will you please ask him whether he has converted his flat into "sub-divided units"? He must give me a reply first, or else I will not talk to him.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, please stop immediately.
MR IP KWOK-HIM (in Cantonese): President, a study on the development plan for NENT was already launched during the era of the former Chief Executive, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 787
TUNG Chee-hwa, more than a decade ago, and a three-stage consultation was launched four years ago. In the documents presented to the Legislative Council by the Government of the last term, it was stated very clearly that the purpose of the development project was to cope with long-term housing need and promote economic development. But strangely enough, after the Chief Executive, Mr LEUNG Chun-ying, had assumed office in July, the entire plan was suddenly criticized by certain people for "ceding Hong Kong land and betraying Hong Kong" with the construction of "a city for rich doubly non-permanent residents". A media report has even described the development project as a long-term ambitious plan of the former Chief Executive, TUNG Chee-hwa, to develop NENT, which is now revived by Mr LEUNG Chun-ying. All these comments sound like a heap of nonsense.
(THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, MR ANDREW LEUNG, took the Chair)
The appearance of the expression "integration of China and Hong Kong" in the consultation paper on the NENT development project as well as the concept of "integration of Shenzhen and Hong Kong" mentioned repeatedly by the Chief Executive, Mr LEUNG Chun-ying, have become the so-called evidence of "ceding Hong Kong land and betraying Hong Kong", as mentioned by certain people. I believe we must have a clear idea that, under the framework of "one country, two systems", the Mainland and Hong Kong have different social systems, administrative frameworks and judicial systems. Hence, it is impossible for the two to achieve real integration or assimilation. The so-called "integration of China and Hong Kong" or "urban integration of Shenzhen and Hong Kong" is at best a reference to the exchanges between people of the two places and Hong Kong's economic measures to complement national development. If all such measures are interpreted as "Hong Kong being planned" or "damage to the 'one country, two systems'", and everything is met with blind opposition, Hong Kong will hardly have any opportunities of development and be led to a dead end, too.
Over a long period of time, Hong Kong's development has been centred around Central and Tsim Sha Tsui on the two sides of the Victoria Harbour, thereby neglecting its integration with Shenzhen and the Pearl River Delta (PRD). The North District in the New Territories, which connects with the Mainland, has 788 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 been positioned as a fringe area without too much commercial activity. In the past when Hong Kong was positioned as an international market, such an urban layout was understandable. But now, China, being a fast-growing economy in the world, is very likely to surpass the United States to become the world's number one economy. Hong Kong's existing urban layout is therefore completely lagging behind the times. So, it must seize the opportunity offered by the NENT development project to enhance economic integration with Shenzhen and the PRD, or else it will only have itself to blame for being marginalized.
In a study report published in 2007 called Hong Kong 2030: planning vision and strategy, it was proposed that Kwu Tung in NENT be positioned as a "gateway town" to the Mainland. The so-called "gateway town" is actually similar to Johor Bahru, which is situated at the boundary between Singapore and Malaysia. Every day, a large number of Singaporeans will cross the boundary to Johor Bahru in Malaysia for shopping and leisure, thereby creating a lot of employment opportunities and generating enormous financial revenue for Johor Bahru.
In fact, the former Director of Planning, Mr Jimmy LEUNG Cheuk-fai, revealed two years ago the Government's plan to build a major shopping arcade in Kwu Tung to meet the demand of Mainland visitors. This proposal of providing a major shopping mall has recently been played up as evidence of the development project turning the NENT into "a city for rich doubly non-permanent residents" to serve Mainland people. The biggest problem currently confronting Hong Kong's development is that the increasingly politicized social environment has put the Government under unnecessary political pressure in implementing policies or plans.
The NENT development project is actually a visionary plan for development, including the construction of green homes, the development of emerging industries and the creation of business opportunities. But unfortunately, the LEUNG Chun-ying Administration has recently come under pressure by the so-called accusation of "ceding Hong Kong land and betraying Hong Kong". As a result, the relevant government officials have merely emphasized that the NENT development project is aimed at satisfying the public's housing demand without uttering a word about the economic development and employment opportunities brought about by the integration of Hong Kong and the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 789
Mainland. Hence, the entire development project is reduced to a housing policy rather than strategic regional planning with holistic considerations. Just now, I also heard quite a number of Members from the pan-democratic camp, including Dr KWOK Ka-ki and other Members of the Civic Party, condemn those people who support the development plan for being shameless. They also accused LEUNG Chun-ying of plotting beforehand to turn this tract of land into a backyard for the rich on the Mainland. Come to think about this. I believe people who can make such accusations must be prophets who could have predicted four years ago that LEUNG Chun-ying will become the Chief Executive for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) today. In fact, I think that, in the face of these unreasonable accusations, the SAR Government should respond in a bold and firm manner and continue to optimize this development project to enable it to better contribute to Hong Kong's future development.
Deputy President, I so submit.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?
MR ALBERT CHAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, as a matter of fact, this Chamber has engaged in many rounds of discussion on planning and development during the past some 20 years.
Now this planning or re-planning project of the NENT has aroused a lot of concern and discussion. It can be seen as a sign of the awakening of Hong Kong people. Never has there been any planning project that could lead to a rally of thousands of people and arouse the concern of many Members of this Council. Because this planning for the NENT has been discussed for more than 14 years.
I notice that the consultation paper from the Government includes a proposal which is one inch thick. Many views are put forward in it and there are some visionary recommendations on the overall needs of Hong Kong and land planning. These recommendations include setting aside some of the land in the NENT for development as a centre for animal husbandry and an agricultural centre, or to develop some special industries which can help create jobs and to make it part of the land supply. 790 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
In the latter part of the 1990s, people from all quarters demanded that the Government should commence the work to build the Northern Link and develop Kwu Tung. But as far as I know, this project of developing the NENT was shelved because of the so-called "SUEN's Nine Strokes". The result is that planning work has been delayed for many years. Actually, whenever planning is undertaken, those changes in personnel, time, political beliefs and political goals will all bring about major changes. So given all of these developments, the NENT development project is vastly different from the original proposal raised in 1998.
Whenever discussion is conducted on planning and land use, there are bound to be two major issues involved. One is the interests of those people affected and the other is the benefits of those rich and powerful or the developers. I can do some simple computations now. Take the example of a lot of land with an area of 1 million sq ft with a plot ratio of three times. When the profit made from each square foot is $1,000, the profit will be $3 billion in sum. If the profit made is $2,000 per square foot, the profit will be $6 billion. And we are just talking about a lot of 1 million sq ft. Just think, there are tens of million square feet of land in the NENT and the developers can make profits to the tune of tens of billion dollars. So it is because of this issue of profits that they will spare no efforts in advancing their interests. This applies in particular to land acquisition and land use related to this new proposal. Hence it is a big issue of concern for everyone.
In respect of development, I am most impressed by a number of examples. One is the development of the airport in Tung Chung. At that time there were only a handful of households living in Tung Chung and they were engaged in farming. Then they were forced to move to Yuen Long. After the removal, there was an old dog from one of these families and it refused to eat and drink for a whole week. And every night it would moan to the South. A week later, the dog died of hunger and thirst. The elderly person who was forced to move to Yuen Long lived there for one month and became sick because of the dust in Yuen Long. The old person died one year later.
It can be seen that development projects like these would lead to problems in adaptation, and the people will suffer. I do not think many people will know about these cases. I only came to learn about these things when I met the daughter of the old person and she told me about them. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 791
The building of the West Rail led to the tragic case of the Wah Kee Industrial Centre. But no Member of this Council has ever bothered to care about it. After the removal of the tenants from the Wah Kee Industrial Centre, of the some 600 tenants there, some of them committed suicide because they failed to adapt to the new conditions. And some tenants lost their factories after the removal. Some of them used to be factory owners but they were forced to become watchmen, without ever getting a cent in compensation. Now 12 years have passed since the Wah Kee incident and there are still dozens of factory owners and property owners who have not received any compensation. So with respect to problems of development and removal, we can say that the big consortia will certainly reap the benefits because for every 1 million square feet of land, they can make at least $3 billion to $4 billion.
At this time and age when we see this kind of tilt and transfer of benefit and collusion between the Government and business ― perhaps instead of collusion between the Government and business, I can also say that there is collusion between those in politics and business. In this Chamber, there are many Members who, like the Secretary for Development in particular, who used to be a non-executive director of some giant consortium, hold similar posts. While benefits are constantly being transferred, the public at large will suffer. Now in the NENT, the homes of some 1 000 people may have to be cleared. Some of them are houses erected on temporary licences and there are also squatter huts. Some people may have lived there for decades and they may follow the footsteps of that old farmer in Tung Chung whom I have just said. Some of them who engage in industries may have their land resumed and they may fall into the same misery and misfortune of those factory owners of Wah Kee Industrial Centre.
We can see that insofar as rehousing and compensation is concerned, the development policies are invariably unfair to the disadvantaged groups while funnelling huge amounts of interest to the plutocrats. We have seen all these things during the past decades. And so the people are awake now and they are discontented. They want to force the Government to revise its planning and to make new arrangements in rehousing and compensation. All these demands are fair and reasonable. When the Government refuses to make revisions and offer reasonable compensation and rehousing arrangements, the people will certainly come out and oppose the project, fighting to the bitter end.
792 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
I therefore call upon all the people of Hong Kong. Do not think that NENT is none of your business. What we see in NENT might someday be repented in our very homes. All these development projects and land resumption arrangements might come at any time. We have been fighting for urban renewal for more than 20 years and there has only been some revision in the relevant policy in recent years. We can see a somewhat more humane approach now. But with respect to land resumption, especially in relation to the NDAs, the arrangements concerned are grossly unfair and inhumane. We must fight hard for change.
Deputy President, I do not have much time left. I really want the Government to ponder over the matter, change its thinking and make the people its prime concern. All these planning and land use issues should be people-oriented. There must not be any transfer of benefit and there can never be any tilting of interest in favour of any party.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?
(No Member indicated a wish to speak)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Emily LAU, you may now speak on the six amendments. You have five minutes.
MS EMILY LAU (in Cantonese): Deputy President, altogether six Members have proposed amendments to my motion, with two of them seeking to delete the word "withdraw" in their respective amendments. Deputy President, many Honourable colleagues have mentioned this point in the debate earlier. With respect to the amendments from Mr Frederick FUNG and Mr Gary FAN, I think I can accept them. But as for the amendments from other Members, I do not think I can accept them.
I do not know if Mr Abraham SHEK can read or not. He said that I had accused the developers of unlawful land acquisition. He also said that if that was unlawful, then they should be arrested. Deputy President, maybe some of these activities are unlawful and the victims have reported to the police. But LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 793 these victims were actually saying that the police were reluctant to offer any assistance. What I have said in the original motion is that there are some unscrupulous acts and unscrupulous land acquisition practices. I do not know why he reads the word "unscrupulous" as "unlawful". I am really baffled. If he wants to accuse me, would he please read carefully the wording of the original motion?
Mr CHAN Hak-kan has proposed many items of amendment and there are eight of them altogether. But when I heard Mr IP Kwok-him speak earlier, he condemned the Government for not daring to talk about integration. He said that integration was the best thing and it could lead to lots of economic benefits. But Mr CHAN Hak-kan has never written such stuff into his amendment. I do not know if he does not dare to talk about it. Mr CHAN, earlier on Mr IP said that speaking from a strategic point of view, there would be interests and in fact, plenty of them. But why have you not put this down in your amendment? I do not know if the DAB has got a split personality problem or not.
Deputy President, Mr James TIEN is the only person who dared to mention the stuff we have talked about in our speeches. What did he say? He said that in future this NENT development will not become a special zone within the SAR, a backyard through which mainlanders can enter and leave Hong Kong freely, or a phenomenon of Hong Kong-Shenzhen integration. It is obvious that Mr TIEN knows very well the anxiety of Hong Kong people and he also states in his amendment that these things will not happen. Deputy President, although I oppose the amendment from Mr TIEN because he has deleted the word "withdraw" in my original motion, I find him know very well the anxiety of Hong Kong people. He can talk with people in Beijing but for decades we have been barred from entering the Mainland. I hope that those people who can talk to Beijing can be bold enough to do so and they should not be like LEUNG Chun-ying. I hope that they can give voice to the anxieties of Hong Kong people.
Deputy President, Ms CHAN Yuen-han mentions in her amendment the idea of "simulated planning". Honestly, after listening to her speech, I am still at a loss as to what she means. Deputy President, I do not know if you know what this is. She has deleted the word "withdraw" from my original motion and suggests that the scope of consultation be extended, to keep the plan at the stage of simulated planning and proceed with the plan. But what does it really mean? 794 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
At times people would say that the FTU likes to boast that it can do everything but actually it cannot do anything. What in fact is simulated planning? Now tens of thousand people or even more are opposing it and they want the proposal withdrawn. But she is asking the Government to do some simulated planning. In a nutshell, this is like what Mr CHAN Hak-kan has said, that is, keep on listening to people's opinions while going ahead with the project. Just as some people said, the authorities are conducting some bogus consultation. The authorities are listening while speeding up a project. I believe this is more or less what Miss CHAN Yuen-han is trying to say, Deputy President.
Mr Abraham SHEK's amendment is even more baffling. Earlier on some Members from the royalist camp have already criticized him. He said, "allowing Landowners' participation in development when taking forward the relevant planning proposal, so as to avoid any conflicts that may arise from land resumption". In the debate, many Members have said that there would be many conflicts and it is even more laughable when he says that after these are done, there will be an effect of "expediting the supply of public and private housing, with a view to attaining social harmony". But everyone is saying that this can never be achieved.
Deputy President, earlier on, Dr LAU Wong-fat, that is, a former member of the Executive Council, said that now the people are polarized and deeply divided. But he opposes the word "withdraw" in my original motion. He is in favour of proceeding with the project. But the question is, while every one of you is in favour of proceeding with the project, do you know what is going to happen? Later on when the Secretary presents the proposal, just see how many people will come out and attack him. Deputy President, this is what Bernard CHAN meant when he said that the fiasco of national education will repeat.
Today you people may vote down my original motion. But I know you will eat the bitter fruit later. This matter has torn our society asunder and nothing is done after discussions held for more than 20 years.
SECRETARY FOR DEVELOPMENT (in Cantonese): First of all, Deputy President, I am very grateful to Ms Emily LAU for proposing the motion and five other Members for their amendments. I would also like to thank 32 other Members for expressing their views today, so that we can have an opportunity to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 795 engage in greater depth in discussions here on the "North East New Territories New Development Areas Planning and Engineering Study".
Deputy President, I have heard a lot of valuable views today. We will proactively consider some of the sensible arguments advanced by Members, such as rehousing, compensation, assisting farmers in resuming agricultural activities, and so on, and will exert our utmost to heed these views and revise our planning insofar as practicable. I have also heard Members' criticism of the modus operandi of the public engagement exercises. We will review the practices, and we thank members of the public and Members for their advice.
Deputy President, I would like to respond to several points in relation to the speeches I have heard today. I would like to begin with remarks describing the North East New Territories New Development Areas (NENT NDAs) as a "city for wealthy doubly non-permanent residents" or "Shenzhen's backyard", and even comments such as "ceding Hong Kong land and betraying Hong Kong". Deputy President, insofar as the NENT NDAs are concerned, as I pointed out in my opening speech this morning, the ratio of public housing for Hong Kong people ― including public rental housing (PRH) and Home Ownership Scheme flats ― will be raised to 50% or above. As for private residential flats, most of them will be small and medium in size, and the concept of "Hong Kong property for Hong Kong people" will be introduced, too. All these measures can meet the aspirations of Hong Kong people. Regarding the question of whether all private land should be brought under "Hong Kong property for Hong Kong people", Deputy President, I think it is irresponsible of us to do so at this stage, because we all know that land resources in Hong Kong are very precious. The introduction of more and more restrictions on such resources will only affect their prices when they are put up for bidding or tendering in future. The entire NENT NDAs project will not be completed until 2031, which is almost 20 years away. During this period, no one can predict how changes in the real estate market will unfold, without the help of a crystal ball. It is indeed inappropriate for us to impose these restrictions at this stage. Given my remarks earlier, how can this project be compared to a "city for wealthy doubly non-permanent residents" or even a move to "cede Hong Kong land and betray Hong Kong"?
(THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair)
796 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
On the other hand, President, several Members have quoted some comments and articles released by Mr LEUNG Chun-ying before he became the Chief Executive and then accused him of using the NENT NDAs project to put "ceding Hong Kong land and betraying Hong Kong" into implementation. President, I think that such views disrespect the fact because the concept of the NENT NDAs originated in 1990, to be followed by a study on the NENT in 1998. After the outbreak of the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome in 2003, the entire project was put on hold until 2007 or 2008 when it was included in the 10 major infrastructure projects for the first consultation commencing in late 2008, the second in late 2009, and the third in June this year. As all this had happened before Mr LEUNG Chun-ying assumed his office, he cannot possibly implement any ambitious plan whatsoever through the NENT NDAs project.
Besides, President, I have noted from the speeches delivered by Members just now that there has been a mix-up in concepts ― if they are not straw arguments slipped in ― in some areas. I think that it is inappropriate to lump the NENT NDAs, the river-loop area and the Frontier Closed Area together for discussion because they are separate issues. There is some misunderstanding in the speeches delivered by a number of Members, including, for instance, the citing of an article published by the One Country Two Systems Research Institute (OCTSRI). I must point out that the OCTSRI is just a non-government think-tank. It enjoys academic freedom and freedom of speech, but its comments do not represent the Government's views, not to mention the fact that its study report was published in 2010, whereas this NENT NDAs project had already been launched before the incumbent Chief Executive took office.
President, the expression "integration of China and Hong Kong" has aroused a lot of misgivings and far-fetched associations. In fact, having regard to the past experience of other towns, such as Tin Shui Wai, in planning for the NENT NDAs, we note that problems might arise if only public housing is provided when a new area is developed. Hence, a certain quantity of private housing is necessary. Meanwhile, it is hoped that employment opportunities can be provided in the NENT NDAs, so that some residents can work in their respective districts without having to travel a long distance to go to work. This is why land should be earmarked in the NENT NDAs for commercial and industrial purposes. Moreover, consideration has to be given to the geographical advantage of the NENT NDAs. During the Stage 1 consultation on the NENT NDAs plan in 2008, there were views in the community that consideration should LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 797 be given to the integration with and economic development of the Pearl River Delta (PRD) Region. During the Stage 2 public engaging activities in 2009, mention was made of the public view expressed during the Stage 1 consultation, that the relevant planning had to complement the long-term development of the PRD and integration with the development of Shenzhen. During the Stage 3 consultation, it was mentioned in the foreword of the consultative document, as cited by some Members earlier, that "With the commissioning of several large-scale planning studies and implementation of a number of infrastructure projects, economic integration between Hong Kong and Shenzhen is seen to be on the rise. The North East New Territories New Development Areas will not only offer chances for promoting social and economic developments in Shenzhen and Hong Kong with their strategic locations ……". With reference to the guiding principles for planning, page 4 of the same consultative document reads, "Reserve land in the NDAs for special industries and the industries where Hong Kong enjoys clear advantages in support of regional development and integration with the Pearl River Delta to promote the economic development of Hong Kong". Hence, by integration we mean how we can capitalize on such an excellent geographical location to create more business and employment opportunities for the people living in the respective districts as well as those from other districts who work across districts.
President, please allow me to quote some of the remarks made by a Member at the meeting of the Panel on Development on 25 November 2008 when the Panel was briefed on the Stage 1 Public Engagement. It was suggested that the Administration could consider including cross-boundary integration of Shenzhen and Hong Kong as one of the topics in the public engagement. A good start in the planning of the NDAs would help prepare the future generations for the integration of the two places. The Administration should explain the concept of a boundary town to the general public during the public engagement.
President, my quotation of the Member's remark is intended merely to illustrate that there have been frequent economic exchanges between the Mainland and Hong Kong over the past years. Hence, there is a need for us to seize the opportunities from the perspective of economic development in planning the NDAs, particularly when these NDAs lie in the NENT.
President, the second point to which I wish to respond concerns some questions raised by Members: Is the development of the NDAs essential? Do 798 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 we have abundant land for housing development, and hence there is no need to give the NENT NDAs any consideration? In our replies to the questions raised last week by Mr Gary FAN and Mr WU Chi-wai, we already set out clearly the so-called vacant Government land, which is an issue of concern to Members. We have among others spelt out clearly the number of such land lots and debundled this figure from those cited by the former Secretary for Development, MAK Chai-kwong, in his reply to a question raised in this Council on 4 July, so that Members can note, for instance, the quantity of remaining residential land after deducting land under categories which are unsuitable for development, cannot be made available for present development or with relatively low potential for development. There were 391.5 hectares of land zoned "Residential" and 932.9 hectares zoned "Village Type Development". We have also explained clearly in our reply that, of the 391.5 hectares currently zoned "Residential" or "Commercial/Residential", quite a number of irregular-shaped sites are found on the unleased or unallocated Government land there, such as those situated in the gaps or back alleys between buildings or narrow plots of land adjacent to existing developments, highways or other facilities. This means that the 391.5 hectares cannot be used entirely for housing development. While a total of 19 land lots, measuring 18.9 hectares, have been put on the 2012-2013 Land Sale List, other sites cannot be made available for immediate development. Some of them have to undergo technical evaluations before their feasibility can be ascertained.
Just now, in quoting some of the comments of different newspapers or critics, a Member questioned whether the aforesaid 391.5 hectares of land can be used for the construction of 800 000 units on the basis of a plot ratio of nine times, in order that the housing demand in Hong Kong over the years can be met. I can tell Members that, nowadays, firstly, only a relatively small number of large plots of land can be found therein; and secondly, these plots of land lie in different places, such as Kau To Shan. Can a plot ratio of nine times be adopted for such a location? The answer is in the negative. Even if a plot ratio of five times is multiplied by 391.5 hectares, I still consider this estimation too optimistic and aggressive. Simply put, despite our possession of these land lots, it does not mean we have abundant land in reserve, and there is no need for us to plan for land supply in the future.
Regarding the "Village Type Development" sites mentioned by Members, I already pointed out in my reply to Members that there were only LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 799
900-odd hectares of land, scattered across the territory and situated mainly in recognized indigenous villages in the New Territories, after deducting roads/passageways, man-made slopes, land allocated under the Simplified Temporary Land Allocation procedures from the 1 200 hectares zoned "Village Type Development". Under the prevailing small house policy, eligible indigenous villagers may submit applications for the construction of small houses. The main planning intention of the "Village Type Development" zone which lies within recognized indigenous villages is for small house development for indigenous villages in the New Territories. On the premise of land use planning and optimization of land resources, I agree to the need for a review of the small house policy. Nevertheless, such a review will inevitably involve complex issues in the legal, environmental and land planning areas. There is a need for prudent review and discussions with different stakeholders, including members of the public. It is simply impossible for the matter to be resolved with just a few words within six months or a year. Moreover, these sites are not suitable for large-scale development because of their scattered locations and infrastructural constraints.
Next, President, I would like to give responses on the mode of development of the NDAs. Just now, Ms Emily LAU queried whether we were wavering. President, I already explained this in my speech this morning, and so I do not intend to repeat my arguments already advanced then. I only wish to point out that, even in this Chamber today, different Members also have different views on this question. The documents were issued by us for consultation precisely because we do not have a rigid stance. Instead, we hope to listen to Members' views, make prudent consideration after hearing the views of the community and make a decision.
President, I have also heard the concerns raised by Members about the compensation and rehousing arrangements. During the Stage 3 Public Engagement and over the recent months, I have come into contact with a number of local residents and heard the aspirations of the locals for compensation and rehousing. In this respect, the Government has some prevailing compensation and rehousing arrangements, though I understand that they might not be good enough today. Hence, the prevailing arrangements are being reviewed and, with reference to the major clearance operations in recent years, improvements will be made in reasonable circumstances, including the arrangements that can be made 800 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 for long-time residents living in registered squatter huts. Our goal is to make better compensation and rehousing arrangements for squatters according to lawful, reasonable and sensible parameters, thereby allaying the shock caused to them by removal.
President, I would like to point out in particular that I very much appreciate the concerns of the locals about clearance. I have also noted some news about land acquisition and eviction by landowners. I must emphasize that when NDA developments are carried out in future, landowners will receive compensation in accordance with the existing mechanism should their land be resumed by the Government. On the other hand, compensation and rehousing arrangements will be made by the Government for eligible villagers living on such land. Hence, there is no urgency for these landowners to resort to forced eviction of their tenants in order to recover the land.
Currently, the NENT NDAs are still at the planning stage. It will take a considerable period of time before real development is carried out. I would like to appeal here to the landowners in the NDAs to answer to their conscience and refrain from resorting to forced eviction of the residents, so that the residents and farmers currently living on their land can continue to live in peace.
As regards agricultural land rehabilitation, the Government will, according to the prevailing Agricultural Land Rehabilitation policy, exert its utmost to assist farmers in looking for land for resumption of farming. We are now exploring the NDAs and their vicinity for land which is suitable for farming and situated within the area planned for cultivation, though some of the land might involve private and Government land. Meanwhile, proper arrangements will be made by all means for farmers affected by the NDAs. I have also requested colleagues in the Planning Department to examine if some land in the Green Belt can be used as agricultural land, or a cultivation area can be provided in some open space for city-dwellers interested in engaging in farming activities.
President, I would like to reiterate that we will consider carefully all the views and proposals put forward by Members with a view to suitably revising the planning proposal for the NDAs and introduce relevant amendments expeditiously. A report will also be published on the views collected on the Stage 3 Public Engagement later on. Honourable Members, if the planning LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 801 proposal is withdrawn at this stage, not only will all the efforts made over the past several years be wasted for no reason, Hong Kong's major housing and land supply in the future will also be deferred by several years. It must be the interest of the general public that will be damaged ultimately.
I implore Members to vote against the original motion calling for the withdrawal of the NENT NDAs project as well as the amendments making the same request. President, please allow me to reiterate again that this planning proposal can be revised but not withdrawn. Thank you, President.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Frederick FUNG, please move your amendment to the motion.
MR FREDERICK FUNG (in Cantonese): President, I move that Ms Emily LAU's motion be amended.
Mr Frederick FUNG moved the following amendment: (Translation)
"To add ", as" after "That"; to delete "has aroused" after "by the authorities" and substitute with "involves large-scale development, arousing"; to delete "due to the large-scale development involved; in this connection" after "society"; and to add ", while abandoning its haughty attitude and wanton use of tactics to intensify conflicts, returning to the right track of humbly listening to public opinion and having regard to the best interests of Hong Kong people," after "persons"."
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment moved by Mr Frederick FUNG to Ms Emily LAU's motion be passed.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
802 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(Members raised their hands)
Mr Frederick FUNG rose to claim a division.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Frederick FUNG 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 stop now and the result will be displayed.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Albert HO, Mr James TO, Mr Frederick FUNG, Dr Joseph LEE, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Dennis KWOK and Mr IP Kin-yuen voted for the amendment.
Dr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Dr LAM Tai-fai, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Dr LEUNG Ka-lau, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.
Miss CHAN Yuen-han and Mr TANG Ka-piu abstained.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 803
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Ms Emily LAU, Mr Ronny TONG, Ms Cyd HO, Mr Alan LEONG, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr Gary FAN, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr Kenneth CHAN, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Mr SIN Chung-kai and Dr Helena WONG voted for the amendment.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr James TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHEUNG voted against the amendment.
Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr WONG Kwok-kin and Miss Alice MAK abstained.
THE PRESIDENT, Mr Jasper TSANG, did not cast any vote.
THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 33 were present, nine were in favour of the amendment, 22 against it and two abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 34 were present, 17 were in favour of the amendment, 13 against it and three abstained. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
MR ANDREW LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I move that in the event of further divisions being claimed in respect of the motion on "North East New Territories New Development Areas Planning and Engineering Study" or any amendments thereto, this Council do proceed to each of such divisions immediately after the division bell has been rung for one minute.
804 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Mr Andrew LEUNG be passed.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any Member wish to speak?
(No Member indicated a wish to speak)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you as stated. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(No hands raised)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority respectively of each of the two groups of Members, that is, those returned by functional constituencies and those returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, who are present. I declare the motion passed.
I order that in the event of further divisions being claimed in respect of the motion on "North East New Territories New Development Areas Planning and Engineering Study" or any amendments thereto, this Council do proceed to each of such divisions immediately after the division bell has been rung for one minute.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN Hak-kan, you may move your amendment.
MR CHAN HAK-KAN (in Cantonese): President, I move that Ms Emily LAU's motion be amended.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 805
Mr CHAN Hak-kan moved the following amendment: (Translation)
"To delete "the proposal of" after "That" and substitute with "the Government initiated the Planning and Development Study on North East New Territories in 1998, and in 2008 conducted"; to delete "put forward by the authorities" after "Engineering Study" and substitute with "(colloquially known as Three-in-One New Development Area) and commenced a three-stage public engagement and consultation programme, and the Stage 3 Public Engagement has just ended in late September this year; as the Three-in-One New Development Area"; to delete "; in this connection" after "involved"; to delete "withdraw the relevant proposal, conduct extensive consultation and take" after "urges the authorities to" and substitute with "pro-actively consider the recommendations and demands received during the consultation period, and after taking"; and to delete "before launching studies on the relevant planning proposal" immediately before the full stop and substitute with ", to make corresponding amendments to the Three-in-One New Development Area planning, including: (a) to adopt an appropriate development mode to dispel public misgivings, and promote the expeditious implementation of the development plan to alleviate the pressure of inadequate housing land; (b) to adjust the ratio of public housing to no less than 50% of the total, so as to build more public rental housing and subsidized housing flats; (c) to designate a certain proportion of private residential land for 'Hong Kong property for Hong Kong residents' to ensure that Hong Kong people may have priority in purchasing the completed residential flats; (d) to provide affected residents with compensation and removal arrangements no less favourable than those provided under the Liantang/Heung Yuen Wai Boundary Control Point project, and designate village resite areas for the in-situ rehousing of villagers; (e) to synchronize the development of the three development areas, so as to allow them to synergize their complementary advantages, and to create sufficient jobs for residents to work in their local areas; (f) to designate sufficient and suitable land for agriculture in the three development areas or adjacent areas, and allocate resources to assist farmers in rebuilding the agricultural industry; (g) to study extending the Northern Link to connect the three development areas, so as to develop environmentally friendly and convenient transport connection; and (h) to relocate disruptive community facilities or provide alternative relief proposals to create a better environment for community living; at the same 806 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
time, the authorities should continue to listen to views of the various stakeholders, perfect the Three-in-One New Development Area planning and expeditiously commence the relevant planning proposal"."
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment, moved by Mr CHAN Hak-kan to Ms Emily LAU's motion, be passed.
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 Ronny TONG rose to claim a division.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Ronny TONG has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
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.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Dr LEUNG Ka-lau, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 807
YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr POON Siu-ping and Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan voted for the amendment.
Mr Albert HO, Mr James TO, Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Frederick FUNG, Dr Joseph LEE, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Dennis KWOK and Mr IP Kin-yuen voted against amendment.
Dr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Dr LAM Tai-fai, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr TANG Ka-piu, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok and Mr Tony TSE abstained.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Mr Paul TSE, Mr James TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted for the amendment.
Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Ms Emily LAU, Mr Ronny TONG, Ms Cyd HO, Mr Alan LEONG, Mr Albert CHAN, Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr Gary FAN, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr Kenneth CHAN, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Mr SIN Chung-kai and Dr Helena WONG voted against the amendment.
Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Michael TIEN and Miss Alice MAK abstained.
THE PRESIDENT, Mr Jasper TSANG, did not cast any vote.
THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 33 were present, 11 were in favour of the amendment, 10 against 808 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 it and 12 abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 33 were present, 10 were in favour of the amendment, 16 against it and six abstained. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Miss CHAN Yuen-han, you may move your amendment.
MISS CHAN YUEN-HAN (in Cantonese): President, I move that Ms Emily LAU's motion be amended.
Miss CHAN Yuen-han moved the following amendment: (Translation)
"To add "Hong Kong needs development, but development does not mean destroying existing places; land needs planning, but Hong Kong does not need uniform and moulded planning;" after "That"; to add "that lead to confrontation" after "controversies"; to add "it has been learnt that a considerable number of the land lots concerned are not abandoned 'vacant land' with no inhabitants, and such land lots inherit and pass on unique history and culture which need to be respected;" after "involved;"; to delete "withdraw the relevant proposal, conduct extensive consultation and take account of Hong Kong's" after "urges the authorities to" and substitute with "continue to extend the scope of consultation for the various stakeholders, including indigenous inhabitants, farmers and conservationists, etc., to have sufficient room to express views, and to keep the plan at the stage of 'simulated planning', so that the various sides can have sufficient time to communicate, and hold detailed discussions relating to"; to add "history and culture," after "agricultural industry,"; to delete "and" after "practices" and substitute with ","; and to delete "before launching studies on the relevant planning proposal" immediately before the full stop and substitute with ", and even the introduction of a new planning mode, so that the relevant development plan can truly benefit Hong Kong"."
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 809
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment, moved by Miss CHAN Yuen-han to Ms Emily LAU's motion, be passed.
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)
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 one minute.
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.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Dr LEUNG Ka-lau, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr POON Siu-ping, Mr TANG Ka-piu and Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan voted for the amendment.
Mr Albert HO, Mr James TO, Dr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Abraham SHEK Mr Frederick FUNG, Dr Joseph LEE, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Dr LAM Tai-fai, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth 810 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
LEUNG, Mr Dennis KWOK, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr IP Kin-yuen and Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok voted against the amendment.
Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr Martin LIAO and Mr Tony TSE abstained.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mr Paul TSE, Mr James TIEN and Miss Alice MAK voted for the amendment.
Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Ms Emily LAU, Mr Ronny TONG, Ms Cyd HO, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Alan LEONG, Ms Claudia MO, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr Gary FAN, Dr Kenneth CHAN, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Mr SIN Chung-kai and Dr Helena WONG voted against the amendment.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Mr Albert CHAN, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG abstained.
THE PRESIDENT, Mr Jasper TSANG, did not cast any vote.
THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 33 were present, eight were in favour of the amendment, 16 against it and nine abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 34 were present, five were in favour of the amendment, 16 against it and 12 abstained. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 811
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr James TIEN, you may move your amendment.
MR JAMES TIEN (in Cantonese): President, I move that Ms Emily LAU's motion be amended.
Mr James TIEN moved the following amendment: (Translation)
"To add ", as" after "That"; to delete "has aroused" after "by the authorities" and substitute with "involves large-scale development, arousing"; to delete "due to the large-scale development involved; in this connection" after "society"; and to delete "withdraw the relevant proposal, conduct extensive consultation and take account of Hong Kong's policies on population development, housing demand, employment, environmental conservation, rebuilding the agricultural industry, rehousing non-indigenous inhabitants and Hong Kong-Shenzhen integration, etc. as well as problems such as property developers' unscrupulous land resumption practices and the situation of the affected persons before launching studies on the relevant planning proposal" immediately before the full stop and substitute with "listen seriously to the views of various social sectors, ensure that the relevant planning will be based on the needs of Hong Kong people in that the new development areas will serve as a land bank to cope with Hong Kong's future development and satisfy housing demand, and will not become a special zone within the special administrative region, a backyard through which mainlanders can enter and leave Hong Kong freely, or a phenomenon of Hong Kong-Shenzhen integration; in addition, this Council considers that the North East New Territories New Development Areas should be equipped with various comprehensive ancillary support facilities, including appropriate infrastructure, community facilities and employment opportunities, etc., so that the Areas can develop into a truly self-contained new town"."
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment, moved by Mr James TIEN to Ms Emily LAU's motion, be passed.
812 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
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 Albert CHAN rose to claim a division.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Albert CHAN has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
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.
Functional Constituencies:
Dr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Dr LAM Tai-fai, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Dr LEUNG Ka-lau, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan and Mr Tony TSE voted for the amendment.
Mr Albert HO, Mr James TO, Mr Frederick FUNG, Dr Joseph LEE, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 813
Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Dennis KWOK, Mr IP Kin-yuen and Mr TANG Ka-piu voted against the amendment.
Mr NG Leung-sing and Mr MA Fung-kwok abstained.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr James TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted for the amendment.
Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Ms Emily LAU, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr Ronny TONG, Ms Cyd HO, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mr Alan LEONG, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Mr Albert CHAN, Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr Gary FAN, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr Kenneth CHAN, Miss Alice MAK, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Mr SIN Chung-kai and Dr Helena WONG voted against the amendment.
THE PRESIDENT, Mr Jasper TSANG, did not cast any vote.
THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 33 were present, 20 were in favour of the amendment, 11 against it and two abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 34 were present, 13 were in favour of the amendment and 20 against it. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Abraham SHEK, you may move your amendment.
814 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
MR ABRAHAM SHEK (in Cantonese): President, I move that Ms Emily LAU's motion be amended.
Mr Abraham SHEK moved the following amendment: (Translation)
"To delete "and great controversies" after "discussion"; to delete "withdraw the relevant proposal, conduct extensive consultation and take account of" after "urges the authorities to" and substitute with ", having regard to"; to add "development of special industries," after "demand,"; and to delete "and Hong Kong-Shenzhen integration, etc. as well as problems such as property developers' unscrupulous land resumption practices and the situation of the affected persons before launching studies on the relevant planning proposal" immediately before the full stop and substitute with ", etc., adopt the longstanding mode of allowing landowners' participation in development when taking forward the relevant planning proposal, so as to avoid any conflicts that may arise from land resumption, thereby achieving the earliest implementation of the North East New Territories New Development Areas plan and expediting the supply of public and private housing, with a view to attaining social harmony"."
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment, moved by Mr Abraham SHEK to Ms Emily LAU's motion, be passed.
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.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 815
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Kenneth LEUNG has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
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.
Functional Constituencies:
Dr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok and Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan voted for the amendment.
Mr Albert HO, Mr James TO, Mr Frederick FUNG, Dr Joseph LEE, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Dr LEUNG Ka-lau, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Miss CHAN Yuen-han, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Dennis KWOK, Mr IP Kin-yuen and Mr TANG Ka-piu voted against the amendment.
Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Dr LAM Tai-fai, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr Steven HO, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Martin LIAO and Mr Tony TSE abstained.
Geographical Constituencies:
Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mr Paul TSE and Mr James TIEN voted for the amendment.
Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Ms Emily LAU, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr Ronny TONG, Ms Cyd HO, Mr WONG Kwok-kin, Mr Alan LEONG, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Mr Albert CHAN, Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr Gary FAN, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr Kenneth CHAN, Miss Alice 816 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
MAK, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Mr SIN Chung-kai and Dr Helena WONG voted against the amendment.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG abstained.
THE PRESIDENT, Mr Jasper TSANG, did not cast any vote.
THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 32 were present, 11 were in favour of the amendment, 13 against it and eight abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 34 were present, three were in favour of the amendment, 20 against it and 10 abstained. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Gary FAN, you may move your amendment.
MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): President, I move that Ms Emily LAU's motion be amended.
Mr Gary FAN moved the following amendment: (Translation)
"To add "and under the principles of bottom-up democratic planning and giving consideration to the rights and interests of the various stakeholders, to" after "relevant proposal,"."
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the amendment, moved by Mr Gary FAN to Ms Emily LAU's motion, be passed.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 817
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 IP Kwok-him rose to claim a division.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr IP Kwok-him has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
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.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Albert HO, Mr James TO, Mr Frederick FUNG, Dr Joseph LEE, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Dennis KWOK and Mr IP Kin-yuen voted for the amendment.
Dr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Dr LAM Tai-fai, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Dr LEUNG Ka-lau, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan and Mr Tony TSE voted against the amendment.
818 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
Miss CHAN Yuen-han and Mr TANG Ka-piu abstained.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Ms Emily LAU, Mr Ronny TONG, Ms Cyd HO, Mr Alan LEONG, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Mr Albert CHAN, Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr Gary FAN, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr Kenneth CHAN, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Mr SIN Chung-kai and Dr Helena WONG voted for the amendment.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla LEUNG, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr James TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the amendment.
Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr WONG Kwok-kin and Miss Alice MAK abstained.
THE PRESIDENT, Mr Jasper TSANG, did not cast any vote.
THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 32 were present, nine were in favour of the amendment, 21 against it and two abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 34 were present, 17 were in favour of the amendment, 13 against it and three abstained. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the amendment was negatived.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Emily LAU, you may now speak in reply. You have three minutes and 23 seconds.
MS EMILY LAU (in Cantonese): President, altogether 39 Members have taken part in this debate which lasted six hours. I am sure the message struck home to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 819 the authorities is clear enough. As Dr LAU Wong-fat said, this project is poles apart from our aspiration and it is totally unrelated. But the Secretary has been so bold to propose this project. I said earlier that when a planning proposal is to be put forward by the authorities, consideration should be given to the following factors: demographic development, housing demand, employment, environment, conservation, rebuilding the agricultural industry, rehousing non-indigenous inhabitants and compensation. However, there are some areas which you did not mention earlier.
President, I hope that the Secretary can really strike a balance among the interests of all quarters. There is this remark which he made during the whole process that I appreciate the most. But he has never made it again ever since. He says that each residential unit in Hong Kong should be increased by 100 sq ft. Of course, I agree with him. President, even if the living space of each person is increased by 100 sq ft, we can never stand on the same par as Singapore. It is a pity that the Secretary has not responded to this remark ever since. In the briefing session hosted by the Secretary on 6th this month for Members, I pursued the subject by asking the Secretary the same question again. But he only gave one remark and refused to say anything more. Does every person in Hong Kong have a living space of 100 sq ft? In my opinion, the people of Hong Kong are living in most miserable conditions and they are like living inside a rat's hole.
President, it does not matter if the Secretary does not heed our views. For Members of this Council, not only those who are sitting on this side hold this view, even Mr James TIEN has talked about his reluctance to see the urban integration of Hong Kong with Shenzhen and Hong Kong should not relegate into a backyard for other people. I hope the Secretary will not do anything to make Hong Kong society seriously divided.
President, I must talk about the views of the two new Members to the Executive Council on this issue. Mrs Regina IP said that regional co-operation is inevitable and the development in this direction now is at a snail's pace, which is too slow. President, Mrs Regina IP may have forgotten the lesson from Article 23 of the Basic Law. I hope the authorities can really learn the lesson. As for Mr Jeffrey LAM, as soon as he has assumed his new post, he said that he would play the role of a bridge and foster closer communication. President, he said that we have proposed this motion to gain advantages of it by exaggerating 820 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 the issue. He said that we raise opposition only for the sake of opposition and we are fanning confrontation sentiments. How can we expect these to help the executive authorities do a good job in fostering better communication? I do not know how the authorities could have picked a person like this or if they have placed a mission on the wrong horse.
President, in any case, many of the remarks that should be made have already been made today, and whether or not the views presented are heeded would be the business of the authorities. But this is closely related to the well-being of the 7 million people of Hong Kong. I hope therefore that the Secretary and the Chief Executive can ponder over this seriously and stop dividing our society, forcing the people to take to the streets and engage in violent opposition. President, when I see those political parties and groupings who support you are flexing their muscles, I know that the time for that will not be too far away. I am sure this motion today will end up in futility and failure.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Ms Emily LAU be passed.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): 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)
Ms Emily LAU rose to claim a division.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms Emily LAU has claimed a division. The division bell will ring for one minute.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 821
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.
Functional Constituencies:
Mr Albert HO, Mr James TO, Mr Frederick FUNG, Dr Joseph LEE, Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che, Mr Charles Peter MOK, Mr Kenneth LEUNG, Mr Dennis KWOK and Mr IP Kin-yuen voted for the motion.
Dr LAU Wong-fat, Mr Abraham SHEK, Mr Tommy CHEUNG, Mr Jeffrey LAM, Mr Andrew LEUNG, Mr WONG Ting-kwong, Ms Starry LEE, Dr LAM Tai-fai, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr IP Kwok-him, Mr NG Leung-sing, Mr Steven HO, Mr Frankie YICK, Mr YIU Si-wing, Mr MA Fung-kwok, Mr Christopher CHEUNG, Mr Martin LIAO, Mr POON Siu-ping, Ir Dr LO Wai-kwok, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan and Mr Tony TSE voted against the motion.
Dr LEUNG Ka-lau, Miss CHAN Yuen-han and Mr TANG Ka-piu abstained.
Geographical Constituencies:
Mr LEE Cheuk-yan, Mr LEUNG Yiu-chung, Ms Emily LAU, Mr Ronny TONG, Ms Cyd HO, Mr Alan LEONG, Mr LEUNG Kwok-hung, Mr Albert CHAN, Ms Claudia MO, Mr WU Chi-wai, Mr Gary FAN, Mr CHAN Chi-chuen, Dr Kenneth CHAN, Dr KWOK Ka-ki, Dr Fernando CHEUNG, Mr SIN Chung-kai and Dr Helena WONG voted for the motion.
Mr CHAN Kam-lam, Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr CHAN Hak-kan, Dr Priscilla CHAN, Mrs Regina IP, Mr Paul TSE, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr James TIEN, Mr CHAN Han-pan, Mr LEUNG Che-cheung, Dr Elizabeth QUAT, Dr CHIANG Lai-wan and Mr Christopher CHUNG voted against the motion.
822 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr WONG Kwok-kin and Miss Alice MAK abstained.
THE PRESIDENT, Mr Jasper TSANG, did not cast any vote.
THE PRESIDENT announced that among the Members returned by functional constituencies, 33 were present, nine were in favour of the motion, 21 against it and three abstained; while among the Members returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, 34 were present, 17 were in favour of the motion, 13 against it and three abstained. Since the question was not agreed by a majority of each of the two groups of Members present, he therefore declared that the motion was negatived.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Members, it has taken us six hours to complete the previous motion debate. Now there are only a little more than four and a half hours before midnight. I believe in the next motion debate, Members' enthusiasm for speaking will not be any less than that in the previous motion debate and it is, therefore, unlikely for us to complete this meeting before midnight. As I said in the advance notice given to Members, I will suspend the meeting at around 10 pm until 9 am tomorrow.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Second Member's motion: Universal retirement protection system.
Members who wish to speak in the debate on the motion will please press the "Request to speak" button.
I now call upon Dr Fernando CHEUNG to speak and move the motion.
UNIVERSAL RETIREMENT PROTECTION SYSTEM
DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I move that the motion as printed on the Agenda be passed.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 823
President, I am a bit different from many Hong Kong people in that I can enjoy retirement protection. I am not a civil servant and I do not have any pension. But as I used to work in the United States for more than a decade, I am eligible for the retirement protection system in the United Sates and so, when I reach the retirement age, I can draw a retirement income from the United States. This system is very good indeed. Imagine this: How good it is to be civil servants. They can live on a pension for the rest of their life after retirement and secure protection for their living. Just imagine: How good it is if all the people of Hong Kong can enjoy a pension system. This is certainly a good system, or else why will the Government design it for its employees? But regrettably, the Government has all along refused to allow all the people to enjoy this system.
But President, if we live in other advanced countries, we will find that each and every citizen can live on a pension for the rest of their life. This is a commitment made by society to its people. I still receive letters from the United States Social Security Administration every year reminding me this: Fernando CHEUNG, if you reach the retirement age this year, you can draw a retirement income of some US$1,000 monthly, and if you unfortunately become disabled during the run-up to retirement, you and your family (including my spouse and underage children or children who have not been in employment yet) will receive a payment ― because I do not have any income as a result of my disability ― or a basic living allowance, which is enough to cover their living expenses. President, if I unfortunately died, my spouse and underage children can also draw a monthly living allowance of some US$1,000. This system makes me feel very much at ease. Whether I unfortunately died, or have become disabled or retired, I will be given protection all the same.
Some people may say that this type of protection is so good indeed, that it is impossible for a society to be so good as to treat its people so well, that this is definitely a welfare state, and that the United States is so wealthy. I am sorry, President. It now turns out that our per capita Gross Domestic Product has surpassed that of the United States. In the world, this system is implemented in dozens of advanced countries, whereas countries without a universal retirement protection system are in an extremely small number. For how long has this system been implemented? It has been implemented in the United States since 1935. Many people said that this system will definitely cause us to become broke and that we would not be able to cope with it. But it has been 824 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 implemented for 77 years in the United States, still operating effectively. I will talk about whether or not it will cause us to go bankrupt later on.
About 16 years ago I came back from the United States. At that time, I followed my teacher, Prof Henry MOK, to join the Hong Kong Social Security Society. We had proposed some retirement protection systems suitable for Hong Kong, and I was only learning from Prof MOK then. In fact, we proposed a so-called tripartite contributory system in 1997. The amount proposed back then was $2,500, and all the elderly people would be eligible for it. This system was proposed based on actuarial computations with projections showing that there would not be any problem in taking forward the scheme for the next 30 years. This system has subsequently become the basis of the proposals made in the community.
Later, I joined the Committee on Social Security of the Hong Kong Council of Social Service (HKCSS) and became Chairman of the Committee. I proposed that the implementation of this retirement protection system should be a major task of the Committee. We made improvements to it on the basis of the previous proposal and even proposed a slight increase in the amount to $3,000. We invited Prof Beda CHAN of the department of actuarial science of the University of Hong Kong to make actuarial assessments for us. Based on the population projections of the Census and Statistics Department (C&SD), he made projections into the next 30 years ― actually it should be 50 years ― because the C&SD population projections cover only 30 years, but he made projections for another 20 years further, which could certainly go beyond the peak of population ageing, and it was confirmed that this proposal would work. We finally put forward this proposal to the Government, and we also had internal communications with the Central Policy Unit (CPU) at that time, which was already over a decade ago. After the exchange of views, this proposal was considered worthy of discussion, and at one point, President, the CPU and the HKCSS were even prepared to organize a public seminar for discussion and consultation on the feasibility of implementing this system of retirement protection in Hong Kong. In the end, this seminar vanished into thin air and was cancelled for reasons unknown.
Now that more than a decade has passed, and during this decade, how many elderly people have we seen collecting cardboards and taking up the most LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 825 laborious job as cleaners on the street and cleaning up public toilets? The problem of elderly poverty has already reached a shameful state. Based on the international poverty line adopted by the HKCSS, one third of the elderly now live in poverty. We have the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA) Scheme, but under the CSSA Scheme there is the "bad son statement" ― The Secretary will definitely deny that there is this "bad son statement", as there is not a form called the "bad son statement". However, there is a form to be filled in when the elderly apply for CSSA, and their children are required to fill in the form to indicate how much they give their parents monthly to support their living. They fill in "0" and then sign on it to enable their parents to become eligible for CSSA. This is how the elderly are deprived of their dignity. According to the estimate of Oxfam Hong Kong, 160 000 elderly people who are eligible for CSSA have not applied for it because of the requirement of this "bad son statement" and because eligibility for CSSA is assessed on a household basis.
The Mandatory Provident Fund (MPF) that we are talking about now is the result of our call for the implementation of universal retirement protection back in those years. In fact, this proposal was already made before the reunification but given various reasons, including opposition from local consortiums or the right wing, and a political reason from the Mainland at the time as there was the comment of "getting killed in a car crash", we put forward a middle-of-the-road proposal, thinking that if we could not have an orange, we could at least have a tangerine. It eventually took as long as 12 years for this tangerine to come to fruition. But then, let us take a look at the report just released by the Consumer Council this year. Over the past five years, 45% of the MPF schemes have suffered a loss. A wage earner earning a monthly income of $20,000 who has saved up for 40 years should have some $3 million, but in these 40 years, the administration fees of his MPF scheme will cost him more than $1 million. This is a system that "eats men without even spitting out the bones". It does not in the least provide any protection to the elderly; nor does it provide protection for persons with disabilities; nor does it provide protection to women; nor does it provide protection to the many housewives. Therefore, the social security system that we have in our society today is actually plagued by problems.
Therefore, the motion that I have proposed today clearly calls for the implementation of a universal retirement protection system and urges the Government not to impose a means test for the living allowance provided to the 826 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 elderly because this is back-pedalling, not moving forward in the direction of universal retirement protection. If we allow the Government to evade its responsibility in such a way with this midway proposal and if the issue were further delayed for eight or 10 years, our elderly people would continue to live in poverty and collect cardboards.
President, we cannot tolerate this situation anymore. I hope that colleagues can support my motion, especially as we call for the abolition of the requirement for the elderly to apply on a household basis and the system of the "bad son statement" under the CSSA Scheme, for they have made it impossible for elderly people living in poverty to apply for CSSA, hence preventing them from obtaining assistance to meet their pressing needs.
President, I so submit.
Dr Fernando CHEUNG moved the following motion: (Translation)
"That the problem of elderly poverty in Hong Kong is serious at present, and according to a study of the Hong Kong Council of Social Service, in the first half of 2011, 33.4% of the elderly were households in poverty, with the elderly population in poverty reaching 290 000, but the existing Comprehensive Social Security Assistance ('CSSA') Scheme and Old Age Allowance ('OAA') of the Government cannot resolve the problem of elderly poverty; at present, the income test under the CSSA Scheme is on a household basis, requiring the family members of the elderly persons to sign what is colloquially called a 'bad son statement' to declare not providing support to parents, damaging elderly persons' relationship with their families and depriving them of dignity; according to the survey findings published by Oxfam Hong Kong in 2010, some 160 000 eligible elderly persons in Hong Kong did not receive CSSA; on the other hand, the amount of OAA is insufficient to maintain a basic living; at present, various advanced countries or regions around the world, including Canada, New Zealand, South Korea and Taiwan, have put in place universal retirement protection in the forms of social insurance and special funds earmarked for specified purposes, which have been proven to be effective retirement protection systems; in this connection, this Council urges the authorities to:
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 827
(a) give an account of the studies on retirement protection matters conducted by the Central Policy Unit in the past; provide the frameworks, specific statistics and conclusions of such studies;
(b) expeditiously establish a universal retirement protection commission with responsibilities including formulating the contents of a proposal, conducting public consultation, and setting an implementation timetable;
(c) before the implementation of a universal retirement protection scheme, refrain from introducing any asset and income test for the newly proposed 'Old Age Living Allowance Scheme', in order for the scheme to serve as a transitional measure leading to the universal retirement protection scheme; and
(d) immediately allow elderly persons to apply for CSSA on an individual basis, exempting their family members from having to make any declaration arrangement for not providing support to them."
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Dr Fernando CHEUNG be passed.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Six Members wish to move amendments to this motion. This Council will now proceed to a joint debate on the motion and the six amendments.
I will first call upon Mr TAM Yiu-chung to speak, to be followed by Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr Albert HO and Mr Gary FAN respectively; but they may not move the amendments at this stage.
MR TAM YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): President, a forward-looking government must make early preparations for setting up a sound retirement protection scheme. I remember that in 1994, the Hong Kong-British Government entrusted the incumbent Executive Council convenor, Mr LAM 828 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
Woon-kwong, with the task of introducing the Old Age Pension Scheme, which was nevertheless negatived at that time. While the Scheme has a different name, it is similar to the universal retirement protection scheme under discussion now. Then in 1995, the Scheme was revised to become the personal account-based Mandatory Provident Fund (MPF) System. Since the MPF System was implemented, there has been little development in the policy on retirement protection in Hong Kong. In 1999, the Harvard Team proposed a Health Security Plan, and in the same year, the Health and Welfare Bureau proposed to establish Health Protection Accounts. These schemes, which only emphasized measures for easing the financial burden in the medical and health care aspects, were not implemented ultimately. In view of the rapidly ageing population, it is imperative for Hong Kong to introduce measures for retirement protection more expeditiously, conduct comprehensive assessments and make long-term planning, with a view to assuring the quality of the basic living of the elderly.
What approach should be adopted to improve the retirement protection system in Hong Kong? This is an important issue that we need to consider together. Many countries and regions worldwide have now put in place some retirement protection systems that have long operated effectively, such as Canada, New Zealand, South Korea and Taiwan, as mentioned in the original motion. However, Hong Kong cannot mechanically copy these systems. These places have implemented their retirement protection systems in different ways. In Canada, for instance, a pay-as-you-go pension scheme covering the working population is implemented, under which employers, employees and the self-employed are required to make contributions. In New Zealand, a pension scheme financed solely by the Government is put in place and supplemented by a personal account-based occupational retirement scheme. In Taiwan, apart from the contributory National Pension System and Labour Insurance Scheme, there is also a personal account-based occupational retirement scheme. While these effective retirement protection models are certainly worthy reference for Hong Kong, we must examine the situation of those countries which face difficulties in coping with the financial burden of pension payments. For example, France had to enact legislation on pension reforms in the year before last to raise the retirement age from 60 to 62 and increase the age for full pension entitlements from 65 to 67. Its pension deficit is estimated to be €32 billion this year, which is equivalent to HK$345 billion. In Greece, retirement benefits have to be cut substantially due to the Government's huge fiscal deficit. Even in New Zealand which is mentioned in the original motion, a decision has been made to gradually LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 829 increase the normal retirement age from 65 to 67 and raise the percentage of contribution of personal accounts. South Korea has cut the amount of pension, thus reducing the replacement rate of pension from 60% to 40%.
In tandem with the ageing of population, the ratio of working population to retirement population will drop continuously. A universal retirement protection scheme, if implemented, will bring a new financial burden to the public, especially to people in employment, disregarding whether it will be financed by government revenue or contributions by the public and whether it will be operated on a pay-as-you-go basis or by way of personal accounts. Therefore, the Government must conduct in-depth studies early and carry out comprehensive consultation, in order to come up with a proposal on which a consensus can be reached among all sides and implement it steadily.
The second key point of my amendment concerns the details of the implementation of the Old Age Living Allowance (OALA) Scheme newly proposed by the Government. In Hong Kong, the gap between the rich and the poor is serious and goods are ever on a spiral. The living of the grassroots has thus become even more difficult. The Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong (DAB) has all along proposed that the safety net should be appropriately expanded to enhance the support for the grassroots. To address the problem of elderly poverty, the Government cannot rely on the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA) system alone. The problem of the existing CSSA system is that the old age allowance (OAA) is not enough to make ends meet and the requirements are excessively stringent for the elderly in applying for CSSA. Therefore, in order to provide assistance to the impoverished elderly people, it is necessary to provide another tier of safety net between the "fruit grant" and the CSSA payment. The DAB proposed in 2010 that the Government should introduce an entirely new "elderly maintenance grant scheme", so as to provide financial assistance to elderly persons who are not eligible for applying for CSSA and help them improve their living. Last year, we further proposed a three-tier "retirement protection old age pension scheme".
The OALA Scheme introduced by the Government has followed the direction of expanding the safety net as proposed by the DAB. Over the past decade or so, although the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR) has continuously increased its expenditure on social security, such expenditure has been increased mainly as a result of the increased caseload and a 830 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 higher rate of payment. In respect of social security, the Government, apart from introducing individual projects and some pilot schemes, has not really expanded the safety net. Government assistance to the grassroots comes mainly in the form of one-off relief measures based on the fiscal surplus of the previous year, or "giving out candies" as commonly referred to by us. The OALA Scheme is no doubt an active step taken by the Administration in respect of social security.
Having said that, there are inadequacies in these initiatives taken by the Government. Under the OALA Scheme, the asset limit for applicants is too stringent, and this has prevented elderly people in need from obtaining due assistance. Although the asset limit for application for the Normal OAA payment is subject to inflationary adjustment on a regular basis, there has not been a review of the base for calculation. Many elderly people have said to us that as the asset limit is too stringent, they will become ineligible for application if they have saved up a bit more money for emergency use. The DAB hopes that the Government, in implementing this new scheme, will review and relax the asset limit. The limit of $300,000 proposed by us actually represents just a 60% increase. It is also more in line with the actual situation in society and supported by many middle-class people. As the wealth gap and division in society have become more and more serious, it is most imperative for the SAR Government to prescribe the right cure to the problem and enable this measure which will benefit the people to be implemented smoothly as early as possible.
As regards the existing OAA system, which is a support measure in the social security system, the DAB also calls on the Government to make improvements by, among other things, abolishing the existing asset and income test for application for Normal OAA, allowing elderly recipients of Disability Allowance to receive OAA at the same time, and expeditiously implementing the "Guangdong Scheme" and extending it to Fujian Province.
The third key point of my amendment is to call on the Government to comprehensively reform the MPF schemes, lower the fees, increase employees' investment choices and perfect the regulatory mechanism, with a view to increasing the returns of the schemes and thereby strengthening the retirement protection for employees. The high administrative fees charged by MPF trustees are indeed considered grossly detestable by Hong Kong people. At present, there are five major types of MPF products, three of which are low-risk products LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 831 and their average rates of return over the years are as follows: 1.2% for Conservative Fund; 1.6% for Guaranteed Fund; and 0.9% for Money Market Fund. The administrative fees of these three types of low-risk products are 2.49% for Conservative Fund; 3.92% for Guaranteed Fund; (The buzzer sounded) …… Thank you, President.
MR WONG KWOK-HING (in Cantonese): President, through this amendment that I have proposed, I, on behalf of the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions (FTU), once again put forward to the Government this most sensible, most reasonable and most humble demand of exempting elderly persons aged 70 and above from any means test. I will explain our opposition to the Government's arguments for imposing a means test for the "special fruit grant" in three aspects.
Firstly, I criticize the Government for renaming the "special fruit grant" to "Old Age Living Allowance", turning it from an elderly care measure to one for alleviating poverty. This is a modern version of "exchanging a leopard cat for a prince"1 and a departure from the original intention in CY's election platform. President, I have a copy of CY's platform with me and I wish to quote from it, in order to show how the Government has departed from CY's original intention. On page 31 of his platform, and under the part on the overall situation, it is clearly written that "The poor in Hong Kong mainly comprise of the elderly, people with low income, new immigrants and ethnic minorities. Among the CSSA recipients, about half are elderly aged above 60. There are some elderly who do not wish to apply for CSSA and choose to rely on the $1,000 monthly Old Age Allowance due to their concern over the labeling effect." (end of quote) This can be found under the part on the overall situation.
Let me further cite from LEUNG Chun-ying's platform. In page 33, under the section entitled "Supporting the elderly and providing for their needs", what is originally written is as follows: "Retirement Protection ― We will build on the existing Old Age Allowance (OAA) scheme and introduce a special allowance for the elderly who are in need so that they can receive about double the amount of the allowance ($2,200) every month after a simple declaration of
1 An ancient story in Song Dynasty about the son of a concubine of the Emperor being exchanged for a leopard cat in order to prevent him from becoming the prince. 832 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 income and assets. Subject to that, the existing OAA scheme will remain unchanged." End of quote.
President, Mr LEUNG's election platform has expressly stated that this comes under the area of providing support to the elderly, not poverty alleviation. Poverty alleviation measures are clearly explained in a number of paragraphs in page 32 of Mr LEUNG's platform, and there is entirely no mention of a "special allowance for the elderly" or a "special fruit grant" in those paragraphs on poverty alleviation. So, the Secretary's attempt to change it from respect for the elderly to poverty alleviation is a modern version of "exchanging a leopard cat for a prince". Since Mr LEUNG Chun-ying understands that the labelling effect of CSSA has prevented elderly in need from seeking government assistance, could it be that the means-tested OALA Scheme will not create any labelling effect? The labelling effect will be created as soon as a means test is required. In proposing a "special fruit grant", Mr LEUNG's intention is actually to eliminate the labelling effect but now, you are putting this labelling effect back in its original position. Besides, what Mr LEUNG has mentioned in his platform is a "special allowance for the elderly" or a "special fruit grant" and by its name, one can obviously tell that it comes under the existing "fruit grant" system, whereby elderly persons aged between 65 and 69 are required to undertake a means test but no income and asset test is required for those aged 70 or above. This is meant to show respect to the elderly and to give back to the elderly for their contributions made towards society when they were young. However, in order to put in place a new vetting and approval system, the Administration has simply renamed it to the OALA Scheme. Is this consistent with Mr LEUNG's original idea of granting this allowance only after a simple declaration of income and assets? In fact, is the requirement of a means test for applicants aged 70 in line with the principle of keeping things simple? Mr LEUNG's platform has not included the requirement of a means test for elderly aged 70 when they make applications under the OALA Scheme. We in the FTU propose that elderly aged 70 be exempted from any income and asset test in order to keep the existing OAA system unchanged and maintain the status quo. This is also the wording used by Mr LEUNG in the section on objectives in his platform. Maintaining the "fruit grant" system is consistent with the original intention of showing respect to the elderly, which is most readily appreciated and accepted by the elderly in Hong Kong. Besides, it will not cause confusion and additional administrative cost. Therefore, the requirement that elderly persons aged 70 and above are subject to a LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 833 means test in order to receive the "special fruit grant" is a departure from the original intention of CY's platform.
Secondly, if elderly persons aged 70 and above are required to undertake a means test, the negative impact to be created can be summed up into six sins. In fact, a "special fruit grant" is meant to grant special concessions, show special respect and provide special care to the elderly. The original intention is that in order to honour the elderly in their old age, elderly persons aged 70 and above should receive a slightly higher allowance, and this is actually what it is meant to be. Why should we particularly make things difficult for elderly persons aged 70 and above? I think six sins are involved. First, it causes division among the elderly and creates a labelling effect. The result of the labelling effect as mentioned in CY's platform will thus arise again, making the elderly unwilling to apply for it.
The second sin is that it penalizes those elderly persons with good virtues, such as persistently scrimping and saving, making preparations for rainy days and achieving self-reliance for a lifetime. As it is said in a letter sent to me by a group of elderly aged 65 and above …… I have actually received a lot of letters from many people who oppose the means test, and I have just chosen one of them to read out to Members here. It says, "What is the "fruit grant" for the elderly? Please bear in mind that the "fruit grant" is a reward for the efforts silently made by the elderly for Hong Kong in the past and a way to give back to them, so as to enable them to live a secure and comfortable old age. But why should a means test be imposed on them? Even if they have kept some savings, it is only because they have scrimped and saved in their daily lives, not that they have reaped without sowing." (End of quote) These are the feelings of a group of elderly people aged 65 and above.
The third sin is that it indirectly encourages people to develop the bad habits of not saving money but squandering money and even spending money before earning it. A rebellious mindset will also be developed. Why should I be so stupid as to save money? Why should I be so mean to myself? Because even if I do not save, I will receive $2,200 monthly when I am old. So, this is an undesirable result.
The fourth sin is that it creates many family problems which can damage family relationships. Some couples have said to me recently that the limit for a 834 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 couple is $281,000 whereas that for a single applicant is $186,000. Does it mean that they should get a divorce? A divorce will enable them to be eligible for applying for the "special fruit grant" as two individual applicants. This will create many unnecessary conflicts.
Moreover, it may cause problems between the elderly and their children. Why should their children be made to pay so much? Or if this part of income will not be counted, just as the Government has said, will it cause the elderly to transfer away the part of their savings in excess of the limit? So, the fifth sin is that the imposition of an asset limit will turn a measure which is originally intended to respect the elderly into a harsh treatment for the elderly, thus creating a negative impression. The other day, a newspaper reported in detail that the "funeral expenses" still costs $182,000 even if it is calculated in a most frugal manner. But now the Government is saying that $186,000 will already exceed the limit, trying to fleece even the "funeral expense" of the elderly.
The sixth sin is that it is a retrogression. The Secretary once said in the City Forum that the healthcare vouchers had followed the practice of the "fruit grant" by exempting elderly aged 70 from any asset test, but the Government is now back-pedalling. This is, therefore, most unreasonable.
Thirdly, the Government said that society would have to bear the cost if a means test is waived. In fact, it is most important to put in place a retirement protection system. We in the FTU already proposed to the Government 31 years ago the setting up of an integrated retirement protection system. In 1986, we proposed the establishment of a central provident fund, and we further proposed in 1994 an integrated retirement system to ensure a secure old age for the elderly, but the Government has all along dragged its feet (The buzzer sounded) ……
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr WONG, time is up.
MR CHAN KIN-POR (in Cantonese): President, today's motion is about universal retirement protection but the motion includes a hot issue in town recently ― the OALA Scheme. While the Scheme will be put to a vote in the Finance Committee only on Friday, it is inevitable for it to be preceded by a war of words among Members today. I wish to state my position first. I support LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 835 the Government's OALA Scheme, and I also support that studies on universal retirement protection be launched expeditiously. I wish to stress that I support that studies be conducted to ascertain the way of implementation. Before there is any sound plan for implementation, I will not hastily support any proposal. So, I hope that I can clearly express my views through this amendment proposed by me today.
I hope that the OALA Scheme can be passed expeditiously, so as to enable 400 000 eligible elderly to receive the living allowance as soon as possible. First of all, I think the requirement of an income and asset test is necessary under the Scheme, because only an initiative to "hand out candies" will treat everyone equally irrespective of their wealth. However, this Scheme is entirely a poverty alleviation measure and absolutely not an activity to "hand out candies". If a poverty alleviation measure is turned into an ongoing activity to "hand out candies", it would be just sugar-coated poison. If candies are handed out even if there is not such a need, I think Hong Kong will suffer from diabetes sooner or later.
Hong Kong people are actually very supportive of poverty alleviation measures. So far as these measures are reasonable and financially affordable, everyone is willing to support them, but we must be very careful about activities to "hand out candies". If it is a one-off, target-specific measure to "hand out candies", such as waiving public housing rental or rates in times of economic recession, Hong Kong people will sincerely throw weight behind it, but if it is an ongoing, long-term measure to "hand out candies", then we must think about this: Can Hong Kong afford it in the long run, and do people receiving the candies are genuinely in need? Is there really a need for Hong Kong to do so? Will it be supported by members of the public?
In fact, the population of Hong Kong is ageing rapidly. The percentage of the elderly population is projected to increase from the present 13% to 28% in 2039, with the number of elderly persons approaching 2.49 million. If this allowance is given to all elderly persons irrespective of their wealth, it would impose on taxpayers a burden so heavy that they can hardly bear. In the meantime, it would even do damage to public finance, and economic development would certainly be impeded. Many countries in Europe, such as Greece, are vivid examples. These countries are all welfare states that "hand out candies" and as a result, they have all been brought to the brink of bankruptcy.
836 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
My amendment proposes to, among other things, delete the part in the original motion about refraining from introducing any asset and income test for the newly proposed Scheme and replace it by introducing a more lenient test. On the one hand, I think the new Scheme must target elderly persons with actual needs while ensuring the sustainability of the Scheme. For this reason, the introduction of a more lenient test to cover more elderly people at risk is more preferable than abolishing the means test requirement. On the other hand, I hope that this can attract more Members to support the new Scheme, thereby easing the confrontational atmosphere that prevails in this Council. I also hope that the Scheme can be passed as soon as possible. Given the tight time frame, I agree that the Scheme be given the green light first, and the Government will review the details later and put forward an improved proposal to meet the requirement of a more lenient income and asset test.
Moreover, I maintain that a living allowance for the elderly and universal retirement protection are two different issues which should not be lumped together. Any attempt to do so would only cause delays to the implementation of the OALA Scheme, which is not in the least beneficial to elderly in poverty.
My amendment also proposes to delete the part of the original motion concerning what is colloquially referred to as the "bad son statement" for declaring refusal to provide support to parents. In this connection, I have particularly looked into this so-called "bad son statement". According to the Administration, when the elderly apply for Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA), there is actually not a statement made by their children for declaring refusal to provide support to their parents. This statement is only part of the income test, and on this statement, their children will state the amount of money that they give to their parents or indicate that they do not provide financial support to their parents at all.
I do not wish to argue with Members whether this statement is a "bad son statement" or a declaration made by their children for the purpose of the income test. I understand that there are certainly historical reasons for this statement to be colloquially referred to as a "bad son statement, but we do not wish to call these children "bad sons and daughters". I believe an overwhelming majority of people would wish to provide support to their parents if they have the means to do so, but if they are unable to support even their own living, then they truly do not have the means to support their parents even though they wish to. In fact, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 837 they are already in great miseries, and society should not further pin a label on them. Therefore, I hope that the authorities can improve the procedures or step up publicity and education, in order to change the bad image of the "bad son statement". Applicants for CSSA should not be subject to discrimination or humiliation.
However, I have to stress one point. Social resources are limited, and they can be distributed only to people in genuine need. An asset test is, therefore, absolutely necessary. We cannot neglect the consequences only for some transient kudos. The next generation will have to pay for our generosity in spending money now.
We have spent a lot of time discussing the OALA Scheme today, but the key point of the motion actually lies in universal retirement protection. I always wish that apart from the existing Mandatory Provident Fund System, a financially viable retirement protection scheme can also be put in place to address the rapidly ageing population of Hong Kong. Therefore, I hope that the Government can conduct studies on the financing options for making retirement arrangements for the public. This is a most important step.
I wish to again cite Greece as an example. Old age insurance is the most important social security system in Greece. It operates on a pay-as-you-go basis, but population ageing is serious in Greece. The corporate old age insurance scheme, which has the most extensive coverage in Greece, does not have sufficient funds to meet the pension payment, and the shortfall has to be topped up by the Government. In 2010, the scheme received €13.5 billion in revenue but the expenditure was about €14 billion. The Government, therefore, had to top up nearly €500 million, and theoretically, the scheme has already been close to bankruptcy, and taxpayers are made to bear the consequences now. In recent years, the Greek Government has hoped to introduce reforms to the old age insurance system to, among other things, raise the age for receiving pension benefits and reduce the amount receivable by pensioners, but eventually met strong public opposition.
In fact, the elderly dependency ratio in Hong Kong has been rising. The elderly dependency ratio refers to the ratio of the number of persons aged 65 and above to the population aged between 15 and 64. According to the information of the Government's Census and Statistics Department, the current ratio of 177 elderly dependents per 1 000 persons aged 15 to 64 will rise to 454 elderly 838 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 dependents in 2039, which means that about two persons will have to support one elderly person by then. If a similar pay-as-you-go retirement protection system is implemented in Hong Kong, it is most likely that the revenue will not meet the expenditure, thus making it impossible to meet the requirement of sustainability. As a result, it would be necessary to reduce the amount of pension benefits, just as Greece has done. Can Members in support of the abolition of the asset test bear to see such a miserable situation arising then?
All in all, the problem of population ageing makes it necessary for Hong Kong to put in place a more effective retirement protection system, in order to make up for the inadequacies of the existing MPF System. But population ageing has also made it more difficult to secure financing and ensure sustainability for the scheme. Therefore, the Government is duty-bound to conduct more in-depth studies and most importantly, on the financing arrangements. Meanwhile, it is all the more necessary to lobby support from all sides, especially the commercial sector which will be paying.
I so submit.
MR MICHAEL TIEN (in Cantonese): About Dr Fernando CHEUNG's motion on "Universal retirement protection system", the New People's Party (NPP) has enormous reservations.
I would like to share with Members the historic background of the universal retirement protection system. In the 1990s, discussion on universal retirement protection was mooted in Hong Kong. In 1994, the former Governor, Chris PATTEN, initiated the conduct of a public consultation exercise on the Old Age Pension Scheme, proposing the provision of a monthly payment of $2,300 to all Hong Kong residents aged 60 or above, which required a monthly contribution at 3% of monthly salaries from employers and employees, and the Government would also make financial commitments. Back then, the consultation had aroused great controversy. Some academics criticized the proposal for failing help the needy in a focused manner. In the end, a consensus could not be reached and the Government had to give up the proposal.
Under the universal retirement protection system, elderly persons are supported by contributions made by the younger generation, whereas the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 839 contributors today will be supported by the next generation in future. The implementation of such a scheme had failed in the past, so will the implementation today be a success? According to the figures, the present situation in society is more unsuitable than the situation back then.
First, it is obvious to all that the ageing problem of the Hong Kong population is worsening. In the next 30 years, the population aged 65 and over will reach 2.5 million, accounting for 30% of the overall population, and the dependency ratio will rise substantially. According to the latest population projection by the Census and Statistics Department, the median age is expected to increase from 42 this year to 45 and 48 at 10-year intervals, and reaching 50 after 30 years.
In 2011 ― the situation this year is similar ― an elderly person aged 65 or above is supported by three wage earners on average, and 30 years later, an elderly person aged 65 or above will be supported by 1.2 wage earners on average. Other colleagues have said earlier that an elderly person will be supported by two wage earners 30 years later, however, the ratio of two wage earners only refers to people having reached the suitable age of work, and not everyone has a job. Therefore, when we study these figures, it is most important that we refer to the ratio of wage earners to dependent elderly persons, for that ratio offers the best reflection.
If the welfare policy of Hong Kong is founded on tax paid by the existing working population, it means we rely on the contributions made by young people in supporting all elderly persons rich or poor. As for the contributors today, as they grow old, they will be supported by the next generation in future. As such, the debt incurred will snowball, plunging the next generation into great difficulty. If we in this generation spend the money we do not have, we will be using all the credit of the middle class of the next generation. I think we are doing a disservice to our descendents. How do we have the dignity to meet them in future?
Egalitarianism is not the only means to promote social justice. In the society of Hong Kong, resources should be expended on the most needy persons in a focused manner, ensuring that the money we earned by toil and sweat are used properly. In my view, we must have a vision in resource distribution, that is, to elderly with financial needs, assistance should be provided unconditionally and at all cost. So, even if Hong Kong runs on a tight budget and incurs debts, 840 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 elderly persons should not be left to live in poverty despite our poverty. On the contrary, when the coffers of Hong Kong are flooded with cash, it is unjust to offer handouts across the board or not according to needs, where the rich are also given handouts. The principle of distribution of the Old Age Living Allowance (OALA) should be simplified as: "Allowance offered in adversity signifies justice, but that offered in affluence denotes wastage."
In the original motion, Dr Fernando CHEUNG mentions the establishment of a universal retirement protection scheme and the formulation of the time frame for the implementation of the universal retirement protection scheme, and he claims that various advanced countries or regions around the world, including Canada, New Zealand, South Korea and Taiwan, and so on, have already provided universal retirement protection. Even so, I have to point out that it still fails to prove that the retirement protection systems in those places are effective.
It is true that many overseas countries have established respective universal retirement protection systems a number of years ago, which many Hong Kong people look on with admiration. In reality, these overseas governments very much desire to turn back, yet they cannot but only grieve over the wrong move with regret. Since the demographic structure of developed countries has developed into an inverted triangle, in which the number of pension recipients keeps increasing but that of contributors keeps decreasing, universal retirement protection schemes are facing the fate of going bankrupt. Most European countries have started to defer the eligible age for receiving pension, which has induced extensive grievances among their people.
A number of countries, including Czech Republic, Greece, Hungary, Turkey, Norway, the United States, Australia, Germany, Finland, Japan and Singapore, and so on ― really quite a large number of countries ― have already deferred or planned to defer the eligible age for receipt of pension. Moreover, the Governments of South Korea and Ireland have reduced the amount of pension payment. In Japan and the United States, enterprises are encouraged to employ persons having reached the retirement age. The actual situations mentioned remind us one thing: among the strong advocates of universal retirement protection, many of them do not have in-depth understanding of the examples overseas. They are like the blind men approaching the elephant. The situation is comparable to a blind man riding a blind horse and approaching the verge of deep waters in a dark night.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 841
Dr Fernando CHEUNG mentions in the motion that before the implementation of a universal retirement protection scheme, the asset and income test for the OALA Scheme should be abolished, in order for the Scheme to serve as a transitional measure leading to the universal retirement protection scheme. All the other amendments also mention waiving the test for OALA Scheme or relaxing the asset and income limits under the new proposal. The NPP has reservation about all these amendments.
The NPP considers that the OALA Scheme and the universal retirement protection system are two separate issues. The OALA Scheme is a poverty relief measure focused on elderly persons in need, whereas retirement protection is protection provided to Hong Kong people who have been working hard for their whole life. The NPP, being a political party dares to speak the truth and act pragmatically, considers that the introduction of an asset test serves to ensure resources are expended on elderly persons in need. Some colleagues propose raising the asset limit in their amendments, but where should we draw the line? Some colleagues say $300,000 and some say $500,000. However, what are the rationale and targets behind all these figures?
Many countries have run into difficulties and find no way out because of the provision of universal retirement protection. We propose that the Mandatory Provident Fund (MPF) should form the core of the retirement protection system, and assistance should be provided to persons not covered by the MPF System in a focused manner, so that elderly persons with different needs may receive an allowance of different levels.
We propose that the Government should now review and enhance the management of MPF, so that the System can form the foundation of retirement protection. At present, the charges for MPF schemes are high but the return is poor. Criticisms have long since been levelled against these problems. We also heard a lot of criticisms this morning. The Government should speed up the study and cap the charges of MPF schemes, addressing the problem that all kinds of funds are making money except wage earners who are even losing their principal. At the same time, the Government should develop a comprehensive and sustainable OALA Scheme to strike a balance between the needs of various generations.
In gist, the rationale of the NPP's proposal is to show respect to all elderly persons and provide livelihood protection to the disadvantaged elderly persons. 842 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
The "three-tier retirement protection system" proposed by Prof Nelson CHOW should be taken as the basis of discussion. We should conduct studies on a multi-tier system of livelihood protection for elderly persons with a view to replacing the existing "fruit grant" and Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA), so that assistance is provided to the needy in a focused manner. We propose to dispense with the means test for the first-tier subsidy under the principle of respecting elderly persons. A means test should be introduced above the first tier, so as to provide different amounts of financial assistance to needy persons.
The rationale behind the scheme is that each elderly person needs $3,600 monthly to meet their basic needs, and if their savings exceed $190,000, the elderly person concerned will have to live off their savings and their honoured payment. When the savings of the elderly person fall below $190,000, he may apply for the $2,200 allowance and draw $1,400 from his savings to meet the monthly expense on basic needs of $3,600. When the savings of the elderly person fall to $100,000, the $3,600 monthly expense for basic needs will be paid from public coffer in full, and the elderly person can keep the $100,000 saving for emergency needs.
In a nutshell, we consider that the universal retirement protection system is not sustainable in the long run. We think that the Government should examine a multi-tier livelihood protection system for elderly persons, so that each elderly person may count on their own savings (The buzzer sounded) ……
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr TIEN, your speaking time is up.
MR MICHAEL TIEN (in Cantonese): …… and the allowance from the Government to lead a happy life in their twilight years. Thank you.
MR ALBERT HO (in Cantonese): President, the discussion on the question of universal retirement protection is most appropriate today. Regarding the severity of the problem of ageing population, colleagues speaking before we have already stated it and cited many figures. Thirty years later, 30% of the population will be aged over 65 on average. This will bring tremendous LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 843 financial pressure and an increasingly heavy burden to supporters. This issue has been discussed for 20 years. Early in 1990s, Chris PATTEN had raised this issue, but the proposal did not end up in a failure, as Mr Michael TIEN so claimed, for it was not implemented at all. However, throughout these 20 years, the issue has been discussed repeatedly. As such, the discussion today should no longer focus on whether such a system should be set up, but what kind of system and how a sustainable, reasonable and practical system should be implemented. We should actually be discussing these questions.
The Government keeps stating that retired elderly persons are now supported by the three pillars, and that it is unnecessary to set up a retirement protection system to serve the purpose of supporting all the elderly persons, for protection in this respect has already been put in place. However, these three pillars are obviously "sub-standard", a topic which we have discussed repeatedly. First, it is about the reliance on personal savings. According to the figures provided by the Hong Kong Council of Social Service, one third of the elderly persons are living in poverty, and there are signs of deteriorating. In the year 2011, the number of elderly persons living in poverty had increased to 288 000, which was 1.1% higher than the 277 000 in 2010. The problem is serious. How can we have peace of mind when we see elderly persons live in such condition? So it is ludicrous to say that elderly persons may live on their savings. To many low-income earners, it is not easy to rise out of poverty, let alone making savings for their life after retirement. This is but a dream.
The second pillar is the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA) system. The system is beset with two major problems. First, the present system includes an extremely unrighteous requirement where applications must be made on a household basis and elderly applicants must prove that the children living with them together are incapable of or unwilling to provide support to them. Elderly applicants thus have to fend for themselves in living. They are not only required to complete the relevant procedures, but their children may be requested to accompany them to indicate support of the application, provide information or declare their unwillingness to or incapability of supporting their parents. If such a system is not a "bad son statement" system, what is it then?
Moreover, this is kind of labelling. Many people who have been working hard all their life may not have made enough savings to let them lead a life out of poverty upon retirement. The Government then asks them to apply for CSSA. 844 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
However, we must remember that this will have a labelling effect. They have toiled throughout their lives, yet they have to rely on the support of the Government in their twilight years, being despised by society? How can this be regarded as fair? In my view, the implementation of a universal retirement protection system will remove this labelling effect.
The third pillar is the Mandatory Provident Fund (MPF) System, which is seriously inadequately. We may brush aside the problem of complaints and discontent caused by the expensive administration fees at present, but another problem palpable to all is the amount of saving a scheme member may make from his lifelong contribution. To the majority of scheme members, how long can they live on the lump sum of saving they may retrieve from the scheme? More often than not, the lump sum will only defer the timing for applying for CSSA for some low-income families. They may eke out on the sum for several years, but eventually, they have to apply for CSSA.
Most important of all, many people are excluded from the coverage of the MPF System. Full-time housewives are a case in point. Their work is not being compensated, yet they make great contribution to society. These people may not account for half the number in society, yet they are not in the minority. Nonetheless, they cannot enjoy protection in this aspect. If so, how can we say that it is fair?
President, in fact, it is unnecessary to list in detail the examples of other places to illustrate that the successful implementation of a universal retirement protection system is possible. Apart from striving for economic prosperity, a society should also ensure that its people can live a dignified life and elderly persons are well-supported. This is a very important point. I believe there are many successful examples proving the viability of such a system. The many worries about bankruptcy and insolvency may be attributed to incomplete understanding of the system. Regarding the many countries implementing the system which are caught in financial crises, it may be due to overspending in other areas and over-expansion of expenditure on the part of governments, or even failures in financial policies.
At present, in the formulation of medium- to long-term financial strategies, many governments will not only ensure the sustainability of the system, but also take on a long-term perspective in examining the financial burden brought by the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 845 ageing population in the long run and assessing the viability of the relevant policy. The impact, the pressure brought about by the ageing population, is a subject that must be examined. Hence, in the formulation of any policy, the Government obviously cannot overlook this extremely important point.
Moreover, in the Netherlands, a country where the ageing problem is not serious, a quarter of the population will be receiving universal retirement protection from now till 2030 according to calculation. In view of this, the authorities have started building up a reserve fund and making annual provisions to the fund. I think this is a necessary measure. I recall that about three years ago, the Democratic Party made all-out effort to urge the authorities to make a provision of $50 billion as medical reserve for elderly persons. In future, if the Government still has the luck to record substantial surpluses, it should set aside that sum as the seed money of the reserve fund for the elderly pension system instead of allocating the sum to other reserves or distributing it by all means, such as tax rebate, and so on. This is an important measure to save for the rainy days.
As for the OALA, being dubbed the "ex gratia fruit grant", we think the existing system should be adopted, whereby elderly persons aged 70 or above will not be subject to any means test. For this reason, we have proposed an amendment to the original motion. In fact, according to the proposal submitted by LEUNG Chun-ying to the Legislative Council, the expenditure so incurred will only increase by $3.7 billion, from $6.2 billion to $10 billion. The Government absolutely can afford the expenditure thus incurred. After all, the tax rebate offered each year often amounts to several billions of dollars. Since the Government is often at its wits' end in finding ways to "distribute handouts", it should instead spend the money on elderly persons, for this will benefit all. This approach is quite good.
After all, the OALA Scheme is only a transitional measure. In our view, we still need to strive for the expeditious implementation of a universal retirement protection system, and this is an extremely important point. We subscribe to the view of the World Bank, that basing on the median income per capita of HK$12,000, 30% of it should be spent on livelihood protection. As such, each elderly person aged over 65 should receive a monthly allowance of $3,600 to meet their basic living expenses. However, at the same time, we stress that certain social security system should be retained, which include the low-charge healthcare system and the public hospital system benefiting all members of the 846 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 public, and the subsidized housing system should continue to be expanded to help the needy. These are conditions requisite for ensuring the effective functioning of the universal retirement protection system and the secure support of elderly persons. Premised on the understanding that there will be no means test for elderly persons aged 70 or above, we support the motion proposed by Dr Fernando CHEUNG.
MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): President, prior to the scrutiny of the Old Age Living Allowance (OALA) Scheme by the Finance Committee, the Government tried to create public pressure and public opinion by placing advertisements on televisions in the past few days, hoping colleagues in the Legislative Council will pass the funding application at the meeting of the Finance Committee to be held this Friday. Despite that, the Neo Democrats and I still look forward to the abolition of the asset and income test for the OALA.
President, I know that the focus of the discussion today is universal retirement protection, not the suitability of abolishing the asset and income test for the OALA. However, there is no room for compromise regarding our stance on this issue. Why do we have to maintain this stance? For the population of elderly in poverty in Hong Kong has now reached nearly 300 000, and we really feel that there is no turning back. It adds to our worries when the Government fails to make necessary commitment to this in the near future. I am afraid the problem of elderly in poverty will not be alleviated.
Nowadays, the Government often emphasizes the three pillars in protection ― personal savings, the Mandatory Provident Fund (MPF) System and the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA) Scheme, yet they can in no way alleviate the problem of elderly in poverty prevailing in Hong Kong. The public often criticize the expensive administrative fees and the poor performance of MPF schemes, thus it is undesirable to regard this as a comprehensive retirement protection strategy. To address the concern for retirement protection in the long run, the authorities must set up a universal retirement protection system.
Under the MPF System, employees are required to bear the risk of investment by themselves. As the authorities remind the public in the advertisements, the value of investments may rise or drop. Why do wage LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 847 earners have to take on such risk of investment? In the event that a financial crisis happens just a few years before our retirement, our retirement protection will definitely be affected.
Moreover, the MPF System fails to provide protection to people not in employment or housewives. These people cannot benefit from any MPF scheme. In view of this, in 2005, the World Bank amended the 1994 retirement protection system which originally advocated a three-pillar model and changed it to a five-pillar system. The Chairman of the Mandatory Provident Fund Schemes Authority (MPFA), Anna WU, has said that it is not the original intent of the MPF System to provide retirement protection to everyone. She has openly supported the establishment of a universal retirement protection system.
President, even though many people have doubts about the universal retirement protection system, actuaries in the community have designed a universal pension proposal and ensured that the operation of the proposal can sustain for 30 years. The successful operation of the proposal hinges on the population born during the post-World War II baby boom, who have to labour to make savings for society promptly before the retirement spree. In view of this, the implementation of the universal retirement protection system is imminent; it can brook no delay, and there is no turning back. The Government must take suitable actions to introduce the system.
As for the CSSA system, the public have all along requested the Government to abolish the arrangement for "bad son statement", so as to allow elderly persons to apply for CSSA in individual capacity. However, the Administration has on various occasions defended the need for keeping such an arrangement. In fact, we all know the application arrangements are extremely tedious and many elderly persons are simply put off by them.
President, today, I have proposed an amendment to Dr Fernando CHEUNG's motion, seeking to review the implementation of CSSA for the past 19 years since 1 July 1993. Before the implementation of the current CSSA Scheme in 1 July 1993, an elderly CSSA recipient was entitled to an allowance of $900 for meeting basic needs, plus a supplement of $450, which was the Old Age Allowance (OAA) at the time, commonly known as the "fruit grant". Since the implementation of the new CSSA Scheme in 1993, CSSA recipients can no 848 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 longer apply for the "fruit grant" on the grounds that the allowance provided has already included the "fruit grant".
However, in retrospect of the situation in the past 19 years, the payment of "fruit grant" has been adjusted, which is now $1,090 monthly. For able-bodied adult recipients aged below 60, the CSSA payment is $1,990. For able-bodied single recipients aged 60 or above, they are entitled to $2,820. There is a discrepancy of $830 between the two, and the amount of $830 means a shortfall of $260 when compared with the existing "fruit grant".
Recently, when Secretary Matthew CHEUNG promotes the OALA to the public, he says that the OALA is a poverty relief measure, whereas the "fruit grant" is a tribute of respect to elderly persons. Nonetheless, we should bear in mind that when CSSA was first introduced, it was stated that the payments for elderly recipients already included the "fruit grant". As such, CSSA recipients, like other elderly persons, should also be entitled to the "fruit grant" which the Government considers as a tribute of respect. Why would the Government's respect for elderly persons have diminished after 19 years? Though the Social Welfare Department will issue the Community Living Supplement to elderly CSSA recipients simultaneously now, the Community Living Supplement is provided not as a tribute of respect, the policy intent of which is different from that of the "fruit grant".
Today, we definitely hope that the Government will give the right amount of "fruit grant" to elderly CSSA recipients after taking into account the historical factor for the provision of "fruit grant". We also worry that when the "fruit grant" is adjusted for various reasons in future, elderly CSSA recipients will not be able to benefit from the adjustment.
President, I hope the authorities will face the problem of elderly in poverty squarely. It should set up, examine and finalize the timetable and roadmap for the introduction of a universal retirement protection system. Moreover, it should reconsider splitting CSSA and the "fruit grant" into two separate application items, so that any adjustment in the "fruit grant" is fully reflected under the CSSA Scheme. Thank you, President.
I so submit.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 849
SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE (in Cantonese): President, first of all, I thank Dr Fernando CHEUNG for proposing this motion this evening. I also thank the six Members, namely Mr TAM Yiu-chung, Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr CHAN Kin-por, Mr Michael TIEN, Mr Albert HO and Mr Gary FAN, for proposing amendments. They have enabled the current-term Government to share with Members some of our thoughts on the subject of retirement protection.
Before proceeding to the debate on this motion, allow me to give a brief introduction on the current status of our retirement protection system. As Members may have heard, the existing retirement protection system in Hong Kong was established with reference to the World Bank's multi-pillar model. It includes mainly three pillars, namely the Mandatory Provident Fund (MPF) System, voluntary private savings and the non-contributory social security system. Moreover, the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA) Scheme and the Social Security Allowance (SSA) Scheme are currently in place under the social security system. The aforesaid retirement protection model has been adopted since the 1990s, following lengthy discussions among various sectors in Hong Kong society.
We have all along been encouraging self-reliance. Through savings, investment and insurance policies, the individual prepares himself for retirement, and is backed up by his family when necessary. The Government seeks not to replace, but to reinforce, their roles. It is reinforcement rather than replacement. This point is very important. The MPF System was established to help the working population accumulate retirement savings. The people of Hong Kong have always been influenced by traditional culture. Children will usually take care of their parents as manifestation of filial piety, which also provides essential financial support to the elderly. Besides, the Old Age Allowance and Disability Allowance are in place under the SSA Scheme run by the Government to help recipients meet special needs arising from old age or disabilities, and enable elders to enjoy some financial independence. If and when the efforts of both the individual and his family fail, CSSA would come to their aid.
A look into the future suggests that Hong Kong is facing the challenge of population ageing, like many economies in the world. Population ageing will constitute a great challenge to our welfare and medical systems. It will also reduce our economic growth potentials and pose immense challenges to our fiscal sustainability in the future. This point warrants our attention. Several 850 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
Members have also mentioned just now that while the labour force is expected to shrink by around the year 2020 and along with it, possibly also a declining number of taxpayers, the number of elderly people aged 65 or above will concurrently surge, from 980 000 at present to 2.16 million in 2031, and further to 2.56 million in 2041, accounting for 30% of the population at that time.
Unless labour productivity can be greatly enhanced, the ageing of our population will reduce our standard of living and weaken the vitality and competitiveness of the economy overall. In addition, the resources necessary for the welfare of the elderly will be ever on the rise. There will also be increasing pressure on the next generation arising from dependent parents and elders. From the perspective of dependency ratio, about 10 persons of working age (that is, Hong Kong people aged 15 to 64) took care of one dependent elderly person in the early 1980s, but that number has dropped to five now. We expect that it will further drop to two within 20 years, which means that two persons will have to take care of one dependent elderly person. As the population is rapidly ageing, it is estimated that the labour force will fall after about 2020. The economic dependency ratio will soar from 871 in 2012 to 1 140 in 2029, representing an increase of 31%.
In order to understand the economic situation and retirement plans of the current and next generations of elderly people in Hong Kong, the Central Policy Unit is conducting a territory-wide household survey which covers about 10 000 households. Some initial results of the survey are expected to be available by the end of this year. The authorities will, based on the survey findings, assess the sustainability of the present retirement protection system in Hong Kong, and explore the proposals on refining the existing system.
Prior to finalizing the relatively medium- and long-term tasks, the Government has proposed a monthly Old Age Living Allowance (OALA) of $2,200 to supplement the living expenses of needy elderly aged 65 or above. The OALA is an important poverty alleviation measure. It is estimated that more than 400 000 elderly people are eligible. The allowance can effectively consolidate the pillars of the social security system under the retirement protection system. Society in general looks forward to the early implementation of the new allowance in order that the needy elderly can be benefited as soon as possible.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 851
Here, I wish to thank Mr CHAN Kin-por and Mr Michael TIEN for making clear their support for the OALA Scheme right from the beginning of their speeches just now. I eagerly hope that Members would adopt an inclusive, pragmatic, rational and objective attitude towards this proposal. I hope that the Finance Committee of the Legislative Council will approve the funding application as soon as possible, so that the Government can officially launch the Scheme in March next year, with a view to enabling more than 400 000 needy elderly in relatively poor living conditions to receive immediate financial relief and live a somewhat better life.
President, the Government will continue to consolidate and strengthen our retirement protection system in order to ensure that the various pillars can give full play to their mutually complementary effects. The question of how best to help those retirees who cannot receive proper care under the existing protection system a concern for all of us. That is to say, what would happen to those who cannot receive proper care under the three-pillar set-up? The Government has indicated that the new Commission on Poverty will be established by the end of this year. In his election manifesto, the Chief Executive clearly stated that the specific tasks of the new Commission on Poverty would include "studying how to introduce short, medium and long-term measures to solve the problem of elderly poverty and improve the present social security and retirement protection systems". The new Commission on Poverty will form a Task Force on Social Security and Retirement Protection, to be led by the Chief Secretary for Administration, to explore the relevant matters. This arrangement and such decision show that the Government attaches great importance to retirement protection.
President, Dr Fernando CHEUNG's motion has timely afforded Members an opportunity to put forward some valuable views and pool collective wisdom. I will further give a consolidated response after listening to Members' speeches.
President, I so submit. Thank you.
IR DR LO WAI-KWOK (in Cantonese): President, in the discussion of the motion on "Universal retirement protection system", a system which will have far-reaching impact on Hong Kong, we should be extremely cautious. Never should we put the next generation in financial difficulty merely to win a round of applause or more votes. At the same time, we should make every effort to 852 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 ensure that the arrangement will be as fair as possible to this generation and the next.
Certainly, like many Hong Kong people, I consider that given the economic development and social advancement in Hong Kong, we should offer a helping hand to the needy in society and elderly persons by all means, displaying the spirit of a caring society. Regarding the original motion on "Universal retirement protection system" and some of the content of the various amendments today, it seems that several issues of different natures which should have been handled separately are now being mixed together, and it is likely to cause confusions.
In 2005, the World Bank issued the "Old Age Income Support in the 21st Century: An International Perspective on Pension Systems and Reform", putting forth a conceptual framework on pension, which is quite worthy of reference. I heard this framework mentioned in speeches earlier and I think it warrant some explanation.
The model includes five pillars. First, it is the non-contributory zero pillar, which is a public pension plan financed by the government with the objective of providing elderly persons with a minimum level of protection. Second, it is the first pillar of mandatory nature, which is a mandatory earnings-related public pension plan. Third, it is the second pillar of mandatory nature, which includes mandatory earnings-related occupational or private pension plans. Fourth, it is the third pillar of voluntary nature, which includes voluntary contributions to occupational or private pension plans. Fifth, it is the fourth pillar of voluntary nature, that is, non-financial support, which includes access to informal support (such as family support), other formal social security programmes (such as healthcare or housing), and other individual assets (such as home ownership and reverse mortgages, and so on).
The five-pillar mode proposed by the World Bank is only a framework, for the retirement protection systems implemented around the world come in all types and modes, and the number and combination of pillars varied accordingly. Hence, any rational discussion on a universal retirement protection system should take into account all factors in reality, including the existing retirement protection scheme, the specific needs for reform, the aspirations of the public and the sustainability of the system, and so on.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 853
In Hong Kong, a mandatory earnings-related public pension plan, the first pillar under the World Bank model, has not yet been established. However, a social security system of non-contributory nature, which includes Comprehensive Social Security Assistance and Old Age Allowance, has been put in place to provide minimum income protection at retirement for elderly persons with financial needs, constituting the zero-pillar referred by the World Bank. Moreover, the Mandatory Provident Fund (MPF) System managed by the market has been set up in Hong Kong as the second pillar, providing retirement protection to employees, or retirees in future. Regarding the options for making voluntary contributions to MPF schemes and participating in the voluntary Occupational Retirement Scheme, they form the third pillar. Furthermore, the authorities have implemented other measures to provide diversified support to elderly persons, which include medical care services, residential care services, priority housing schemes for elderly persons, adjustments in dependent parent allowances and support for the introduction of reverse mortgages.
President, having regard to the specific situation in Hong Kong, it is relatively proper to rely on the following three major pillars in providing retirement protection. One of these pillars is the MPF schemes. Despite the prevailing extensive criticisms against MPF schemes, it is expected that with the improvement and enhancement in MPF schemes and the increase in accrued benefits, this pillar will play an increasingly important role.
The second pillar is the voluntary saving protection system, which allows and encourages individuals to make various saving, insurance and investment arrangements according to their individual conditions and needs.
The third pillar is the public assistance protection system which aims at providing a safety net outside the two aforesaid systems to retirees in need in society.
President, from all this, it is evident that, the SAR Government is not obliged to give handouts in a blanket manner to each and every elderly person or retirees in Hong Kong. Indeed, the Government should ensure the sustainability and effectiveness of the complementary performance of the three pillars, promoting the spirit of self-reliance on the one hand and providing on the other a safety net when necessary in Hong Kong as a caring society.
President, I so submit. 854 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
MR CHEUNG KWOK-CHE (in Cantonese): President, the Subcommittee on Retirement Protection was set up under the Panel on Welfare Services of the previous term. The Subcommittee held seven meetings and invited 40 to 50 deputations, political parties and groupings to attend the meetings to express their views. The attendees included academics, actuaries and grass-roots stakeholders, so the coverage was extremely extensive. Colleagues of the legislature and government officials also attended the meetings and a lot of manpower and resource was expended on this. The Subcommittee completed its work in May this year. Two motions were passed by the Subcommittee, the first motion being: "That this Subcommittee condemns the Central Policy Unit for ignoring the Legislative Council's efforts in studying the subject of universal retirement protection and being reluctant to provide findings of any relevant studies that it has conducted so far, so as to facilitate public discussion". The second motion was: "The next Government should immediately set up a dedicated task force to study the subject matter (universal retirement protection system), with a view to drawing up a concrete timetable for the launch of an extensive public consultation on the options and implementation details and formulating concrete execution plans in the first year of tenure". I have to criticize the Government, including the Central Policy Unit, for employing a bureaucratic attitude throughout the course of work of the Subcommittee. Today, the Secretary mentioned how effective the three pillars are. Now, let me tell the Government in what ways these three pillars have been decaying.
President, the first pillar is the Mandatory Provident Fund (MPF). The MPF has been implemented for 11 years. All along, the administration fees have been expensive and the return has been unsatisfactory, even to the extent of incurring actual loss, eroding the money wage earners sweated blood to earn year after year. This problem is obvious to all. Last week, the Consumer Council pointed out that fund management fees in Hong Kong were too high, with variation in management fees reaching up to a 26-fold difference, and the fees charged were not linked to fund performance. A 1% fee difference will make a substantial difference to the balance of an employee's MPF account. Take the case of an employee making a monthly contribution of $2,000 (including employer's contribution) from the age of 35 as an example. Assuming that a return of 5% per annum is made, which is quite high, and that the employee will have contributed $720,000 in total in the 30 years before he reaches 65, he will only get $1,390,000 at retirement calculating at compound interest. However, if the management fee is increased by 1%, whereas the other factors remain unchanged, the balance of the MPF account of this employee will be $1,170,000, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 855 representing a reduction of $220,000. If the management fee is increased by 2%, the balance will only be $990,000, representing a reduction of $400,000. This speaks volumes about the significant influence of management fees.
A young social worker asked me, given the present performance of MPF, how could he rely on the MPF to support his retirement. It has long been said in society that the MPF is impracticable, but the Government insists on having its own way. Now, after the MPF has been implemented for 11 years, the authorities implement semi-portability for MPF. The labour sector has been urging for years for the abolition of the arrangement of offsetting severance payments and long service payments against the MPF, yet the Government does not accept this view. As a result, the MPF has been reduced to something comparable to a scurrying rat which everyone wants to get rid of.
President, the second pillar is personal savings. According to the survey of the Census and Statistics Department in 2010, there are about 230 000 elderly persons not being supported by their children and not receiving Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA), and more than half of them only have savings less than $50,000. As indicated by a survey conducted by the HSBC in 2010, the average savings at retirement of Hong Kong people is only $315,000. In other words, for a person with a median level of savings at retirement, he can only live off his savings for five and half years if the monthly expenditure for attaining a basic living standard is set at $4,170, which is the CSSA payment for single elderly recipients. According to the statistics, elderly persons will live to 80 to 85 nowadays. Therefore, after spending all the savings, retired elderly persons will still have to meet their daily expenses for another 10 to 15 years. By then, they may have to rely on their children or turn to the Government for assistance.
President, under the three-pillar model proposed by the World Bank, the Government is responsible for the non-contributory public pension scheme, which is equivalent to the Old Age Allowance (OAA), CSSA and the Old Age Living Allowance (OALA) to be submitted to the Finance Committee this Friday. The payments for the OAA and OALA are set at $1,090 and $2,200, as now proposed, respectively. Yet, either of the payment is adequate for elderly persons to meet their daily expenses. With regard to CSSA, applicants have to undergo a household means test, or their children have to submit a statement stating that they will not provide financial support to their parents, commonly known as the "bad son statement". However, this CSSA Scheme has a lot of 856 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 restrictions and a labelling effect. Besides, it is not designed for retired elderly persons originally, so it will not be able to provide livelihood protection to retirees.
However, we know that by 2040, the number of elderly persons aged over 65 will exceed 2.5 million, and their post-retirement life will pose tremendous pressure on the Government. The Alliance for Universal Pensions hopes that the early commencement of the discussion on the tripartite-contribution proposal will indeed help the Government, so that Hong Kong residents aged 65 or above will be entitled to a monthly payment of $3,000 at present without undergoing any asset and income test. Under the proposal, half of the contributions from employees and employers under the MPF will be injected into the proposed scheme first, and then the Government will inject into it the CSSA and "fruit grant" commitment for elderly persons. On the other hand, a retirement protection tax at $1.9% will be levied on enterprises making a net profit of over $10 million per annum in addition. Under this arrangement, employers, employees and the Government are not required to make additional contribution. In the face of the sharp increase in elderly population in 2030 resulted from the baby boom, the Government has to inject a one-off lump sum as the trigger fund at the beginning. A few years ago, we proposed a sum of $50 billion, yet today, I believe it may need $100 billion. This is merely a proposal and we are simply asking the Government to examine it, or to at least put forth justifications for opposing it. The Government should publicize the relevant figures and allow extensive discussion in society. It should not dismiss the issue with the simple remark that "there is no consensus in society".
President, we have been discussing the problem of ageing population for a dozen of years. Now, we have indeed come to a stage where the implementation of universal retirement protection cannot brook any more delay. Thank you, President.
MR ALAN LEONG (in Cantonese): President, last week, the Hong Kong Council of Social Services released a study report. They pointed out that the overall population in poverty in Hong Kong had decreased slightly to 1.15 million, but the elderly population in poverty had on the contrary increased. At present, one in three elderly persons is living in poverty. For this reason, we have come across a lot of men and women living below the poverty line. They LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 857 have to scavenge for aluminum cans and cardboards to eke out a living, leading a life of no security.
President, Hong Kong is facing the problem of ageing population. If the Government still fails to address the problem properly and establish a comprehensive elderly policy, we can absolutely envisage the problem to worsen when the ageing of the population reaches its peak between 2030 and 2040. The consequence will be borne by taxpayers of the next generation in Hong Kong.
In fact, when the Government proposed the Old Age Living Allowance (OALA), it was directly admitting that the three-pillar retirement protection, that is, savings, Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA) and the Mandatory Provident Fund, which it has always emphasized, is just kind of sub-standard pillars, dangerous buildings and a safety net with holes, for which remedy must be made. However, President, what society genuinely needs is a comprehensive elderly policy that can ensure all elderly persons to lead a dignified life. Regrettably, the new proposal completely misses the target of respecting elderly persons, whereas the allowance of $2,200 is barely adequate to serve as poverty relief. The proposal will end up as a weird arrangement, which is neither fish nor fowl. Under the proposal, elderly persons have to declare their assets and income. Worse still, hundreds of thousands of elderly in poverty will not be able to benefit despite spending all their "funeral expenses", so to speak. What a heartless and uncaring practice is it?
Secretary Matthew CHEUNG and Chief Secretary Carrie LAM keep repeating the litany of excuses that "resources should be concentrated on helping elderly persons in need" or "the burden should not be left to the next generation", trying to rationalize this "David's deer" proposal. The proposal is not an effective poverty relief measure, it fails to show respect to elderly persons, and it is not an elderly policy. President, this is why it is called the David's deer. Why did I call such remarks a litany of excuses? For they are simply stating that money should be spent properly and the authorities should have foresight in policy implementation, which are, President, remarks applicable to all governments and any policy, and they can never be wrong. At issue is whether the "ex gratia fruit grant" proposal is a policy that enables money to be spent in the cleverest way with the best foresight and best suits the need of the ageing population in Hong Kong. I have to query Secretary Matthew CHEUNG and Chief Secretary over this point.
858 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
Last Monday, Secretary Matthew CHEUNG took his proposal to the Panel on Welfare Services and promoted it. He said that the OALA would cost $6.2 billion in the first year, and adding to it the expenditure of $7.6 billion on the "fruit grant", the Government would have to pay $13.8 billion in the first year. The Government's coffer is now flooded with cash. We can afford that. However, actuaries tell us that in less than 30 years, one member in the workforce will have to support two elderly persons. In other words, despite the large amount of public money we have, we will consume all the reserve sooner or later. If Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying says that this is a poverty relief measure, may I ask whether he have heard of the saying that one can hardly take care of people in prolonged poverty? President, in the Panel, we have been asking this repeatedly: How long could this approach of giving handouts out of the public coffers last, even with the requirement of making declarations? Adding to it the increasing expenditure on CSSA, which is only natural given the ageing population, when will the arrangement come to a breakdown? I have asked the Secretary this question more than once, but he keeps evading it. Probably because he knows at heart that welfare expenditure funded purely by public money will not sustain in the long run, and tax will eventually be increased to solve the problem. That is why he keeps evading the issue.
President, what actually should the Government do? Indeed, there is no secret in solving the issue but building up a reserve promptly. At this time when the coffer of Hong Kong is still full, we should set up a seed fund for the establishment of universal retirement protection. At this time when Hong Kong still has an adequate labour force, the tripartite-contribution proposal should be introduced as soon as possible. To save for a rainy day effectively, the accumulation of funds should be started as soon as possible.
President, the CPU started studying universal retirement protection in 2003. As mentioned by Mr CHEUNG Kwok-che earlier, the Subcommittee on Retirement Protection under the Panel on Welfare Services of the Legislative Council of the previous term had completed a very detailed report. The Civic Party had also explained our "three-nos" proposal therein, stating the premise that there should be no increase in tax, no increase in the contribution rate of employers and no increase in the burden of employees. The running of the seed fund will not only lead us through the peak of ageing of the population, but will also serve as a permanent and sustainable measure.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 859
President, the issue of universal retirement protection has been discussed in the community for over 10 years. Regrettably, the Government has all along been evading the issue. The CPU has studied the issue for 10 year, yet not a word has been shared with us. Such an attitude and evasion are acts of an irresponsible government. We cannot accept this. Therefore, we support the original motion proposed by Dr Fernando CHEUNG.
I so submit.
MR LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, earlier on the Hong Kong Council of Social Service published some figures on poverty for the year 2011 and the survey findings show that the poverty rate among elderly persons during the past 10 years has been more than 30%, that is, one in every three elderly persons lives in a state of poverty. Among these people, the poverty rate of elderly singletons or elderly couples is even more serious, being as high as 53.9%. In other words, one out of every two elderly singletons or one out of every two elderly couples lives in a state of poverty. Figures show that the problem of poverty among elderly persons is very serious.
With respect to the problem of elderly in poverty, the Government has introduced quite a number of poverty assistance measures over the past few years. Recently, the proposal made by the Government to introduce the Old Age Living Allowance (OALA) Scheme has caused controversies among all quarters. Personally, I think that it is definitely a good thing for the Government to increase the welfare benefits for those elderly persons in need. But there is really a need to revise the proposal concerned. The asset limit set for elderly singletons at $186,000 is too low. It is perfectly normal for these elderly persons who have worked hard for the greater part of their lives to have saved some $100,000 in preparation for their twilight years. I would think that the Government should raise this asset limit to $300,000.
Under the original OALA proposal, an elderly person who has passed the means test is entitled to a monthly payment of $2,200, which is much better than the existing Old Age Allowance in which the recipients are paid some $1,000 a month. And it is a considerable sum of money to those elderly people who have to rely on scavenging cardboards, aluminum cans to earn a meagre sum of money.
860 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
Any welfare benefit should be promptly handed to those in genuine need. Welfare benefits are not political chips aiming at earning kudos. When taxes are not increased, the share in the pie remains the same. If there is no means test, the result is that everybody is entitled to it and this is like handing money from the hands of elderly persons who need it desperately into the hands of those elderly persons who do not need it so badly. Strangely enough, there are some politicos who say that if the Government does not agree to their demand of waiving the means test, they would rather see the scheme fall through and they will vote against the Government's proposal of introducing the OALA Scheme. These politicos are only pretending to be helpful, but in fact they are trying to harm other people. Do these politicos know how important it is for the poor elderly persons to get the allowance as soon as possible?
President, with the soaring prices these days, a catty of beef in the market costs almost $100 and it is never easy to prepare a simple meal with meat and vegetable. When food prices are expensive, the prices of homes are even more expensive. Those elderly persons who do not own a home and who are not tenants of public rental housing units will have to live in those so-called sub-divided units and they have to pay some $3,000 a month.
When life is so difficult, those elderly persons who have savings or those who are supported by their children should be able to lead a life that can be considered barely sufficient. But for those elderly persons who do not have any savings or are not supported by their children, they will have no income when they retire. And they will be so hard up. Now applicants for the elderly CSSA will require a statement from their family members which is colloquially called a "bad son statement" to declare not providing support to their parents. But the fact is that there are many elderly persons who are not financially supported in any way by anyone. And for various reasons, their family members are unable to furnish such a statement. The result is that these elderly persons are unable to get any CSSA and they can only live on the so-called "fruit grant" which amounts to some $1,000 a month. I would think that this requirement for statement should be waived and elderly persons should be allowed immediately to apply for CSSA on an individual basis.
President, the Government has introduced many kinds of poverty alleviation measures in the hope of solving the problem of elderly poverty. These measures include the concessionary fare of $2, healthcare coupons, the handing out of $6,000, and so on. But all these measures are either one-off or LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 861 piecemeal in nature. It is not that they are not desirable, but they are of little use to solving the problem and cannot address the problem of elderly poverty at root.
Projections by the Census and Statistics Department in end July show that the population of Hong Kong aged 65 or above will increase from 13% of the total population in 2011 to 26% in 2031. It can be seen that the problem of population ageing is getting more and more serious. Therefore, careful thoughts should be given to introducing universal retirement protection. I think that it is an urgent task to set up a dedicated retirement protection commission.
This commission should make reference to the success or failure of foreign countries in implementing universal retirement protection. Greece, for example, has fallen into a serious financial crisis because of retirement protection. We must learn their lesson well.
In addition, the commission should make projections of a holistic and long-term nature on the implementation of retirement protection in Hong Kong before coming up with a proposal on it. There must also be extensive consultations. And when a consensus is reached in all the related aspects, then a timetable for the introduction of universal retirement protection should be devised.
President, I so submit. Thank you.
MR POON SIU-PING (in Cantonese): President, the problem of population ageing in Hong Kong has been discussed for almost 20 years. According to the latest population projections by the Census and Statistics Department (C&SD), in 2012 the number of people in Hong Kong aged 65 or above is 980 000 and the number of people aged 70 or above is 710 000. When it comes to the year 2041, the former group will have increased to 2.56 million while the latter group to 2.04 million. But the working population will not see any major change in the next 30 years and the number loiters at 4.8 million to 4.9 million. Now the so-called three pillars in Hong Kong, that is, savings, Comprehensive Social Security Assistance and Mandatory Provident Fund (MPF) cannot cope with the imminent problem of population ageing. The Federation of Hong Kong and Kowloon Labour Unions (FHKKLU) to which I belong supports the introduction of universal retirement protection to solve the problem of population ageing in Hong Kong. 862 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
While we lend our support to universal retirement protection, we also demand that the Government should address the many inadequacies of the existing MPF System, especially in its complete negligence of the retirement life of non-working people, chiefly family carers. In the last term of this Council, Ms LI Fung-ying of the FHKKLU proposed to reform the MPF System and change the present MPF System which is only linked with occupation to linking with age. The Government should make the minimum MPF contribution for those non-working people who are not full-time students. These people are mainly housewives and the unemployed. The contribution to be made should be based on the minimum relevant income of employees under the present MPF System, that is, 5% of $6,500 or about $325.
According to information from the C&SD, in 2008, the number of family carers in Hong Kong numbered 670 000. In 2009, the number was 660 000. In 2010, the number was 700 000. In 2011, the number was 670 000. On average, the number of family carers in Hong Kong is 675 000, which is quite a steady one. If the Government makes contributions for these family carers every month, the annual public expenditure will be $2.6 billion. When this is added to the unemployed who take up 3.3% of the population, the total expenditure is only some $3 billion. In comparison, the Old Age Living Allowance (OALA) Scheme proposed by the Government will incur an initial annual public expenditure of $6 billion when the OALA commences. Such an amount of expenditure will rise every year as population ageing gets more serious. Therefore, it is perfectly financially viable for the Government to make the MPF contributions for the family carers and the unemployed.
I have to stress that this proposal is only meant to address the shortcomings of the existing MPF System and it cannot replace an effective retirement protection system. Therefore, it is still our goal to strive for universal retirement protection. However, there is also some positive meaning to this proposal as it shows that the Government recognizes the contribution made by family carers to society and is willing to set aside public money to pay for their MPF contributions. Before a system of universal retirement protection is put into practice, a MPF system linked with age will cause no adverse impact on the existing system and fewer disputes will be caused. I sincerely hope that the Government can consider such a proposal.
President, with respect to the motion today, I cannot help but mention item (c) of the motion, that is, the proposal to abolish the asset and income test for LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 863 the OALA in order for the Scheme to serve as a transitional measure leading to the universal retirement protection scheme. I hope very much that things would develop in this way. Unfortunately, much to our regret, the Government has stated firmly that this OALA with an asset test is to be implemented in the absence of any universal retirement protection and that if the OALA is to be implemented without an asset test, it will not be financially viable and we will have to bear the consequence of the possible scrapping of the OALA Scheme, resulting in some elderly persons in need of financial support unable to receive any assistance.
In any social movement, there are always arguments over different tactics adopted in the course of struggle. It is the same with respect to this fight for universal retirement protection. We can elect different kinds of improvement in part while achieving the ultimate goal of universal retirement protection. We may also adopt a tactic of confrontation and give up the possibility of partial improvement, bear the risk of the Government withdraw the improvement package and force the Government to put in place universal retirement protection.
President, this happened when we discussed among ourselves in the FHKKLU on the OALA Scheme and we had a heated debate on these two approaches. But in the end we still have to choose between these two options or even more. And this is a dilemma. I support the idea of using different kinds of partial improvements to enable the elderly to lead a better life. But I will also respect the stands held by various groups. I sincerely hope that various kinds of tactics will achieve the same goal eventually, that is, the introduction of universal retirement protection.
I so submit.
MR LEUNG YIU-CHUNG (in Cantonese): President, earlier on, a Member hurled criticisms at Members who demand the abolition of the asset declaration system under the Old Age Living Allowance (OALA) Scheme, calling them politicos. I think those people who criticized Members as politicos are politicos themselves. They are politicos of politicos, and what is more, shameless politicos. Why? The Secretary has said over and over again that the OALA Scheme is not a retirement protection system, that it is not the starting point of a retirement protection system, and that it is purely a poverty alleviation measure and so, it entirely has nothing to do with a retirement protection system. 864 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
However, when it comes to poverty alleviation, there are still many problems indeed. Other than the declaration of assets, the Government also has to consider a lot more issues, including the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA) payment for the elderly, which also warrants consideration in order to come up with a solution. Therefore, I think such criticisms are unfair; nor are they a way to address the problem positively. What we have to deal with today is not only the problem of elderly poverty. It is most important to address the problem of population ageing. The Government has already said over and over again that the ageing of population will become unimaginably serious in the future and this aside, there is also another problem, namely, the young population has kept on declining, which is also a major problem. Other than these two problems, how are we going to resolve problems faced by the elderly in their living? This is what we actually need to deal with and so, our discussion today should not simply focus on the need for asset declaration. I think we have to rightly target the problem in our discussion.
Having said that, I agree that the Government's proposal is a de facto "fruit grant", or a "special fruit grant" as colloquially referred to in the community, and the requirement of asset declaration should not be imposed. The most important reason is that what we are facing now is the issue of how to facilitate transition from the ageing of population to retirement protection. This is why we have to take this step. We do not really support this Scheme, because what we actually support is a universal retirement protection scheme. But since the Government has taken this step, I think we should move forward from this step. I have to make this point very clear, and I shall make no bones about saying it.
But regrettably, the Government is telling us today that this is almost the end of this issue of retirement protection, for they will not take other issues into further consideration. Why? Because LEUNG Chun-ying has time and again said that there are huge controversies over retirement protection. What does it mean? When he said that there are controversies, it means that he is not going to handle it. This is also what happened in the case of standard working hours. It is again because there are controversies that this issue is not handled, and nothing is easier than this. But then, there is a problem. What is it? How can the problem of population ageing be addressed?
Earlier on, the Government has over and over again told us not to worry, droning on and on about the three pillars, namely, savings, CSSA and the Mandatory Provident Fund (MPF). But strangely enough, even Dr CHOW LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 865
Wing-sun, who is the staunchest supporter of the Government, has said that the MPF cannot be taken as retirement protection because the MPF is actually just a means to force workers to save. It is based on the concept of savings and carries no meaning of retirement. What is more, President, as many colleagues have mentioned, many people, such as housewives, do not make MPF contributions. What about people who do not have a job? What about people who do not have MPF? How can they retire? This is basically not a pillar. It is not even half of a pillar. Not only is it rotten ― many people have said that it is rotten; so did Dr Fernando CHEUNG when he spoke earlier on ― it basically does not exist as a pillar at all.
So, what else is there? There is only CSSA. Savings are out of the question. If people can have money for savings, why do they need a retirement protection system? I do not think that LI Ka-shing will consider it a headache as to how he is going to support his living in his old age. Will this be a headache to him? Not at all. Because he has money for savings, so why should we talk about it? What is said will be devoid of any substance. What is the point of talking about it? So, there is only CSSA, which is most important. But as we all know, CSSA is a concept of poverty alleviation. A family relies on it when it cannot make ends meet and so, it is not a kind of retirement protection. Therefore, in my view, the so-called three pillars do not exist at all. Not even one of these pillars exists, and there is primarily not any retirement system. In the absence of such a system, what should we do? This is why we are telling the Government once again today that we must have universal retirement protection. But the Government has over and over again shirked its responsibility and questioned why we do not accept the three universally-recognized pillars but have to ask for a fourth pillar.
The problem is, as we all know, population ageing is something we inevitably have to face. Why? Even in respect of CSSA, has the Government made any assessment? If there is no retirement protection in future, and everybody has to draw CSSA and when elderly in poverty also have to draw CSSA, will it go bankrupt? If everybody receives a "fruit grant" of $1,009, and together with the CSSA payment, will the Government go bankrupt? This is also a problem, because as our population ages, they cannot support their own living and will be forced to receive CSSA, and this problem will hence emerge. Even if they will receive the proposed OALA, for how many years can they receive it? I have asked the Secretary for how many years the Scheme can last as population ages continuously. So, there are still a host of problems to tackle. 866 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
What we are proposing for the Secretary's consideration today is that a policy of tripartite contribution should be adopted to tackle the problem. Tripartite contribution means contributions made by employers and employees and even by the Government without having to provide CSSA and "fruit grant" to the elderly anymore. This is an approach of tripartite contribution for resolving the problem, and also a way to address a declining number of young people against an ever increasing elderly population in the long term. We hold that this is a way to face up to the problem and to practically deal with the problem, so as to prevent the Government from being plunged into financial difficulties. Despite our good intentions, the Government has refused to listen to us, insisting on resolving the problem by means of the living allowance. But this will bring a heavy burden to bear on society. Why? Because in addition to the living allowance, the Government also has to provide CSSA payment to elderly in poverty. These are payments to be made on an ongoing basis, with the amount of expenditure increasing continuously (The buzzer sounded) …… Therefore, the problem is very serious.
MR LEE CHEUK-YAN (in Cantonese): President, the campaign by the Labour Party for the introduction of a universal pension system is backed by a very strong aspiration of the community. Nevertheless, I have no idea what aspirations Chief Executive LEUNG Chun-ying and Secretary Matthew CHEUNG have.
The aspiration of our community is simply that everyone can lead a dignified retirement life ― as everyone knows, elderly persons should retire as they cannot work any longer. No one wishes to undergo an asset test as doing so deprives them of dignity. The asset test requirement will only split applicants into two categories: the first category is the needy, and the second the non-needy. How can someone see himself having any dignity when he is categorized as the needy?
Therefore, we earnestly hope that a universal pension system can be established. Currently, Hong Kong's per capita Gross Domestic Product, which has already surpassed the United Kingdom and the United States, is ranked among the top 10s. Although we are so rich, the Government is still reluctant to introduce a universal pension system. On the contrary, applicants under the Old Age Living Allowance (OALA) Scheme are required to undergo an asset test, for the purpose of being categorized as the "the needy" or the "the non-needy". Is LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 867 this really the aspiration of our community? Have we ever contemplated how to help elderly persons to lead a dignified retirement life?
If a universal pension system is in place, elderly persons will enjoy a sense of security because they will not need to worry or speculate whether their children will support them even when they are old, for there will at least be retirement protection. I dare not say at this moment that the currently proposed universal pension of $3,000 will be sufficient because it is actually not. Nevertheless, this is at least the first step to give protection to elderly persons. This is the first point.
Dr LAW Chi-kwong has once criticized us for lacking political ethics on the ground that we suddenly asked for more after the Government had made the proposal. I would like to tell Dr LAW Chi-kwong and the Secretary clearly that a proposal was already put forward by the Labour Party early this year during the consultation on the budget on granting each elderly person an allowance of $2,000 monthly as a transitional measure leading to a universal pension system in five years. This proposal had already been put forward by us long before the Government put forward any proposals.
Hence, our stance has all along been consistent that, as a transitional measure, each elderly person should be granted an allowance of $2,000 monthly without undergoing through any asset test, with a view to leading to a universal pension system in five years. Why must I put forward the aforesaid proposal? The reason is that none of the existing three pillars is working, because they are all "sub-standard piles". For instance, the Mandatory Provident Fund (MPF) System has several major problems. First, the MPF has become "mandatory loss fund", for the loss suffered by MPF contributors is so severe that they even have to shed bitter tears. With the MPF accrued benefits continuing to shrink, how can we cope with our retirement life?
Second, the fact that the MPF accrued benefits can be used to offset severance pay turns MPF into a "severance pay fund" for employers.
Third, the administrative fees will eat up approximately 40% of the MPF contributions. Four decades after MPF contributions are made, only 60% of the contributions will go into the pockets of MPF contributors, whereas the remaining 40% will have to be used to cover administrative fees, which is grossly unfair. The MPF system can simply not ensure a dignified retirement life for low-income 868 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 earners. Nor can it give protection to family carers because they have not made any contributions to any MPF schemes. This is obviously a major problem.
Another problem concerns the "fruit grant" system. As everyone knows, the amount of "fruit grant" is insufficient to enable elderly persons to lead a dignified retirement life.
I would also like to say a few words about the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA) Scheme and the issue mentioned by Dr Fernando CHEUNG just now regarding the signing of a "bad son statement". According to the information provided by Oxfam Hong Kong, all eligible elderly persons who do not wish to undergo the asset test or sign a "bad son statement" are shut out. In other words, there are 160 000 poverty-stricken elderly persons in total who cannot apply for CSSA. Hence, the CSSA system is problematic.
As each of these three systems has its own problems, I cannot help asking the Government whether the currently proposed OALA Scheme can really help resolve the problem of elderly poverty. I consider the OALA neither fish nor fowl. Although the Government keeps reminding us every day that the OALA is a poverty alleviation measure, can it really achieve this goal? If the Government really wishes to help the poor, why does it not resolve the CSSA problem first? The Government can immediately lift these people out of poverty if only elderly persons in poverty living with family members are exempted from the signing of a "bad son statement", so that they can apply for CSSA at once.
The $2,200 allowance is insufficient and can do nothing to lift elderly persons out of poverty. Please bear in mind that they cannot be lifted out of poverty with that meagre $2,200 because they are still poor. An elderly person with $100,000 in savings is still poor even if he is granted $2,200 monthly because it is not enough. It can neither help the poor nor resolve the poverty problem once and for all. If the authorities really wish to assist the poor, the CSSA system has to be revamped. I recall the remark made by Mr Michael TIEN about granting $3,000 to elderly persons with assets of below $100,000. Should that be the case, the authorities might as well reform the CSSA system by relaxing its asset test to enable elderly persons to receive CSSA payments.
Hence, the OALA, which is neither fish nor fowl, cannot really help the poor. In addition, the assets test requirement will, first of all, constitute a nuisance to the people because elderly persons are required to make declarations. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 869
Second, other problems will come at its heels, that is, people with savings will be "penalized". The message sent by the authorities to the community is very clear, that people who save up are making a victim of themselves because the $200,000 or $300,000 saved up painstakingly by elderly persons as their "funeral expenses" or medical expenses ― these are their pet expressions― will eventually subject them to punishment, for they will not be granted the OALA as a result. They have to either transfer their assets or use up all their savings. Is this what the authorities want? This is one major problem caused by the relevant asset test requirement.
Besides, there is a problem with the MPF. Come to think about this. Accrued MPF benefits can be withdrawn at the age of 65. However, the accrued MPF benefits withdrawn by elderly persons upon reaching the age of 65 turn out to be unable to help them support their retirement life. On the contrary, the Government can dispense with the need to grant them an allowance of $2,200 as a result. The MPF benefits, coupled with the asset test, will actually help the Government save money in the end, because accrued MPF benefits will be counted towards part of the assets of these elderly persons.
This turns out to be the Government's plot, but is it really what the Government wishes to do? Certainly, the Government has often said that removal of the asset tests is not a sustainable measure. However, even if the asset test is not abolished, the existing arrangement is still not sustainable. We have to come up with a sustainable proposal. If granting all elderly persons an OALA of $2,200 monthly is not sustainable, then the authorities should first grant each elderly person a monthly allowance of $2,000 in the next five years as a transitional measure leading to a universal pension system underpinned by tripartite contributions, for such an arrangement to become sustainable. The Government is now absolutely financially capable of implementing this arrangement as a transitional measure leading to a universal pension system in five years. This is the proposal put forward by the Labour Party.
Thank you, President.
DR KWOK KA-KI (in Cantonese): President, it is most appropriate for Dr Fernando CHEUNG to propose this motion debate today, and it also best reflects how ridiculous and shameless the current Government is. As we all know, LEUNG Chun-ying's Government, in view of its extremely low popularity rating, 870 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 simply resorts to such a short-term remedy of taking more drastic actions, so as to win some applause. Of course, the Secretary should know that such actions are harmful to us, and I see no reason to accept his proposal.
The subject of universal retirement protection has been discussed for more than two decades. As mentioned by Dr Fernando CHEUNG just now, I think many of us should know MOK Tai-kee, who had put forth this subject many years ago and had been conducting research on it before his retirement. Today, according to either the International Monetary Fund (IMF) or the World Bank, the per capita Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of Hong Kong ranks the second in Asia, just behind Japan. According to the IMF, the ranking of Hong Kong (which ranks the 26th) just lags behind Japan (which ranks the 18th). Many Asian countries with a far lower ranking compared to Hong Kong, including Korea, Taiwan or even our great Motherland, have already implemented universal retirement protection.
Any learned person or anyone who genuinely has some knowledge about long-term retirement protection should find that these short-term measures will not in any way help our elderly. The three pillars frequently mentioned by us are not viable at all. The current generation of elderly may be able to accumulate, penny by penny, some savings. However, if they are so unfortunate as to suffer from serious diseases or encounter some specific needs in their daily lives ― such as those living in old buildings ― or require money in other aspects, they will have to use up all their savings.
If the Government insists on getting the proposal passed, it will plunge the elderly into abject poverty. It is because in order to be eligible for receiving the "special fruit grant", they can only keep some "funeral expenses" short of hundreds of thousands dollars; or they have to ask their family members to sign a "bad son statement", so as to be eligible for receiving the CSSA payments for the elderly. Is it what Hong Kong, being an international city in Asia, should do? Our fiscal reserve plus the foreign exchange reserve amount to over $2,600 billion. However, the Government has subsequently told us not to discuss such issues on the excuse that it is financially incapable. How ridiculous indeed.
The Old Age Living Allowance (OALA) introduced this time around involves $6.2 billion. We, the Civic Party, have also commissioned some academics to conduct an analysis on it. As a matter of fact, if the Government LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 871 was willing to implement this proposal last year, all it needed to do was to set up a seed fund of $50 billion. According to the study conducted by academics from the Department of Statistics and Actuarial Science of the University of Hong Kong, the said $50 billion, coupled with the 3% contribution by both employers and employees from the MPF accounts, as well as the expenditure on CSSA payments and "fruit grant" for the elderly aged 65 years or above, this proposal would still have a surplus of $309 billion by 2060. Only that the Government has never considered these figures, it simply kept on saying that the proposal was not viable.
What puzzles us is: Members of the pro-establishment camp always criticize us for our populism. But I think it is the Government that harbours excessive populist sentiments today, as it refuses to have a thorough discussion with us and insists on submitting its proposal on Friday. Even though there will be insufficient time for discussion in this Council, not to mention the long queue of deputations which have to wait until tomorrow night and do not know when they can voice out all their views, as well as those on the waiting list which have no chance to do so at all, the Government insists on getting its proposal passed at the Finance Committee meeting to be held on Friday. This Government seems to be very sick, doesn't it? How can it act in this way?
What I find most ridiculous are some of the amendments, including the one proposed by Mr TAM Yiu-chung. Even now, he still advocates that we should study various universal retirement protection schemes adopted in different places around the world. Perhaps we should turn the clock back to two decades ago. Such a proposal might be in order at that time, but not now. Our Members are extremely good at looking to the North. In fact, our Motherland has already implemented the universal retirement protection scheme, hoping that it can be extended from cities to villages. We should indeed be very shameful of ourselves. Although their per capita income and GDP are far lower than those of Hong Kong, people living in cities on the Mainland can currently receive RMB 2,000 yuan. As for Hong Kong, the OALA only amounts to $2,200, even lagging behind the Mainland. How so? What kind of society is it? How come he dare criticize us as politicos?
I think this society is extremely ridiculous, and so is the Government. It does not talk about figures, nor does it talk about reasons or analyses. However, I know that the Government has secured enough votes and support from quite a number of royalists. Fernando also knows that his motion can hardly be passed 872 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 tonight, as a number of Members representing the industrial and commercial sectors, including Mr Michael TIEN who has delivered a long speech just now ― it is better for him to deliver such a speech during the election, only that he has forgotten every single word of it afterwards ― have indeed forgotten their promises made to the elderly. It does not matter whether or not your voters have been cheated. But most importantly, we should give them a fair deal.
As a matter of fact, even if this motion is passed, we all know that the Government may not listen to us. However, if Dr Fernando CHEUNG's motion is negatived in this Council today, we will have failed many elderly people and the current generation, as many of us here are about to receive the OALA upon implementation of the proposal. Also, we will be very disappointed with this Government, for it is completely devoid of long-term vision. I very much hope that today's motion, even under such a difficult situation, can be passed. Thank you, President.
MR MA FUNG-KWOK (in Cantonese): President, the problem of elderly poverty mentioned in the original motion today, a phenomenon that should not have emerged in such an advanced, developed and affluent city as Hong Kong, is what the SAR Government should face squarely.
According to the latest statistics on poverty released by the Hong Kong Council of Social Service, while the overall poverty rate in Hong Kong has dropped to the low level of 17.1% in 2001, the poverty rate of the elderly has risen to 32.7% on the contrary. It is incumbent upon Hong Kong society to enhance care for the elderly, so that they can live with dignity, rather than collecting cartons and soft drink cans on the streets merely for a meagre income.
We should admit that the existing retirement protection system in Hong Kong fails to cover the elderly in poverty. The "fruit grant", which is supposed to be a token of our gratitude to the aged, amounts to $1,000 only. It is just a drop in the bucket for those elderly in need. As for the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance (CSSA) system, its aim is to provide financial support for those who are in dire straits, such as the unemployed, people with disabilities, single parents, elderly persons, and so on. Under this system, a stringent means test is in place and a more adverse social stigma is thus resulted. In order to receive or apply for CSSA, elderly persons have to even ask their children to sign the so-called "bad son statement". This explains why some needy elderly people LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 873 are not willing to apply for CSSA. As such, the original motion proposes to dispense with the "bad son statement", so that elderly persons can apply for CSSA on an individual basis. I agree that this point should be taken into consideration.
However, our priority task now is to request the Government to put forth a convenient, fast and targeted measure, so as to address the urgent needs of elderly in poverty. The Old Age Living Allowance (OALA) Scheme recently proposed by the Government can precisely address the shortcomings of the existing system. Under this Scheme, elderly persons can, without being subject to any social stigma, receive a monthly allowance of $2,200 by making a relatively lax declaration of their income and assets. If our colleagues can endorse it, some 400 000 elderly people can be benefited and see their living improved right away.
Nonetheless, the original motion and some amendments propose to dispense with the means test under the OALA Scheme. I have very strong reservation about such proposal. It is because once the declaration is abolished, the Scheme, which aims to support the elderly in poverty, will become a universal welfare scheme for all. Not only has it changed the original policy objective of the Scheme, but also ignored the relative priorities of the poverty problem and overlooked the heavy financial burden that will be brought about. This is a significant policy change.
I think our society should hold discussions in a rational manner. We should not mix up the OALA Scheme, which aims to help the elderly in poverty, with the universal retirement protection system. The problem we are now facing is: our society has shifted from the era of "demographic dividend" to "demographic deficit". The life expectancy of Hong Kong citizens is getting increasingly long. Under the public fiscal environment with a low tax regime and a narrow tax base, there naturally arises a question of how limited resources can be deployed to help those who are most in need. We should not, for the sake of transient applause and political expedience, request our next generation to honour a cheque not signed by them. It is irresponsible to address these problems in this way. As we can see recently, some advanced countries with a comprehensive welfare system have encountered difficulties in sustaining their retirement benefits systems. We should be alert to this.
Regarding the universal retirement protection system, there have been a lot of discussions in the community. I have no objection to the Government's 874 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 conduct of a more in-depth study on this, so as to explore its viability and sustainability. However, in order to set up a universal retirement protection system, not only will it involve a lot of studies, a consensus should also be built among the public. This is a long-term social project which requires thorough and detailed deliberations. In my view, a more feasible and pressing task is to address the shortcomings of the existing system and make timely rectifications.
The priority task for the Government is to conduct an overhaul of the Mandatory Provident Fund (MPF) System. What I stress such an overhaul should be conducted thoroughly and seriously. The New Century Forum has conducted a public opinion poll on the MPF as the System has been implemented for 11 years. As many as 80% of the respondents considered that fund companies and intermediaries are the greatest beneficiaries of the MPF schemes. More than 60% of respondents supported that MPF investments should be managed by the Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA). It is apparent that members of the public are discontented with the MPF. A lowering of the management fees and providing contributors with more choices, or even directly entrusting the HKMA with MPF investments, are options that the Government should consider and implement expeditiously for sound retirement protection.
If the MPF can play its role properly, we can focus our resources on helping those who are more in need, such as low-income earners and housewives who are not engaged in employment. As I pointed out in my previous speech, it is unreasonable for the CSSA System to shoulder the responsibility of providing for retirement protection. Therefore, my second suggestion is: the Government should consider differentiating those retired elderly in poverty from the CSSA system and providing them with retirement protection through a more lenient means test.
Lastly, the Government can continue to perfect the existing "fruit grant" scheme and the OALA Scheme by reviewing the poverty situation of the elderly on a regular basis. Depending on the resources available in the community, the Government can consider relaxing the declaration system gradually or increasing the amount of the OALA, so as to provide support for more elderly people in need, thereby moving towards universal retirement protection in the long run.
President, I do not wish to see any complications arising from the OALA Scheme. Therefore, I do not fully agree with the original motion and the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 875 amendments proposed by Mr WONG Kwok-hing, Mr Albert HO and Mr Gary FAN. I support the amendment proposed by Mr TAM Yiu-chung.
Thank you.
MR CHARLES PETER MOK (in Cantonese): President, to date Hong Kong still does not have a comprehensive retirement protection system. With the population ageing and the number of old people ever increasing, the problem of elderly poverty has been worsening. It is most natural that the issue of universal retirement protection has attracted attention from all walks of life in recent years. But in terms of government policy, this issue has not been given sufficient attention, nor has its priority been raised.
The problem of ageing population is so obvious. Although the Government has clearly indicated that the population ageing problem is a major challenge that Hong Kong has to face, the Government has yet responded to it. Painful though it is, the problem of elderly poverty in Hong Kong is way more serious than we have imagined. Hong Kong has the reputation of being an international metropolis, but we still see elderly people rag picking on the streets every day. The problem of insufficient retirement protection is right before our very eyes.
On the other hand, the Mandatory Provident Fund (MPF), which has been implemented for 10 years, should basically act as one of the pillars in Hong Kong for protection of employees upon retirement. Put bluntly, wage earners will find themselves in a "blind alley" if they have to rely on MPF, which has been low in return and high in management fees. Originally, wage earners had the freedom of choice on how to appropriately manage their own investment. But they were compelled to save in the form of MPF, resulting in losing a "considerable portion" of their savings.
In fact, some international organizations have been keenly concerned about the issue of global population ageing and, in recent years, have urged various nations to set up their respective retirement protection systems as soon as possible. In January 2009, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development released a report jointly with the World Bank, pointing out that many Asian countries have still failed to cater for the needs of the ever-increasing 876 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 elderly population in terms of implementing a retirement protection system. According to the report, the problems faced by many countries include low pension fund coverage and pension amount being insufficient to meet daily expenses. As an advanced international city, Hong Kong is facing exactly the same problem.
In recent years, the Mainland has also begun proactively to improve its pension protection system for retirees. In 2011, a social endowment insurance pilot project for urban residents was initiated. In "China's 12th Five-Year Plan on ageing career development", the State Council also mapped out plans to tackle population ageing, promote rural society security, set up an endowment insurance system for urban residents, organize clear-cut assignment of responsibility between the Central Government and local governments regarding pension fund while establishing an adjustable mechanism for the annuity amount. Although the system in the Mainland may not be suitable for Hong Kong, the Mainland authorities do not evade addressing the retirement protection issue. It is worthwhile for Hong Kong to draw on their attitude of attaching weight to the issue.
There really is an urgent for Hong Kong to review its current retirement protection mechanism while seeking a steady financial source of income to meet the long-term needs of taking care of the ageing population. Starting to save capital as early as possible is most crucial because only in this way can we accumulate additional fiscal reserves to take care of the substantial number of elderly people within the next decade. We cannot turn a blind eye to this problem because the existing system is basically unable to support the growing ageing population. One day if we have to cut public expenses in other areas, we will trigger even more unnecessary social conflicts and further hinder social development. If we cannot formulate proper measures to tackle the problem, the ageing population may definitely cause an even heavier financial burden to bear the SAR Government, hence affecting the overall financial stability.
The Professional Commons, which has conducted a number of studies on universal retirement protection during the past few years, also hopes that the Government will pay attention to these issues and make relevant planning as early as possible. However, reality is always a far cry from wishes. Instead of responding to the seriousness and urgency of the problem, the SAR Government chooses only to procrastinate under the pretext of lacking consensus. It is not LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 877 even willing to launch a comprehensive consultation cum discussion. Nor has the Central Policy Unit announced any results of its researches on retirement protection.
According to the Research Report on Universal Old Age Pension (OAP) Scheme conducted by the Professional Commons, it has been confirmed that the relevant financial commitment is still affordable to society as a whole if our proposed OAP Scheme's contributions are equally borne by the Government, current employers and employees. The report also revealed that, in addition to its sustainability, the OAP Scheme is consistent with the concept of "multi-pillars" as proposed by the World Bank. The Government should perform its leading role, guiding the community to forge a consensus and an optimized scheme rather than simply advancing the excuse that no consensus has been reached. In order to maintain the financial viability of the Scheme, the Government should also carry out a full consultation as quickly as possible with a view to achieving immediate capital injection for the implementation of universal retirement protection expeditiously. The later the consultation, the bigger the capital injection will be borne by the Government.
Although the Old Age Living Allowance (OALA) Scheme currently introduced by the Government can help some of the most needy elderly, it has failed to convince Hong Kong people that the Government is determined to address the problem of universal retirement protection. It is deeply regrettable to see social division and division in this Council.
We basically do not object to the introduction of an asset and income test, but we think that the Government should immediately start reviewing universal retirement protection. Besides commencing public consultation and drawing up a timetable of implementation, the Government should also reform the MPF System with a view to enhancing its protection for retirees. We support the original motion and most of the amendments, which favour the major premise of universal retirement protection. Although we may not completely agree to their standing firmly against the introduction of an asset and income test for the OALA Scheme, I still hope that we could vote on the basis of promoting universal retirement protection.
Therefore, I will support all motions that support the introduction of universal retirement protection, including the original motion by Dr Fernando 878 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
CHEUNG and some of the amendments. I may not totally agree to the details of some amendments, but I think that it is crucial to initiate a review on universal retirement protection. On the other hand, since Mr Michael TIEN's amendment seeks to delete all the wordings concerning universal retirement protection and even the wordings regarding a request for consultation, I cannot support it.
President, I so submit.
DR KENNETH CHAN (in Cantonese): President, the concept and notion of universal retirement protection or some of its details were developed, heard or known in this Chamber not only today.
If I remember it correctly, the Panel on Welfare Services of the last-term Legislative Council had invited deputations of various sectors to come to this Council on a number of occasions so that their notions, viewpoints and analyses could be shared with the community, Members and the Government. I had listened to their discussions as an attendee. But the Government's response could be described as no response. It simply said that their views would be carefully studied and considered. In fact, it should know that the issue would not be resolved by giving them such a reply.
Therefore, the motion debate on universal retirement protection is initiated when the new term of the Legislative Council has commenced. The Civic Party and I have indicated that we welcome the motion debate because we very much wish to know how broad-minded, visionary and committed this Government, which is returned by a small circle, will be in the face of an ageing population and elderly poverty.
President, as an academic specializing in politics and public policy, I have my own views on foreign experiences frequently cited by many Members. In fact, when citing foreign experiences, we cannot simply mention the names of the countries without providing further details and then comment on whether or not their experiences are feasible. Even my colleague Dr Fernando CHEUNG, who belongs to the academic circle, has also conducted studies and analyses before citing the experiences of various countries. The notion as a whole should be adjusted substantially before it can be applied to Hong Kong. Otherwise, we will be prone to falling into the fallacy of methodology or selective bias, meaning LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 879 that we select a number of bad examples to achieve the political intimidation effect by magnifying them infinitely. This is also politicos' behaviour. Hence, we in this Chamber should actively promote pragmatic public policy study, particularly, the comparison of different styles in public policy.
In his original motion, Dr Fernando CHEUNG has specifically mentioned the study on universal retirement protection conducted by the Central Policy Unit in the past. But it seems that the specific details, data and conclusions of the study have neither been revealed nor published. Why has the study on universal retirement protection, which was sponsored by public money, not been released for public reference, consideration and discussion as though it is still in a black box or black hole?
The Civic Party has all along urged the Government to present its views on universal retirement protection expeditiously in order to allow further public participation in discussion and expression of opinions. This is the most basic respect of the Government to the people, the community and the Legislative Council. However, why is the Government unable to do even this? Will longevity bring more good than harm or vice versa to Hong Kong in the face of an ageing population?
President, during the election campaign, I did my best to attend all forums organized by the elderly, organizations in the community or grass-roots associations. If my memory is correct, all invitations to me were entertained. I found in this course a very important phenomena, and that is, not only the grassroots or elderly wish to the see the launch of consultation and implementation of universal retirement protection, even the young men and women of the middle class who do morning exercise in the open space of their housing estates also consider it necessary for Hong Kong to conduct a consultation and implement a universal retirement protection scheme.
Quite a number of people have asked whether resources should be used on those who are more in need of help. However, have you ever heard of the complaints of the middle-class retirees? They said that they had worked hard their whole life and discharged their responsibilities of paying taxes and rates. But now, they find that they are facing downward rather than upward mobility in society. Neither do their children see any bright prospects. Worse still, many elderly people have to help support their youngsters with their savings. Is the 880 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
Government aware of such a situation? As Legislative Council Members, particularly as Members returned by direct elections, should we have a fuller understanding of this?
Therefore, they also think that universal retirement protection is fair to them. They do not think that it is a measure in favour of the grassroots in terms of resource allocation. They certainly understand and accept this. However, they also hope that the Government will reconsider why the poverty problem in Hong Kong is worsening; why the middle class is facing downward mobility; and why the elderly have to help support their children with their meagre savings and assets which may not last long.
Mr Michael TIEN said that the wage earners' children are miserable because they have to support their parents and so will their next generation. This is not true. In fact, should our society always play the tactic of "rallying one camp to pit against the other" so that the Government can simply sit with folded arms and do nothing? The Old Age Living Allowance Scheme will incur an expense amounting to $6.2 billion. How far should we criticize it? In fact, it involves the issue of public resources and financial commitment of the Government.
The universal retirement protection system is important because plenty of women have to quit their jobs because of their family responsibilities. As a result, they do not have enough savings and even do not know whether they have any retirement protection. What I am referring to are those 700 000-odd women who perform household chores or take care of their family members. The Mandatory Provident Fund cannot help them though they also wish to live a life with dignity. I hope that the Government and the community as a whole can find the right direction of addressing the problem so that the elderly, including Members in this Chamber as we will also grow old in the future, can lead a comfortable life after retirement. Also, it will let the international community, our next generation and the elderly see that in Hong Kong, as one of the most advanced cities in the world, discussions on social policies are getting more mature and rational, and the Government will not play the tactic of "rallying one camp to pit against the other" simply because it does not want to do anything (The buzzer sounded) …… and as a result, people's wish of having universal retirement protection is dashed again. Thank you, President.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 881
MR CHAN HAN-PAN (in Cantonese): President, due to the time constraint, Mr TAM Yiu-chung was unable to give a complete account of his analysis in his speech earlier on. I think that the remaining part is very important and so, I will carry on with it.
There are now five major types of Mandatory Provident Fund (MPF) products, three of which are low-risk products and their respective average rate of return over the years is 1.2% for Conservative Fund; 1.6% for Guaranteed Fund; and 0.9% for Money Market Fund. However, as for the administrative fee, it is as high as 2.49% for Conservative Fund; 3.92% for Guaranteed Fund; and 1% for Money Market Fund. In other words, the fee can be far higher than the return. As a result, the contributors can only watch helplessly while their assets are shrinking. The Government's idea of lowering the administrative fee purely through the mechanism of market competition does not work at all.
Therefore, apart from promoting "semi-portability" of the MPF, the Government should consider enacting legislation to impose a ceiling on the fees charged by various types of investment funds and introduce investment funds operated by the Government with low fees, in order to provide more choices for contributors.
An example for reference is the establishment of a type of fund that imposes a limit on the fees charged by trustees by the Australian Government in November last year. The name of the product is "MySuper". Employees can choose to swap to this fund product, and it is estimated that this fund product can bring a saving of 40% in fees. Recently, the Chairman of the Mandatory Provident Fund Schemes Authority, Ms Anna WU, said that the Government would not rule out the possibility of setting ceilings for the administrative fees of MPF schemes and introducing publicly-operated funds with low fees. I hope that the Government can take bold and resolute measures to honour its undertaking.
Moreover, under the existing system, people who leave the labour market before reaching the statutory age can only watch their capital being nibbled away by the high administrative fees and feel helpless about it. The Government must think up ways to enable them to transfer their accrued benefits somewhere without having to pay any administrative fee, in order to protect their assets from being eaten up. This is all for the speech of Mr TAM Yiu-chung.
882 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012
Seeing such great losses in the MPF which is referred to as one of the three pillars by the Government, how possibly can we not feel worried? How can the Government consider the matter resolved by only introducing "semi-portability" for MPF? Population ageing is an irreversible trend in the world. The International Plan of Action on Ageing adopted at the United Nations World Assembly on Ageing has long required countries worldwide to devise proposals to ensure protection for the elderly in their basic living after retirement. Many advanced countries have long provided retirement protection to ensure that their people do not face problems in living expenses after retirement. But as the problem of ageing becomes more pressing, we have seen that the sustainability of the retirement protection systems in some countries has been shattered. We should, therefore, bear this lesson in mind.
Therefore, with regard to Mr TAM Yiu-chung's proposal in his amendment of studying the implementation of retirement protection in major economies around the world, in order to come up with a proposal suitable for Hong Kong while stressing the need to forge a consensus on any proposed plan, I think this is a responsible course of action.
I so submit.
SUSPENSION OF MEETING
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now suspend the meeting until 9 am tomorrow.
Suspended accordingly at four minutes to Ten o'clock.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ─ 24 October 2012 A1
Appendix I
WRITTEN ANSWER
Written answer by the Secretary for Commerce and Economic Development to Mr WU Chi-wai's supplementary question to Question 1
As regards whether Kai Tak Development (KTD) is no longer planned as a smoke-free city, the Study on South East Kowloon Development conducted in the 1990s has already incorporated the planning concept of an "eco-city", while the ensuing Kai Tak Planning Review completed in 2007 has adopted the principles of planning Kai Tak as a sustainable and environmentally-friendly development and promoting pedestrian-oriented environment, integrated public spaces and maximizing the waterfront for public enjoyment. Various environmentally-friendly initiatives, such as provision of roadside greening, roof greening, district cooling system, environmentally-friendly transport and cycle track will help reduce emissions and improve air quality in the KTD. About 100 hectares of open space and a waterfront promenade of about 11 km long will also be provided for the enjoyment of the public and tourists. In addition, green building will be actively promoted and a stepped height concept will be adopted in determining the appropriate building height restrictions so as to create a green and environmentally-friendly community in the KTD.