LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 8993
OFFICIAL RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Thursday, 18 April 2019
The Council continued to meet at Nine o'clock
MEMBERS PRESENT:
THE PRESIDENT THE HONOURABLE ANDREW LEUNG KWAN-YUEN, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE JAMES TO KUN-SUN
THE HONOURABLE ABRAHAM SHEK LAI-HIM, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE TOMMY CHEUNG YU-YAN, G.B.S., J.P.
PROF THE HONOURABLE JOSEPH LEE KOK-LONG, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE JEFFREY LAM KIN-FUNG, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE STARRY LEE WAI-KING, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHAN HAK-KAN, B.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHAN KIN-POR, G.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE WONG KWOK-KIN, S.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 CLAUDIA MO
8994 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019
THE HONOURABLE STEVEN HO CHUN-YIN, B.B.S.
THE HONOURABLE FRANKIE YICK CHI-MING, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE WU CHI-WAI, M.H.
THE HONOURABLE YIU SI-WING, B.B.S.
THE HONOURABLE CHARLES PETER MOK, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHI-CHUEN
THE HONOURABLE CHAN HAN-PAN, B.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE LEUNG CHE-CHEUNG, S.B.S., M.H., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE KENNETH LEUNG
THE HONOURABLE ALICE MAK MEI-KUEN, B.B.S., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE KWOK KA-KI
THE HONOURABLE KWOK WAI-KEUNG, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHRISTOPHER CHEUNG WAH-FUNG, S.B.S., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE FERNANDO CHEUNG CHIU-HUNG
DR THE HONOURABLE HELENA WONG PIK-WAN
THE HONOURABLE IP KIN-YUEN
DR THE HONOURABLE ELIZABETH QUAT, B.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE POON SIU-PING, B.B.S., M.H.
DR THE HONOURABLE CHIANG LAI-WAN, S.B.S., J.P.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 8995
IR DR THE HONOURABLE LO WAI-KWOK, S.B.S., M.H., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHUNG KWOK-PAN
THE HONOURABLE ALVIN YEUNG
THE HONOURABLE ANDREW WAN SIU-KIN
THE HONOURABLE CHU HOI-DICK
THE HONOURABLE JIMMY NG WING-KA, J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE JUNIUS HO KWAN-YIU, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE HO KAI-MING
THE HONOURABLE LAM CHEUK-TING
THE HONOURABLE HOLDEN CHOW HO-DING
THE HONOURABLE SHIU KA-FAI
THE HONOURABLE SHIU KA-CHUN
THE HONOURABLE WILSON OR CHONG-SHING, M.H.
THE HONOURABLE YUNG HOI-YAN
DR THE HONOURABLE PIERRE CHAN
THE HONOURABLE CHAN CHUN-YING, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE TANYA CHAN
THE HONOURABLE HUI CHI-FUNG
THE HONOURABLE LUK CHUNG-HUNG, J.P.
THE HONOURABLE LAU KWOK-FAN, M.H.
8996 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019
THE HONOURABLE KENNETH LAU IP-KEUNG, B.B.S., M.H., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE CHENG CHUNG-TAI
THE HONOURABLE KWONG CHUN-YU
THE HONOURABLE JEREMY TAM MAN-HO
THE HONOURABLE GARY FAN KWOK-WAI
THE HONOURABLE AU NOK-HIN
THE HONOURABLE VINCENT CHENG WING-SHUN, M.H.
THE HONOURABLE TONY TSE WAI-CHUEN, B.B.S.
THE HONOURABLE CHAN HOI-YAN
MEMBERS ABSENT:
THE HONOURABLE LEUNG YIU-CHUNG
THE HONOURABLE WONG TING-KWONG, G.B.S., J.P.
DR THE HONOURABLE PRISCILLA LEUNG MEI-FUN, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MICHAEL TIEN PUK-SUN, B.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE MA FUNG-KWOK, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE DENNIS KWOK WING-HANG
THE HONOURABLE MARTIN LIAO CHEUNG-KONG, S.B.S., J.P.
THE HONOURABLE CHEUNG KWOK-KWAN, J.P.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 8997
PUBLIC OFFICERS ATTENDING:
THE HONOURABLE PAUL CHAN MO-PO, G.B.M., G.B.S., M.H., J.P. FINANCIAL SECRETARY
THE HONOURABLE WONG KAM-SING, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR THE ENVIRONMENT
THE HONOURABLE NICHOLAS W. YANG, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR INNOVATION AND TECHNOLOGY
THE HONOURABLE LAU KONG-WAH, J.P. SECRETARY FOR HOME AFFAIRS
DR THE HONOURABLE LAW CHI-KWONG, G.B.S., J.P. SECRETARY FOR LABOUR AND WELFARE
THE HONOURABLE FRANK CHAN FAN, J.P. SECRETARY FOR TRANSPORT AND HOUSING
PROF THE HONOURABLE SOPHIA CHAN SIU-CHEE, J.P. SECRETARY FOR FOOD AND HEALTH
THE HONOURABLE KEVIN YEUNG YUN-HUNG, J.P. SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION
CLERKS IN ATTENDANCE:
MR KENNETH CHEN WEI-ON, S.B.S., SECRETARY GENERAL
MS ANITA SIT, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL
MISS FLORA TAI YIN-PING, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL
MS DORA WAI, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL
MR MATTHEW LOO, ASSISTANT SECRETARY GENERAL
8998 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019
GOVERNMENT BILLS
Second Reading of Government Bills
Resumption of Second Reading Debate on Government Bill
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This Council now continues with the Second Reading debate on the Appropriation Bill 2019. Members who wish to speak will please press the "Request to Speak" button.
APPROPRIATION BILL 2019
Resumption of debate on Second Reading which was moved on 27 February 2019
(Mr Gary FAN stood up)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Gary FAN, what is your point?
MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): President, I request a headcount.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.
(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Junius HO, please speak.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 8999
DR JUNIUS HO (in Cantonese): President, I thank Mr Gary FAN for helping me to summon Members back to share my interpretation and expectation of this Budget.
Financial Secretary Paul CHAN …
(Ringing of a Member's mobile phone)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please turn your mobile phone to silent mode.
DR JUNIUS HO (in Cantonese): … This is the third Budget of Financial Secretary Paul CHAN, and I was unable to speak in last year's budget debate. When he delivered his first Budget, I was pretty excited because after all, it was his maiden Budget. This year, I still welcome the Budget because there is surplus, which had already existed during the second year of his term of office.
Although the surplus of this year is not as handsome as the previous two years, I still want to share my feeling with the Financial Secretary. In paragraph 201 of the Concluding Remarks of his Budget Speech, the Financial Secretary highlights the need to seek out-of-the-box changes: "On the economic front, the current-term Government is ready to think out of the box and act proactively to open up new horizons for Hong Kong. To improve people's livelihood, we are resolute in devoting resources and will spare no effort in solving problems." The issues mentioned therein have been clearly set out in paragraphs 23 and 29 of his speech. Paragraph 23 says that, "To seize the opportunities, we must look squarely into the problems of land and manpower, which have been hindering the economic and social development of Hong Kong", and paragraph 29 states that, "The land and manpower problems in Hong Kong cannot be solved with financial resources alone. We should not shy away from the different voices in the community. Instead, in the spirit of 'seeking common ground while shelving major differences', we should build consensus in a pragmatic and rational manner, and join hands to overcome constraints …
(Mr Kenneth LEUNG stood up)
9000 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Kenneth LEUNG, what is your point?
MR KENNETH LEUNG (in Cantonese): President, is Dr Junius HO citing from the Budget of the year 2018-2019 or 2019-2020? Would he please clarify?
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Junius HO, do you want to clarify? If not, please continue with your speech.
DR JUNIUS HO (in Cantonese): President, I do not need to clarify. I merely read from my script to share my views with Members.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr HO, please continue to speak.
DR JUNIUS HO (in Cantonese): Members would understand only if they listen attentively. They should listen with a pragmatic and rational attitude, learn with a humble mind and exchange views with a sincere attitude, with a view to "seeking common ground while shelving major differences", am I right? It is indeed premature for Members to stand up whenever they hear something unpleasant to their ears, and they should not be so anxious. Let me continue: "While there are vast opportunities for Hong Kong's development, they do not knock twice or wait for anyone. We have to stay united and seize each and every opportunity."
While these few premises have encouraged me to set high expectations for this Budget, I do not think the Financial Secretary's approach can seek out-of-the-box changes on all fronts. What should we do then? I would like to share three points with the Financial Secretary as the rest has already been outlined by other colleagues.
First, it is the supply of housing. In the Policy Address, the current-term Government proposes to invest more than $1 trillion in the Central Waters of Lantau Island. After reclamation of land, construction works will commence, and the expenditure incurred is nearly $600 billion to $700 billion. Coupled LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9001 with other expenditures, the final expenditure will exceed $1 trillion. With regard to land supply, I agree that there is a need for Hong Kong to reclaim land, but the current problem is that the Government has resorted to reclamation as the only option and forgotten that traditionally, land supply should come from inland. The Financial Secretary is the Chairman of the Steering Committee on Land Supply ("the Steering Committee"), but in mid-February this year, Secretary for Development Michael WONG said that the Steering Committee would have its functions expanded and undergo restructuring. Nonetheless, I think it is still chaired by the Financial Secretary, who will continue to lead the work of land supply. However, there is one thing we must not forget. There is still a great deal of land onshore. From the perspective of prudent financial management, we need 1 000 hectares of land, which was computed by me for the public hearing on land supply held last week. If the cost of land development is $1,400 per square foot, the amount involved will only be $140 billion, which is the same as the estimated expenditure of the proposed reclamation project at Kau Yi Chau. The only difference is that, if greater effort is made to resume land, I believe the time required will be shorter. The present reclamation proposal will take 42 months to submit a research report before infrastructural works can be carried out. Hence, the first batch of residential units will not be completed until 2028.
We should seek out-of-the-box changes in this respect instead of remaining in the rut of complaining the difficulty of land resumption. If the Government is willing to be more generous, landowners would be more than happy to surrender his land to the Government. However, the Government has all along been tight-fisted and is unwilling to share the economic fruits with the landowners, resulting in a so-called deadlock situation. I hope that the Financial Secretary will seek out-of-the-box changes in this respect, and examine the incentives that can be provided to make landowners more willing to surrender their land to the Government for development so as to share the economic fruits together.
In this connection, I have two proposals. First, there is no need to confine the granting of ex-gratia compensation to Zone A, Zone B, Zone C or Zone D because even if compensation is calculated at $1,400 per square foot, it only needs $140 billion to resume 1 000 hectares of land. At present, the resumption of land often involves legal proceedings and the Lands Tribunal is required to determine a reasonable benchmark for compensation. If the resumption of land does not involve any legal proceedings, then the Government will make ex-gratia 9002 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 compensation in the first place and make adjustment in the future in the light of the proximity of the relevant land to the development centre. However, I consider this approach unfair to the landowners. Thus, if the Financial Secretary is willing to review the formula for calculating ex-gratia compensation, it would be conducive to improving the longstanding difficulties and hindrances faced by the Government in land resumption.
Second, in order to provide room for manoeuvre in respect of land provision, I believe Letter B entitlement would be a solution. I do not think anyone would consider it necessary to sign an instrument or issue land bond guaranteeing the provision of more land than is needed for exchange in the future. Therefore, in my opinion, the Government should explore the possibility of using Letter B.
The second area that I would like to discuss with the Secretary is about carbon emissions, and the myth is that in order to have cleaner air and reduce suspended particulates, a number of measures have been introduced to require power plants to change their fuel mix by replacing the burning of coal and carbon with the use of natural gas, thereby reducing the emissions of respirable suspended particulates. But still, carbon dioxide emissions remain high.
Apart from foreign carbon particles and pollutants, there are two major local sources of pollution in Hong Kong, namely the power plants mentioned just now and motor vehicles. There are 700 000 motor vehicles in Hong Kong and we have been trapped in the myth of whether motor vehicles should be banned. The Government has encouraged the use of electric vehicles when promoting environmental policies, but the number of electric vehicles still accounts for less than 2% at present. It can be said that no advancement has been made for many years. When members of the public and vehicle owners were moving towards the direction of environmental protection, the Government introduced a policy to remove the first registration tax waiver for electric vehicles. Subsequently, in seeing that the new policy did not work well, it relaxed the policy slightly and launched the "One-for-One Replacement" Scheme. In my opinion, the Government should make an all-out effort. Given that the relevant policy was implemented in the 1990s and the only revision was made two years ago, it is now time to review the energy policy, abandon the use of fossil fuel and switch to electricity, and study how to tie in with the relevant policy, otherwise the public will be at a loss as to what to do.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9003
When it comes to the "One-for-One Replacement" Scheme, it is a good initiative. There is currently limited road space and insufficient parking spaces, but when the issue of supply of parking spaces was raised for discussion, the Government said that it was bound by the restrictions of the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines, and refused to remove barriers. Worse still, it refused to reduce the number of vehicles at source but merely increased the tax. In that case, whoever can afford the heavy tax can still buy new cars. Why did the Government not make reference to the approach of "one car in, one car out" adopted by Singapore? We can limit the number of motor vehicles by requiring car owners to scrap their old cars before buying new ones, be they electric or traditional petrol vehicles. As this policy also falls under the purview of the Financial Secretary, he has a say in it and his decision is final.
The Hong Kong Government must make vigorous efforts to reduce emissions or solve the traffic congestion problem. We must not forget that Hong Kong is obliged to reduce its per capita carbon emission from 6.6 tonnes in 2015 to about 3.5 tonnes in 2030. This is not only a major undertaking, but also the objective laid down in the Paris Agreement. If we do not make vigorous efforts to reduce the emissions of power plants and motor vehicles in Hong Kong, how can we meet the objective in the future?
There are suggestions that we could play with figures by closing down one or two power plants by then. And, if there is a shortage of electricity, we may import from the north of the Shenzhen River so as to lower the local electricity production index. This is a matter of numbers. While smart people can figure out such computation, even smarter people can surely see the trick. Even for the stupid ones, as air quality deteriorates, their bodies will surely feel the harm. Therefore, with regard to the second question on how environmental protection efforts can be enhanced, in particular the reduction of carbon emissions, I hope that the Secretary will seriously consider the proposals put forth by me just now.
The third issue is concerned with revitalizing the Mandatory Provident Fund ("MPF"). I have voiced a couple of times my wish that the Government would allow us to enjoy our MPF contributions earlier, and by enjoy I do not mean wanton squandering. In respect of health insurance, although tax concession has been offered under the existing policy to encourage members of the public to spend extra money to purchase health insurance, subject to a tax deduction limit, I think the incentive is not attractive enough. The reason is that 9004 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 members of the public have to pay extra money to purchase health insurance, and as a consumer and taxpayer, I also feel the pinch. As employers and employees are currently required to each contribute 5% as MPF voluntary contributions and the total amount of contributions have exceeded $800 billion, how come only fund managers can be benefited? They buy shares for us, but our choices are limited to high-risk, stable or capital preservation funds, which are far too restrained. Can the Government offer us an alternative option and allow us to allocate a certain amount of money in our MPF account for the purchase of health insurance each year? In that case, there will be no need to consider tax deduction because after all, this sum of money has already been spent as contributions. Is it more cost effective if I use this sum to purchase health insurance? I take care of my own health. In my opinion, it is indeed a genuine relief measure to allow members of the public to use the MPF contributions to purchase health insurance after the age of 45 or 50.
These are the three points that I would like to share with the Financial Secretary, and in the remaining one minute, I would like to discuss with him about government funding. The Financial Secretary was previously an accountant from the private sector and joined the Government afterwards. The Government has provided more than $100 billion for infrastructure projects every year, and all the relevant funding proposals have been discussed at the various committees of the Legislative Council one after another. Hence, the amount earmarked is pretty transparent and open. If I were the contractor, I would likewise charge according to the amount of funding available although this runs contrary to the original intention of tendering, that is, the winning bidder has the lowest bid and meets the relevant technical requirements. However, at present, the bidders can charge according to the amount of funding available and this does not help save public money at all. Therefore, I consider it necessary to carry out a reform to keep the amount of provisions confidential. Otherwise, if the private sector is aware that the Government has earmarked $339 billion for the construction of the Central Kowloon Route, why would anyone submit a tender price of less than $30 billion?
Furthermore, the estimated expenditure (The buzzer sounded) …
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr HO, please stop speaking.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9005
MR ALVIN YEUNG (in Cantonese): President, Article 107 of the Basic Law stipulates that "the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall follow the principle of keeping the expenditure within the limits of revenues in drawing up its budget, and strive to achieve a fiscal balance, avoid deficits and keep the budget commensurate with the growth rate of its gross domestic product." The four-character Chinese phrase "量入為出" which means keeping the expenditure within the limits of revenues, is a well-expressed and useful principle. In fact, this phrase appeared as early as in the Western Han Dynasty in The Book of Rites and has since become a key principle in public finance management throughout the past dynasties and eras of China.
The Chinese have talked about keeping the expenditure within the limits of revenues for more than 2 000 years, but do we really understand the meaning of the phrase? Does it mean we can spend $1 if we have a revenue of $1? Does the logic of a balanced budget comply with the original intention of the phrase? Let us look further at the same chapter in The Book of Rites which says, "If in a state there was not accumulated (a surplus) sufficient for nine years, its condition was called one of insufficiency; if there was not enough for six years, one of urgency. If there was not a surplus sufficient for three years, the state could not continue."1 In fact, the principle of keeping the expenditure within the limits of revenues does not encourage spending $1 if one earns $1, instead, it requires officers responsible for public finance management to save and be prepared for rainy days. The fact that Hong Kong has one of the biggest fiscal reserves in the world shows that the SAR Governments of various terms have really followed this key principle. However, is the wisdom 2 000 years ago still applicable in 2019?
President, Prof Leo GOODSTADT, former Head of Central Policy Unit and economist, launched his new book entitled A City Mismanaged: Hong Kong's Struggle for Survival last month. The book has summarized four major problems of the SAR Government after the reunification, three of which are related to finance and economics, and among them, the most important problem is that the SAR Government has over-emphasized the principle of keeping the expenditure within the limits of revenues stipulated in Article 107 of the Basic Law. When confronted with calls from the community for more public services, problems of manpower shortage in the health care system and shortage of hospital
1
Let us consider whether the comments of Prof GOODSTADT reflect the truth. In response to our question on the average waiting time for Enhanced Home and Community Care Services, the Administration's response was that the average waiting time was 9 months in 2014-2015; and it doubled to 18 months in 2018-2019. The average waiting time for Hostel for Severely Mentally Handicapped Persons is even more worrying; it has increased from 96 months in 2014-2015 to 178 months. President, a civilized society has to give help to the elderly and the disadvantaged, but the figures actually tell Hong Kong people that the SAR Government has chosen to stand aside without assisting this group of most helpless people. It is true that there is another set of figures. The expenditure on social welfare in Hong Kong represents 15% and 16% of our public expenditure and government expenditure respectively, the percentages of which are just lower than that of the expenditure on education. Nevertheless, the truth is hidden in the above mentioned waiting time for services which shows that the resources injected by the Government are far from adequate in meeting the needs.
President, we may as well look at another set of figures. In the past five years, the average number of elderly persons eligible for places at residential care home for the elderly ("RCHE") is 35 000; and every year, about 6 000 elderly persons died while waiting for these places. If we translate these figures into words, unfortunately―I notice that Secretary Dr LAW is here today―I can only describe the Government as cold-hearted. Considering that the queue has been so long all these years, can the Government entirely solve the problem with its financial capability so that the elderly people who have made contributions to Hong Kong almost all their lives can die with dignity? The SAR Government will not do so because the population in Hong Kong is ageing continuously and the Government has to keep its expenditure within the limits of revenues to maintain a sound financial position. But, President, there is a problem. Ten years ago, the Government said it had to exercise financial prudence because in "future", i.e. today, money was needed to solve problems, but now the Government says that it has to exercise financial prudence for the future. So, when will it spend the money then? Will the situation be similar to the Future LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9007
Fund the money of which will be reserved eternally for the future? Or, is it because the SAR Government has identified the Lantau Tomorrow programme as a chance to spend money and thus turned a blind eye to the problems presently faced by Hong Kong people?
Another problem of Hong Kong pointed out by Prof GOODSTADT is that the Government has misjudged its relationship with China. He thinks that the SAR Governments of previous terms and the current-term have wrongly thought that forging a closer relationship with the Mainland was the only way out for promoting the economic development of Hong Kong. Considering the Budget this year, is Prof GOODSTADT's observation correct? President, let us use some figures for assessment. In the Budget Speech this year, the Financial Secretary mentioned "the Greater Bay Area" 20 times and "Belt and Road" 11 times; and after these phrases, the words "opportunity" and "opportunities", or "sizeable market" often appear. We certainly know that the SAR Government is promoting the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area ("the Greater Bay Area") with full force because it is a national policy and a rigid order. The Beijing officials think that they know how things work in life and understand the policy needs of various cities as well as the development trends of the trades, and so they have taken a big initiative to draw up the Plan at the national level. However, have they ever consulted Hong Kong people? Have they asked Hong Kong people whether we would like Hong Kong to become one of the four core cities of the Greater Bay Area? Why do plans for Hong Kong's future and Hong Kong people's aspirations for the future have to be designed and controlled by the Plan? Do we remember that the principles of "one country, two systems", "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" and "a high degree of autonomy" are stipulated in the Basic Law? Does the SAR Government remember that it is the government of Hong Kong people and public officers are representing the interests of Hong Kong people?
When our policies are increasingly inclined towards integration between Hong Kong and the Mainland, it will create a very serious problem, i.e. the credit limit of Hong Kong will very soon be used up. For example, the Financial Secretary has made it clear that Hong Kong will strive to serve as an innovation and technology pioneer in the Greater Bay Area; promote scientific research and attract people from first-class international academic institutes to engage in research and development ("R&D") in Hong Kong and interested parties can apply for the Innovation and Technology Fund. We commend the Government for providing supporting facilities to Hong Kong, and it will surely be desirable if 9008 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019
Hong Kong will conduct R&D on its own. But, if Hong Kong collaborates too closely with the Mainland, will its hopeful wish of promoting scientific research be realized or not?
At the beginning of this month, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology ("MIT") announced that it would exercise tighter scrutiny on research projects sponsored by Chinese people and Chinese organizations, including those of Hong Kong. In the process, special attention would be given to factors such as intellectual property, data security, politics and human rights. In its announcement, MIT clearly mentioned Hong Kong as one of the subjects of tighter scrutiny. Such an act of setting barriers on Hong Kong by an international academic institute is unprecedented. Hong Kong is undoubtedly part of China, but the trust of the international world that Hong Kong is different from all other Mainland cities is not based simply on the principle of "one country, two systems". Instead, it is based on the hard-earned credibility of Hong Kong through trading and interacting with the international world since its inception as a port. Should anyone abuse the trust of overseas countries on Hong Kong and use Hong Kong as a "white glove", that will eventually make Hong Kong lose its credibility, and Hong Kong as a whole will certainly suffer.
It is even more worrying, President, that the SAR Government is belittling itself and gives people the impression that it is integrating with Beijing on all fronts. The Financial Secretary said that we must expand the scope of our market; there is certainly no problem with it. If expanding the scope of our market will help Hong Kong enterprises create more business opportunities, I believe overseas countries will not mind doing a few more deals with Hong Kong, but the SAR Government is blatantly telling the whole world that expanding the scope of our market is important for the overall development of China and Hong Kong needs to contribute to China. President, we will not object to making contributions to China; but we consider that upholding "one country, two systems" and safeguarding the principles of "Hong Kong people ruling Hong Kong" and "a high degree of autonomy" will make foreigners understand that "one country, two systems" is still effectively upheld, and that is the greatest contribution we can make to China. Nevertheless, if we readily put the interests of China as our primary consideration in the process of doing business, will this approach mislead others and possibly drive our customers away? In doing business, if there is a good working relationship between both parties, each can get what it wants and achieve a win-win situation. However, as the Government has openly expressed that it will readily put the interests of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9009
China in the first place, other countries will also place their own interests on the negotiating table and play it strictly by the book.
President, I believe the ideological diction of putting China first is not a careless utterance or a slip of the tongue, but a statement of a political stance. I am worried that this kind of Chinese political ideology will gradually replace Hong Kong's pragmatic political sense and in the future, before the SAR Government does anything or introduces any policy, it has to sing praises to the Central Authorities. Can such an approach really help and benefit Hong Kong people? I hope that the public officers in attendance will remember one point, i.e. in the face of a complicated international situation, we must protect the credibility of Hong Kong and that is the real way to serve China.
President, I would like to take this opportunity to thank the civil service, particularly the public officers responsible for trade and industry. They have spent much time and effort in signing many free trade agreements for Hong Kong. The recent free trade agreement signed with Australia is of a very high standard which is not easy to come by. Nevertheless, I would particularly question whether signing a few free trade agreements is really effective in helping Hong Kong. Signing free trade agreements is certainly important, and so is the negotiating process. However, we should never forget that the underlying reason for overseas countries to sign free trade agreements with Hong Kong is their confidence in Hong Kong. If we cannot maintain Hong Kong's credibility and ensure that we can be trusted by others in the future, then disregarding the number of free trade agreements signed, the agreements may be rescinded or withdrawn. I hope public officers are aware that Hong Kong does not possess a black credit card with unlimited credit limit. In the future, if the international world thinks that Hong Kong has integrated into the Greater Bay Area and has become just an ordinary city no different from Dongguan or Shenzhen, will the credit limit of Hong Kong become zero? If Hong Kong loses its unique characteristics and special edges, will it be advantageous to Hong Kong at all?
Today, many people, particularly those who have young children, have planned to emigrate. Some of them may not be emigrating, but relocating because they are emigrants who returned to Hong Kong 20 or 30 years ago. This group of people may be the elites in society with high capability. What can the SAR Government do to retain them and persuade them that Hong Kong is still a hopeful place? I believe that they want the SAR Government to give them real hope instead of just verbal assurances and frequent references to "Belt and Road" 9010 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 and "opportunities of the Greater Bay Area". They hope that the Government can convince them that Hong Kong is still a place where they can live and work in contentment. The situation of planned emigration may not be reflected in the Government figures because this group of people does not have to make any special application to the Government; all they have to do is buy air tickets and leave. If the SAR Government has not grasped this point, it will not be advantageous to Hong Kong at all. If this generation of the elite leaves Hong Kong, how can Hong Kong continue to shine and thrive? I believe the SAR Government would not like to see talented people leave Hong Kong, unwilling to raise children or send their children away. If Hong Kong loses this group of elite people, it cannot continue to operate.
President, Laozi said, "The sage does not accumulate (for himself)". A society with good administration will not unceasingly accumulate wealth, for it understands the truth that "the more one gives to others, the more he has for his own". In fact, the same principle applies to money spent by the Government on people's livelihood. It is not only an expenditure item, but also an investment; and it is a right which the people should enjoy. When economic development is detached from people's livelihood and if the people do not get any benefit from economic growth, but are only asked to tide over difficulties together in the doldrums, then any philosophies of financial management, be they old or new, will only be regarded as castles in the air. President, I particularly mention this point in the hope that the top echelon of the SAR Government will understand that we possess a fiscal reserve which is the envy of the world, but if the people do not think that the Government has rewarded them for their contributions, it will bring them disappointment and sadness. That is why some people have voted with their feet and chosen to leave, as I said earlier.
President, I hope that either Secretary LAU or Secretary Dr LAW, who is present today, can convey the message to the top officers of the SAR Government and let them understand that I am not holding any particular Policy Bureau or public officer responsible; instead, the problem concerns the philosophies of financial management and administration of the entire Government and how the officers can convince Hong Kong people and give them hope. I believe that is more important than anything else.
President, we can describe a person who has done wrong as having "gone bad". The SAR Government has already erred in its direction of financial management for many years; I hereby implore the Government and public LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9011 officers, whom I do not know if they have "gone bad", to discard the approach of preparing the Budget just by following past practices and putting old wine in a new bottle. They should instead introduce a new philosophy of financial management so as to prevent a mismanaged Hong Kong from becoming a place that has "gone bad".
I so submit.
MR FRANKIE YICK (in Cantonese): President, the Liberal Party's overall evaluation of the latest Budget is that "it plays safe towards the right direction". Although the Budget has touched on a wide range of policy areas, its force is a bit weak, particularly in the promotion of the freight and logistics industry.
The global economy has been hit by the Sino-American trade war despite recent signs of easing. Hong Kong, being an entrepôt, will certainly be affected. The total cargo volume of Hong Kong was some 285 million tonnes in 2018, down 7.6% from 2017. As for cargo throughput, Hong Kong's total cargo throughput in 2018 was 19.59 million twenty-foot equivalent units, representing a drop of 5.7% compared to the same period in 2017. In the first two months of 2019, our total cargo throughput experienced a significant year-on-year decrease of 15.3%. Apart from the Sino-American trade war, there are many uncertainties encompassing the global economy this year, including the interest rate hike in the United States―though at a slower pace now―and Brexit. The market is therefore unoptimistic about the cargo throughput of Hong Kong this year. Hong Kong may even suffer a setback in ranking for the second year in a row after falling two places to seventh last year.
Overshadowed by the Sino-American trade war, the Mainland has more extensively cut its taxes and fees, lowered its deposit reserve requirement ratio and interest rates and introduced new employment policies to maintain its economic impetus. By contrast, here in Hong Kong, although I and the other three Members belonging to the Liberal Party suggested, when we met with the Financial Secretary to discuss the Budget for the upcoming year, that various government fees should be waived or reduced as far as possible, the Financial Secretary only proposed a handful of supporting measures, such as reducing profits tax rate and waiving business registration fee, in anticipation of a small fiscal surplus of about $58.7 billion for 2018-2019. When the external 9012 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 economic environment is fraught with uncertainties, these measures can hardly address the pressing need of small and medium enterprises, not to mention "supporting enterprises, safeguarding jobs and stabilizing the economy" as advised by the Financial Secretary.
The freight and logistics sector is deeply disappointed that there are no concrete measures in this year's Budget to support them. Yet, what makes them even more dissatisfied is that the Government has turned a blind eye to their hardship and proposed an increase in government fees. Take the case of the Public Cargo Working Areas ("PCWAs") for example. PCWAs is hit by the Sino-American trade war, as evidenced by a two-digit decrease in cargo throughput last year, down from 6 million tonnes in 2017 to 5.4 million tonnes in 2018. With rising cost and a lower income for the trade, the trade was told by the Government amid such a difficult time that the berth rental at PCWAs would be increased starting from 1 April this year. That is no different from rubbing salt in the wound of the sector to which I belong.
In view of the unstable external economic environment, the Liberal Party holds that the Government should have room for additional initiatives to strongly support and promote the development of the industry, given that the fiscal reserves are now over $1,000 billion. In order to ease the financial pressure of the freight and logistics sector, giving it some breathing space, the Financial Secretary should seriously consider waiving the rentals of berths and operation areas at PCWAs; waiving the rentals of short term tenancy sites for cargo storage or parking of container vehicle for two quarters; and waiving license fees of commercial vehicles and vessels for one year.
President, thanks to the rapid development of online shopping in recent years, the need for speedy delivery has boosted the demand for air cargo services. In 2018, the total air cargo volume of Hong Kong hit a record high to exceed 5 million tonnes for the first time. The Central Government, which seeks to promote economic growth by boosting local consumption, has planned to expedite network development and enhance network speed to facilitate the development of e-commerce. The demand for air cargo services will hence keep growing. The trade hopes that the Three-Runway System at the Hong Kong International Airport ("HKIA") will soon be completed to increase the capacity of our airport.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9013
The Government will study the redevelopment of the Air Mail Centre at HKIA to meet the increasing demand brought by e-commerce. It has also invited the Airport Authority Hong Kong ("AA") to submit a proposal for the topside development at the Hong Kong Boundary Crossing Facilities Island of the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge, in the hope that such development will achieve synergy effects with the Three-Runway System and other development projects and facilities on the airport island. In the view of the Liberal Party, these initiatives will reinforce Hong Kong's position as an international aviation hub; we therefore support their implementation and urge the Government to waste no time but take them forward as soon as possible.
Nowadays, online shopping covers a large variety of products among which high-value fresh food and pharmaceutical products are the hot items. To meet the market demand for transportation of frozen food, AA has obtained the first internationally accredited certificate for handling frozen food. However, to the trade, the building of low-temperature or constant-temperature warehouses is necessary for handling high-value fresh food and pharmaceutical products and that will require a large quantity of land. The trade thus hopes that the Government will soon provide more logistics sites to meet the market demand for warehousing.
As government sites are now granted the highest bidders by way of tender, driving up land prices and rents more often than not, the financial burden of operators is greatly aggravated. This problem will not only be detrimental to the development of the industry but will also weaken the competitiveness of the trade. Therefore, the Government is advised to develop new policies and change its mindset to stop granting land only to the highest bidders. On the premise that policies are developed to support different industries, the Government should consider granting sites to operators in specified industries at a concessionary rate (i.e. a fixed price).
Besides, some logistics trade members have reflected to me that when the Government last launched the revitalization scheme for industrial buildings ("revitalization scheme"), they, being tenants of such buildings, were forced to move out as the buildings concerned had to be refurbished for other uses. As the decrease in industrial buildings has caused industrial rent rates to rocket, some warehouse operators have consequently moved to brownfield sites to continue with their operation. In view of this, I urge the Government to strike a balance 9014 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 and consider the market demand for warehousing when vetting applications under a new round of revitalization scheme.
Currently, some 800 sea freight-related companies in Hong Kong have formed a maritime services cluster to cover businesses like ship management, ship brokering, ship finance, marine insurance and legal services, providing Hong Kong with a gross output of over $30 billion and more than 100 000 jobs. To promote the development of high value-added maritime services, the Government will offer a 50% profits tax concession to eligible insurance businesses, including the marine insurance industry. The Liberal Party is in favour of this concession as it has been the call of the maritime transport sector over the years. It is believed that other relevant professional businesses will be attracted by this tax concession to enter the Hong Kong market. In addition, the Government will complete its study on tax and other measures in the second half of this year, with a view to attracting ship finance companies to establish their presence in Hong Kong. After that, the Government should actively pursue the recommendations of the study to develop Hong Kong into a ship leasing and management centre in the Asia-Pacific region, thereby expanding our maritime services cluster and making a bigger pie of maritime services to consolidate Hong Kong's position as a shipping centre.
As for transportation, it is learnt that the Government is exploring the concept of "congestion charging", which suggests that future toll rates of road bridges and tunnels should be determined on the basis of people-carrying capacity and cost effectiveness of vehicles. Vehicles having high people-carrying capacity or supporting economic activities can enjoy lower tolls. The Liberal Party favours this concept, but we believe the future toll exemptions for public transport, if any, under the Electronic Road Pricing should apply to taxi as well for it is also a mode of public transport.
To promote the wider use of electric vehicles ("EVs") and improve roadside air quality, the Government announced early this year that the eligibility criteria of the "One-for-One Replacement" Scheme for EVs introduced last year would be relaxed to lower the required ownership period and licensed period of an old private car by half. This relaxation seeks to encourage the replacement of conventional private cars with EVs, but the initiative is not forceful enough. Car price, being the major consideration of car owners in replacing cars, is closely related to battery life―the longer the battery life, the higher the car price. If the Government wishes to effectively encourage the replacement of conventional LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9015 private cars with EVs, it should consider increasing moderately the first registration tax concession which is now capped at $250,000 under the "One-for-One Replacement" Scheme to give more incentive.
The Financial Secretary has proposed in the Budget an allocation of $120 million to extend the EV charging networks at government car parks, with the number of public chargers being expected to reach 1 700 by 2022. Meanwhile, the Government will identify suitable on-street parking spaces to install EV chargers and explore suitable locations to set up pilot quick charging stations for EVs. The Liberal Party welcomes these initiatives but we hold that, in the long run, the Government should legislate to make it mandatory for all new domestic or commercial buildings to provide charging facilities at their parking spaces so as to prepare for the era of EVs. In the meanwhile, all proceeds collected from the first registration tax on EVs should be designated for enhancing the charging facilities.
In fact, the installation of charging facilities in private housing estates has troubled many car owners. On the one hand, the power supply in their estates may not be strong enough; on the other hand, the Owners' Corporations may oppose the installation. As such, the Government must solve the problems with such installation in private housing estates and commercial buildings. Furthermore, regarding business vehicles which keep running on the roads, the Government should give generous financial incentives to encourage the replacement of old vehicles with EVs or greener vehicles. According to a recent news report, the only manufacturer of liquefied petroleum gas ("LPG") minibuses will cease the production of such minibuses in 2021. As there is speculation that Hong Kong will backtrack to replace the 3 000-odd LPG minibuses running on the roads with diesel minibuses, thereby intensifying roadside air pollution, the Government should take this opportunity to encourage the use of electronic minibuses by introducing bold policies and offering generous subsidies.
Lastly, I would like to talk about the manpower issue. The Secretary for Labour and Welfare has recently replied me on the proposed inclusion of drivers under the Supplementary Labour Scheme ("SLS"), saying that the supply of drivers should be more than enough because more than 360 000 drivers are now holding a valid commercial vehicle licence while the number of commercial vehicles is only some 90 000. As for whether the scope of SLS will be expanded to cover the job category of drivers, the Secretary replied that it was for 9016 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 the Policy Bureau concerned, i.e. the Transport and Housing Bureau, to propose relevant policies. In other words, this issue is handed back to the Transport and Housing Bureau. However, when I previously put the same question to the Transport and Housing Bureau, they told me that it was for the Labour and Welfare Bureau to decide whether SLS would cover the job category of drivers. As the two bureaux are passing the buck to each other, I do not know which of them is taking the lead.
I have to highlight one point. In terms of figures, the presence of 360 000 commercial vehicle licence holders should be able to meet the market demand for some 90 000 commercial vehicle drivers, but the fact is more than 10% of public vehicles in the market are left idle owing to the lack of drivers, and the problem of insufficient public transport drivers is becoming more acute year after year. The Government will simply be sitting on the problem if it does not even put the job category of drivers under SLS. In this connection, I hope that the Government will proactively consider expanding the scope of SLS to the job category of professional drivers so as to prepare for the future importation.
President, with these remarks, I support the passage of this year's Budget.
MR SHIU KA-CHUN (in Cantonese): President, when the Financial Secretary responded to the question concerning the Chief Executive's new fiscal philosophy advocated in last year's Policy Address, he said that he would "optimize the use of surplus to invest for Hong Kong and relieve our people's burdens". He also explained in particular the relationship between public expenditure and Gross Domestic Product ("GDP") in relation to the budgetary criterion of public expenditure not exceeding 20% of GDP. The Financial Secretary also said that it was necessary "to be more proactive in managing public finances in the face of various development needs of society and the economy", and thus he had slightly raised the ratio of public expenditure to GDP to 21%. I was very glad to hear such a positive response and it could even be said that I gave my wholehearted support. Yet, it turned out that I was totally mistaken. Looking at the revised estimates of 2018-2019, I found that the 1% "positive response" was a budgetary mistake as the new public expenditure was only 20.2% of our GDP, not much different from the past. What exactly is the new fiscal philosophy that the Financial Secretary is implementing?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9017
I am very worried that the new fiscal philosophy is merely a lip service. The Government's fiscal management philosophy is always "according economic development the top priority while leaving people's livelihood aside". The Government's first and foremost role is to promote economic development and hence the general direction taken by the Financial Secretary this year is also "supporting enterprises, safeguarding jobs, stabilizing the economy, strengthening livelihoods". Please take note that this is not only the order but also the salient point. It indicates that economic development always goes first while people's livelihood has the lowest priority. A bigger problem is that the Hong Kong Government has been lying to the people over the years. It never stops promoting economic development. By maintaining the high land price policy and extremely low tax rates and putting the land sales revenue into infrastructures, it continues to accumulate public reserves but it never honours its promise to "strengthen livelihoods". If this is not fraud, what is it?
The GDP per capita in Hong Kong has grown from $237,960 in 2009 to $381,900 in 2018, an increase of 60% and an indication of the rapid development of the economy. What about the statistics concerning the people's livelihood during the same period? The Gini Coefficient rose to a record high of 0.539 in 2016 and the population living in poverty remained at one fifth of the total population. There are still about 1 million people living in poverty after policy intervention, among them 340 000 are elderly people and 180 000 children. On the other hand, according to government statistics, the median working hours of employees in Hong Kong is 44.3 hours per week, with 1 500 000 wage earners working over 44 hours a week and 650 000 even working for more than 52 hours a week. It should be noted that the International Labour Organization recommends a 40-hour work week. The Government once promised that people in need would be allocated with public rental housing in three years, but this year the average waiting time may likely exceed six years. Hong Kong people are faced with the problems of paying more for smaller housing units. For elderly persons categorized as requiring constant attendance, their waiting time for places in subvented residential care homes and contract homes continues to extend and now the average waiting time has exceeded three years. Each year about 6 000 elderly persons died while waiting.
President, what do these figures tell us? While the economy continues to grow in Hong Kong, people's livelihood has not been improved but has deteriorated instead. It is a shame that the promise of "developing the economy 9018 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 and improving people's livelihood" has been broken. The crux of Hong Kong's problem is not poor economic performance but uneven and unjust distribution of wealth in society. To improve people's livelihood, one must improve the distribution of wealth in society, and public and fiscal policies should be the best tools for this purpose but they are now used to maintain or even strengthen this uneven and unjust distribution.
Hong Kong's present fiscal reserves have exceeded $1,000 billion, equivalent to government expenditure for 26 months, which is obviously too high. These public resources should belong to the people but the Government has never made good use of such resources over the years; instead it maintains a conservative fiscal management philosophy and keeps accumulating fiscal reserves. In recent years, despite the already low tax rates, the Government continues to introduce tax cuts for enterprises, which in a way weakens its capability of making a secondary distribution. Through handing out "sweeteners" in respect of fiscal surplus, the Government returns wealth to the wealthy by reducing rates, profits tax and business registration fee. Consequently, the more properties one owns, the more "sweeteners" he gets. Those who benefit the most from rates reduction are real estate developers and those who own large numbers of rental properties. The reduction of profits tax rate helps the business sector who profits from the market. For every dollar the grass-roots people get from the distribution, the rich get $4.7. That is the cause of the huge wealth disparity in society.
I am not the only one who considers the Government's distribution unfair and uneven; the general public also have the same feeling. Members of the public have discerning eyes. Most of them can see the Government's unreasonable distribution of public wealth and how it favours the rich over the poor. According to the findings of the survey conducted by the Public Opinion Programme of the University of Hong Kong on the Budget 2019, published on 2 April this year, the net satisfaction rate stood at -33% and the satisfaction rate at 42.5, which was a record low since 2003. Taking a macroscopic view of Hong Kong's economy, we find that 62% of people consider the distribution of wealth in Hong Kong unreasonable, and only 22% of people are satisfied with the Government's strategy in monetary arrangement. With a dissatisfaction rate standing at 48% and net satisfaction rate at -27%, it is obvious that the people are dissatisfied.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9019
President, handing out "sweeteners" may have become the Government's unwritten established practice. For more than a decade, it has taken the one-off approach of handing out "sweeteners" to drain the floods each year. Over the past decade, the Government has spent a total of over $400 billion on handing out "sweeteners". What kind of public monetary management philosophy is that? What kind of public monetary management strategy is that? While large amounts of administration expenses, time and manpower are spent on processing tax returns and collecting tax, large amounts of public money, manpower and resources are spent on tax and rates rebates. On the other hand, large numbers of underprivileged people and those who cannot stand on their own feet must languish in poverty and live a life of extreme hardship. They wait endlessly for various kinds of social services, for places in residential care homes for the elderly and for people with disabilities, for accident and emergency department services, for surgical operations, for life-saving drugs, and for residential arrangements for victims of domestic violence.
The Government has always claimed that there is acute land shortage in Hong Kong, an excuse to rationalize land reclamation, and to rationalize the lack of social welfare services and the insufficient allocation of resources to health care facilities. As a matter of fact, the Government sells land and reaps huge revenues every year. The golf course for the rich can occupy a site as big as Tsuen Wan, but the Government tells people there is no land for building more residential homes, additional facilities for residential child care services or more hospitals. In the midst of a booming property market, new housing estates are completed every month and year. Why is there land for the construction of luxurious apartments and the provision of entertainment facilities for the rich, but there is no land for the construction of social welfare facilities? I am not trying to set land for housing development against land for welfare facilities; rather, I just want everyone to look closer at this point: at present there are 200 000 more residential flats than the number of households. That is to say, there are more residential units in Hong Kong than needed and the housing problem does not lie with a short supply of residential units but an uneven distribution of units. If there are no residual units, it is just impossible for the Government to allocate $20 billion to purchase properties for accommodating welfare facilities. The uneven distribution of land and space is the crux of the problem.
Government officials also say that land sales revenue is a very important source of government income, which is an undeniable fact. However, when the Government invests with public money, why not plough back the investment 9020 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 proceeds to the Treasury to meet public expenditures? How come the present plough back rate is so low? Besides, the Government has already spent some $400 billion for handing out "sweeteners" year after year, and the incumbent Government even reduces profits tax and salaries tax. What does that tell us? It is obvious that there is room for the Government to sell less land and use this highly valuable resource for the provision of welfare, health care and other social services, so that people need not wait so long. The Government should stop shirking its responsibility on the pretext of land shortage.
It can be seen from the Budget that in future the Government will invest frantically on infrastructure development and the expenditure on infrastructure development will increase by over $140 billion a year. On the face of it, the Government is investing for the future, but it relies on non-recurrent income to finance current infrastructure expenses. Eventually, those projects will become a financial burden too big that cannot be easily shaken off. As the oracle text (in Chinese) got by the rural leaders in the Che Kung Temple reads, "One seldom has happiness working in a stony field; A painted cake will not smell nice in future; Who knows nothing can be planted in a stony field; Just like a painted cake cannot fill the stomach." To tilt heavily on infrastructure and real estate development is to "plant in a stony field". When investment in infrastructures becomes the main driving force of Hong Kong's economic growth, the local economic structure will lean toward infrastructure and real estate development; various commercial and industrial trades will continue to dwindle under the pressure from real estate development and high rents. In the end, the Hong Kong economy will lean more heavily on infrastructures. Once there is an economic downturn and the market shrinks, the Government's land sales revenue and other revenues will plummet; by then, under the Basic Law, the Government will have to adopt austerity measures to make ends meet. When that happens, as the recurrent expenditures on various infrastructural projects already underway cannot be cut back and the non-recurrent income cannot meet the expenditure on the remaining projects, the Government can only resort to reducing the spending on infrastructure projects or handling the expenditures with a deficit budget. That is what it means by "a painted cake cannot fill the stomach". The people's livelihood will thus be affected and that is the outcome of the Government's indulgence in infrastructural construction.
As a matter of fact, instead of handing out "sweeteners", the Government can make good use of fiscal reserves and public financial policies to resolve many social problems. I think the Financial Secretary does not have the vision to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9021 resolve problems whatsoever. Very often, to truly improve people's livelihood, it just needs to adjust the way how public money is spent rather than blindly promote economic development.
Finally, I wish to put forward a specific recommendation to the Financial Secretary and other government officials on how to properly use the public money. Article 23 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights reads, "Everyone who works has the right to just and favourable remuneration ensuring for himself and his family an existence worthy of human dignity". Although Hong Kong has put in place the minimum wage, the rate of increase lags far behind economic growth. The biannual adjustment also falls behind the inflation rate. The Hong Kong Government always encourages people to seek employment but the statutory minimum wage cannot ensure an employee and his family a basic existence. Some families even fall into the category of working poor. As such, I cannot but query the purpose of working hard.
Although the Hong Kong Government has set up the Minimum Wage Commission, its mission is to achieve a dehumanized economic development, instead of ensuring that wage levels can meet people's daily needs, the Commission's aim is, I quote, "to maintain an appropriate balance between the objectives of forestalling excessively low wages and minimizing the loss of low-paid jobs; and to sustain Hong Kong's economic growth and competitiveness", which is to make wage-earners continue to live in poverty. It makes manifest the Government's fiscal management philosophy of "according economic development the top priority while leaving people's livelihood aside".
It was recommended in the Report on Hong Kong Living Wage Research published last year that the local living wage for a one to three-person working household should be $54.7 per hour. If the Financial Secretary pays all workers on outsourced government services the living wage instead of minimum wage, the problem of working poverty among these workers can be resolved. It is definitely fairer and do the people more justice than "handing out sweeteners" or returning wealth to the wealthy, and it can also be afforded by the public finance. More importantly, by paying these workers the living wage, it can also show a respect for them and their families, and allow the grass roots to see more easily their contribution being recognized.
9022 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019
President, this may be my last speech in my career as a Member of this Council and I just want to say, "To stay is just a matter of an instant but it will be a lifetime after I turn away". With these remarks, I say goodbye to this Council.
DR PIERRE CHAN (in Cantonese): President, in the Budget announced by the Financial Secretary …
(Mr Gary FAN stood up)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Gary FAN, what is your point?
MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): President, I request a headcount.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.
(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Pierre CHAN, please continue with your speech.
DR PIERRE CHAN (in Cantonese): President, in the Budget announced by the Financial Secretary, health care expenditures have increased …
(Some Members were talking in their seats)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please keep quiet.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9023
DR PIERRE CHAN (in Cantonese): … The Government is duty-bound to assume responsibilities for public health care. I have pointed out in my article that the Government and the Hospital Authority ("HA") lacked a sense of forward-looking planning and it failed to increase health care resources in response to population growth. Let me cite hospital beds as an example. According to The Hong Kong Annual Digest of Statistics of the Census and Statistics Department ("C&SD"), before the SARS outbreak in 2003, there were 29 539 beds in public hospitals. The number of beds was in fact insufficient to meet the demand at that time, additional beds and canvas beds were also needed. Within five years after the SARS outbreak, there was a cumulative reduction of 2 667 beds for the purported reasons of preventing infection, allowing a greater space between beds and setting up isolation wards, etc. The number of beds only increased to 28 335 in 2017 but it was still lower than the previous level. During the interim period, the population was ageing and increased by 660 000, hence it is not surprising that wards are packed with patients.
I talked about beds just now … I found the Annual Digest 30 years ago. It revealed that the number of beds has really decreased but the number of doctors has increased from 3 800 to 6 072 during the period, an increase of more than 50%, and the number of nurses has increased by 37%. In other words, the number of beds has not increased but there are many more doctors and nurses.
I now cite the United Christian Hospital ("UCH") in Kowloon as another example. As there are many overlapping areas between UCH and the boundary of the Kowloon East Geographical Constituency, UCH will not have many consultation cases from outside the area. According to the Population By-census of C&SD, from 2006 to 2016, the population of Kwun Tong District increased by 61 118. Within these 10 years, seven public housing estates had been built in the district, including On Tai Estate, On Tat Estate, Choi Fook Estate, Choi Tak Estate, Sau Mau Ping South Estate, Choi Ying Estate and Yau Lai Estate, bringing in a total of 100 000 residents, and the number of people aged over 65 had increased by 17 064. Despite the construction of these public housing estates, the number of beds in UCH has decreased instead of increased. How can the wards not be packed with patients?
After we have raised the problems, the Government has only dealt with the person who raised the problems. The wards are full during the annual influenza surge and frontline health care personnel are tired out. This situation has become the focus of news. This year, public health care groups have held 9024 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 grievance rallies to publicly express their discontents. Doctors also warned that if the authorities did not pay more attention, health care safety would be jeopardized. If the problems of staffing establishment and resource mismatch were not rectified, the clinical work and service quality of health care personnel would be affected. However, the Government has not dealt with the problems but has only dealt with those who raised the problems.
I would like to quote the Bloomberg Healthcare Efficiency Index published last September. Hong Kong had the highest scores and ranked first for a few consecutive years. This index calculates an efficiency score based on the average life expectancy and average health care expenditures as a percentage to gross domestic product and the average actual health care expenditure. In short, the longer the average life expectancy and the lower the health care expenditures, the higher the score, and a higher score means higher efficiency. Hong Kong has the longest average life expectancy in the world which is somehow related to the quality of health care services. Moreover, the majority of the elderly in Hong Kong rely on public health care services and public hospitals provide 90% of inpatient services in Hong Kong. Let me use a colloquial analogy to describe public health care services in Hong Kong, and that is, the public "get a roast goose by paying the price of sugar cane fibre".
On the other hand, owing to the overcrowding wards and long waiting time, patients cannot get proper care. We are aware of these problems but the health care efficiency index fails to reflect the relevant situation. When it comes to health care expenditures, Hong Kong ranks first in terms of health care efficiency. The quality of health care services is reflected by the fact that Hong Kong has the longest average life expectancy in the world. Can we continue to provide a wide range of public health care services in Hong Kong in a fast, efficient and economical manner? The answer is definitely in the negative. Frontline health care personnel are so stressful that they are on the verge of collapse. They point out that the present situation cannot sustain, i.e. public health care services cannot be provided continuously in a fast, efficient and economical manner. They really think that the situation cannot sustain. Therefore, we raised the problems but the Government has not dealt with the problems but has only dealt with those who raised the problems.
In the face of the discontents of frontline health care personnel and public opinions, the Government realized that it has to do something. Following the grant last year, the Chief Executive once again made a one-off grant of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9025
$500 million to the Hospital Authority ("HA") to cope with the influenza surge. In this year's Budget, additional recurrent funding is provided to HA to boost the morale of health care personnel and retain talents.
Where have these emergency resources gone? I hope the practice of last year will not recur, i.e. the $500 million grant had not been allocated to departments in desperate need of funding. In the Budget, the Financial Secretary has instructed HA to properly plan and manage public hospital services and take timely and effective measures to cope with influenza surge and other possible public health challenges. I am looking forward to seeing the determination of the Government and HA in reforming HA.
Apart from increasing funding, $10 billion is earmarked for establishing the public health care stabilization fund to prepare for any additional expenditure which might be incurred by HA in case of unexpected circumstance. The $10 billion fund was initiated by Prof YUEN Kwok-yung, Dr David LUNG and I in the past two years. I would like to tell the story behind this proposal and our expectation on how the funding will be used.
As we all know, in respect of financial management, the Government has been keeping expenditures within the limits of revenues and spending within its means. The amount of health care funding is determined by the Government's fiscal surplus rather than the demand. According to the data provided by the Treasury, for five consecutive years since 2003-2004 after the reunification, the recurrent funds provided by the Government to HA were lower than that provided in 2002-2003 and the funding level in 2002-2003 was only exceeded again in 2008-2009. Owing to the Asian financial turmoil, the burst of the dotcom bubble and the economic downturn at that time, the Government had fiscal deficits from 2001 to 2004, and the fiscal reserves in 2003-2004 could only meet government expenditures for 13 months. In order to achieve a balanced budget as soon as possible, the Government cut a number of public expenditures including health care expenditures. However, population growth and ageing would not slow down due to reduction in government expenditures and members of the public would not fall sick fewer times due to reduction in health care funding. Consequently, the public health care system has been under considerable pressure and has even been overloaded.
Within five years from 2003-2004 to 2007-2008, HA's recurrent funding had decreased by $6.3 billion as compared with the funding in 2002-2003. 9026 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019
Therefore, HA could only resort to one countermeasure, i.e. reduce the number of staff and the salary costs. Therefore, it introduced voluntary retirement packages and closed nursing schools. If the Government had set up a $10 billion public health care stabilization fund at that time, HA funding for these five years could at least have been maintained at the 2002-2003 level of $29.4 billion. Funding could even be increased in response to the increase in demand, so HA would not have to introduce voluntary retirement packages and close nursing schools due to reduced funding, which affected services.
For this reason, I wrote to the Financial Secretary on 18 September 2017 to propose the establishment of a public health care stabilization fund. Prof YUEN Kwok-yung and Dr David LUNG also suggested to the Financial Secretary on 12 February 2018 the provision of a lump sum grant of $50 billion to HA as seed money. At an annual interest rate of about 5%, the fund interests should be flexibly used. Yet, the 2018 Budget did not adopt our views. Since the views of Prof YUEN Kwok-yung and I were very similar, we had discussions and jointly wrote a proposal on 27 August 2018, to be submitted to the Chief Executive and the Financial Secretary. Finally, the Budget this year adopts our views.
When the Financial Secretary announced the Budget, he pointed out that, with uncertain economic outlook and adverse external factors, it was expected that government revenues might not be as promising as that in the past few years. The $10 billion public health care stabilization fund can be described as saving up for rainy days. When there is an economic downturn and the Government reduces its funding allocation to HA, HA can use the money to meet urgent needs and avoid reducing the overall public health care expenditure because of reduced government revenues. As such, HA does not need to re-introduce voluntary retirement packages, close nursing schools, or even reduce the salary to save money, which will affect the service quality and patient safety.
To be frank, I hope that HA will not have to use the money and the Government will continue to steadily undertake public health care expenditures. In the long run, the recurrent funding for public health care must remain stable, for the health care sector attaches great importance to stability. It does not require substantial increase but the mode of funding must be population-based so as to better meet the needs of the public.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9027
Some people have suggested using funds for the development of primary health care or other new services but I dare not agree. I am not against this practice but I believe that the money should be used for meeting urgent needs. The money should be used for maintaining stable services in emergency or when expenditures are reduced; otherwise, the provision of these services can sustain.
The Budget this year has also earmarked an additional $5 billion for HA to expedite the work in acquiring medical equipment and introducing advanced medical devices, as well as providing relevant training. This will be conducive to improving efficiency and medical outcome. I also welcome the provision of additional funding to the Community Care Fund and the Samaritan Fund to support patients with uncommon disorders, including patients with rare diseases and terminal cancer, so as to relieve the financial pressure on patients from the extended use of extremely expensive drugs and meeting the high diagnostic and examination expenses. Nonetheless, I hope that the Government will actively consider the proposal of Dr Fernando CHEUNG and formulate policies to support patients with rare diseases because their special conditions have not been fully dealt with under the existing mechanism.
In addition, over $150 million has been earmarked to meet the operating expenditure of the district health centre in Kwai Tsing which is expected to commence operation soon. I am very concerned about the coordination of this pilot service with existing primary health care services. Can it reduce the pressure on public health care services? I have doubts about that.
In principle, I support that the accumulative limit of elderly health care vouchers should be raised from $5,000 to $8,000. However, according to the statistics of the Department of Health, from 2015 to 2018, there were 160 complaints and media reports involving elderly health care vouchers, including suspected fraud, improper declaration and overcharging, etc. As the scope of application of elderly health care vouchers has become wider and the market has become larger, the Department of Health must review the effectiveness of the scheme and enhance monitoring; otherwise, we will not be able to solve the persistent problem of cheating the elderly's money.
To sum up, the Government must ensure that it has a long-term and stable commitment to providing health care resources and making forward-looking health care planning. HA and various hospital clusters must also actively review if the planning and management standards are reasonable. Take for example the 9028 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 tackling of influenza surge, I have repeatedly pointed out that the Government should provide HA with sufficient resources, including money, places and manpower. However, I reiterate that funding is not provided to departments such as medicine, paediatrics and accident and emergency departments that we are concerned about. "The trouble lies not in scarcity but in uneven distribution"; if HA makes no change in its planning and management and is detached from reality, even if more resources are allocated, the problem of overloading public health care services will not be solved. As a result, the Government will not criticize HA but will deal with the person who raised the problems. I do not want to dwell on the topic any longer.
President, I so submit.
MR KENNETH LAU (in Cantonese): President, in April each year, the sight of cotton-tree flowers beside the Legislative Council Complex invariably reminds me that it is time for the Legislative Council to scrutinize the Budget of the Government, including staffing establishment, estimates of expenditure, performance indicators and timetables. This is an assignment in which Legislative Council Members and civil servants have all been involved. Members of the public may access the website of the Legislative Council for detailed information on the expenditure and performance of various government departments.
When the Financial Secretary was preparing this year's Budget, the trade friction between China and the United States was imminent, and the broader global economic environment was not optimistic. Pursuant to the latest World Economic Outlook released by the International Monetary Fund, global economic growth rate has been lowered from the earlier 3.5% to 3.3%, the lowest since the financial tsunami, and also the weakest since 2009.
Public expenditure will not be reduced due to poor economic prospects. In the five financial years starting from the year 2019-2020, total public expenditure will be equivalent to 21.6% to 22.7% of Gross Domestic Product ("GDP"), more aggressive than the 21.2% to 21.8% as forecasted last year. Since last year, the Financial Secretary has adhered to the new fiscal philosophy of the Chief Executive. He dropped the previous criterion that total public expenditure should be kept at or below 20% of GDP, and adopted forward-looking and strategic financial management principles to invest for the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9029 future and relieve people's burden on the premise of ensuring healthy public finance.
Starting from this year, the Financial Secretary will bring back the Housing Reserve of $82.4 billion to the fiscal reserve over four years. After discounting the balance to be brought back, budget deficit will occur in three years among the coming five years. The budget deficit for this year will be $3.8 billion, the projected deficit for the year 2021-2022 will be $15.7 billion, and the projected deficit for the year 2022-2023 will be $15.1 billion. These are incomparable to the surplus of $134 billion recorded in the year 2017-2018.
President, in the coming years we will need to tighten our belts. When we have not identified better ways to generate revenue, we should manage our costs. In recent years, due to cost overruns of large-scale infrastructure projects, considerable amounts of taxpayers' hard-earned money have been wasted. In the case of the Shatin to Central Link project, which has seen twists and turns since the commencement of its construction, a cost overrun of some $16.5 billion has been recorded for the main works, and when the supplementary provisions of $850 million for the advance works are taken into account, a cost overrun would reach at least $17.3 billion. If the economic environment was as promising as several years ago when we easily had a surplus of over $100 billion, the financial implications would be acceptable to society. However, as the Government will be hard up for money in the coming years, if serious cost overruns are recorded for other large-scale projects, how to maintain aggressive estimates of government expenditure will probably be a headache for the Financial Secretary.
(THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, MS STARRY LEE, took the Chair)
As the reclamation for the formation of artificial islands around Kau Yi Chau and various new development area projects have been commenced one after another, and the Legislative Council has conducted a public hearing on studies related to artificial islands in the central waters, the Government must now put in tons of hard work in terms of project supervision and cost control, lest it should be blamed for problems concerning cost overruns and project management, and projects that are conducive to the long-term development of Hong Kong should be hindered.
9030 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019
Deputy President, the Budget this year lacks new initiatives as far as the New Territories Heung Yee Kuk is concerned. The Budget has failed to respond to the proposals of Heung Yee Kuk to exempt the tolls for vehicular tunnels in the New Territories and to set up a $5 billion rural development fund. I have also failed to see the allocation of more resources by the Government for rural development. I am therefore disappointed. Since there are no new topics, I will only review what the Government has done for my sector last year and this year.
Since I became Chairman of the Heung Yee Kuk, villagers have constantly complained to me that the vetting and approval process for applications for building small houses and redeveloping village houses is protracted, even longer than the waiting time for public housing. Having accessed the relevant information, I realized that there was a backlog of 10 356 applications in 2018. The Lands Department vets and approves some 2 300 applications each year, and the authorities handled only 476 cases of redeveloping village houses last year, a decrease of nearly 18% compared with 2017. I inquired about the reason at a special meeting of the Finance Committee, and the Government replied that the time taken for vetting and approval hinged on various factors, including the complexity of an application.
Deputy President, the saying that it takes a long time to process a complex case sounds logical, but it also needs to be rational and reasonable. Villagers have complained to me that there is a lack of transparency in the authorities' handling of complex cases, and they are kept in the dark about how much time is needed for an application in each phase. Having received the reply from the Government, I find it difficult to explain to villagers why they have to wait three years and then three additional years for only the in-situ redevelopment of a village house.
Deputy President, the High Court has handed down its judgment on a judicial review case concerning small house concessionary rights, saying that the free building licence under the Small House Policy is legal and constitutional. As the lawful traditional rights and interests of the indigenous inhabitants of the New Territories are protected under Article 40 of the Basic Law, I urge the Government to expedite the vetting and approval of applications for building small houses and redeveloping village houses. There should be no further unreasonable delays.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9031
Regarding the overall supply of land in Hong Kong, the Steering Committee on Land Supply chaired by the Financial Secretary will be re-structured to strengthen the coordination of land supply and realize the Lantau Tomorrow Vision. Apart from studies related to the reclamation in the central waters, the Government will also seek funding approval this year for studies on the near-shore reclamations on locations covering Lung Kwu Tan, Sunny Bay and Siu Ho Wan. Deputy President, I hereby declare that I am a representative of the indigenous inhabitants of Lung Kwu Tan Village. Lung Kwu Tan used to have beautiful scenery and attract many photography enthusiasts to come from afar to take sunset photos. Nowadays, however, the mention of Lung Kwu Tan only reminds people of fill banks, cement plants, incinerators, landfills, columbaria, and so on.
The Budget this year will earmark $6 billion for developing new harbourfront promenades and open space as well as improving harbourfront facilities. Studies will also be conducted to provide open space to the public through public private partnerships and with innovative, smart, green and diversified design concepts. I very much appreciate the Government's active and innovative mindset towards harbourfront enhancement. I also hope that the Government will refrain from favouritism and implement the philosophy of a "liveable city" in future near-shore reclamation projects. While increasing land supply, the Government also needs to be more far-sighted and raise local residents' quality of living, including building new roads, increasing open space and introducing energy-saving facilities.
The Budget this year offers no surprise in terms of rural development, but, to be fair, an improvement programme for piers in remote areas and a broadband service scheme for villages, for which the funding applications were both approved years ago, have been undertaken on a continuing basis. Pursuant to the reply provided to me by the Government, the Subsidy Scheme to Extend Fibre-based Networks to Villages in Remote Areas will benefit 235 villages and around 110 000 villagers, and enhance the communication network between remote villages and the outside world. Hiking enthusiasts will also benefit from this.
Deputy President, many remote villages in the New Territories have unique ecological environment, culture, customs, historical architecture and natural 9032 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 heritage resources that are worthy of the commitment of more resources by the Government for revitalization and conservation, thus promoting the sustainable development of rural areas. The Heung Yee Kuk has all along advised the Government to allocate $5 billion to set up a designated fund for such five major areas as rural infrastructure development, tourism promotion, cultural inheritance, nature conservation and assistance in special incidents. The Government did not accept the advice this year, but I hope it will give actively consideration next year. I also hope that in the future the Countryside Conservation Office will revitalize more remote villages, and develop more revitalization plans for Lai Chi Wo and Sha Lo Tung, so that the traditional customs and unique culture in the New Territories will be transmitted, thus responding to the community's aspirations for urban-rural symbiosis.
Next let me talk about health care that people are all concerned about. As the worsening problem of population ageing in Hong Kong has given rise to huge health care demand, the Government will earmark $10 billion to set up a public health care stabilization fund from the perspective of investing for the future, so as to ensure stable resources for public health care services and meet the need in emergency situations. The Government will also earmark $5 billion for upgrading and acquisition of medical equipment. On recurrent subvention, the Government will provide an additional $400 million to expand the scope of the Hospital Authority Drug Formulary, so as to incorporate more subsidized drugs and benefit more patients. The active attitude of the Government towards the allocation of funding highlights its commitment to public health care services.
The experience of foreign countries has long proved that excellent primary health care is crucial to achieving health for all, and is conducive to minimizing the reliance on public health care services. I hope that the Government will, when expanding the network of district health centres in the future, set up health centres in rural areas, so as to bring primary health care to rural areas and cater to the health care needs of residents of remote areas.
The Voluntary Health Insurance Scheme, which had been deliberated for years, was ultimately rolled out in April this year, under which an annual tax deduction of up to $8,000 will be provided to encourage the public to purchase certified health insurance plans and access private health care services.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9033
The aforesaid measures implemented by the Government all aim at alleviating the pressure faced by the public health care system. However, the crux of the problem with the health care system of Hong Kong is the lack of long-term planning. I hope that the Government will demonstrate its determination and courage, expeditiously make proper overall planning, lead Hong Kong out of the health care dilemma, and pragmatically invest for the future.
Finally, I would like to talk about another issue that is closely related to the public. The Government will allocate $600 million to refurbish or facelift some 240 public toilets in Hong Kong in the coming five years, so as to improve the facilities, enhance the hygienic standard of public toilets, and change the public's negative perception that public toilets are filthy and smelly. This will be a good thing.
In terms of sports, however, the Government will only allocate $100 million in the coming two years to support the work of some 60 national sports associations. The funding is so minuscule that people are disappointed. I very much hope that the Government will, when preparing the Budget next year, demonstrate its commitment to the sports sector, and enhance the financial assistance to local athletes and related sports facilities, so that Hong Kong athletes can leave their worries behind, unleash their potential and bring glory to Hong Kong.
Deputy President, if members of the public have time to peruse the Budget, they will know that the figures enumerated are not sets of chilling figures. Rather, they are related figures that demonstrate humanistic care and the art of balancing. For this reason, I will have regard to the overall interests of society in scrutinizing the Budget. The Budget this year has actively responded to social concerns about various policies on people's livelihood and the long-term competitiveness of Hong Kong. Despite an uncertain economic environment, the Budget still maintains relatively aggressive expenditure to balance the interests of various social strata. In general, it is a Budget that stabilizes the economy and strengthens livelihoods. As such, I will support it on behalf of the New Territories Heung Yee Kuk. I so submit.
9034 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019
MR TOMMY CHEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the Financial Secretary has posed high hopes among the Liberal Party and small and medium-sized enterprises ("SMEs") when he announced, before the delivery of the Budget, that the general directions of this year's Budget would be to "support enterprises" and "stabilize the economy". However, we end up receiving several immediate support measures only, such as reductions in profits tax, rates and business registration fees. Frankly speaking, these measures are grossly insufficient to address the pressing challenges facing SMEs under the external economic environment at present and they deviate significantly from the Liberal Party's expectations.
The catering industry comprises mostly SMEs and micro businesses. For these companies, the most direct and effective assistance is a waiver of licence fees for restaurants and hawkers and fees for restricted food permits. Such hopes, however, have been belied to our disappointment this year like the last year's.
Nonetheless, the Liberal Party considers that most of the proposals put forward in the Budget are geared in the right direction and they are made in response to our demands. In particular, an additional recurrent subvention of $400 million will be provided to expand the scope of the Drug Formulary to reduce the financial burden of the general public, including that on the middle class.
That said, the Liberal Party has still heard a lot of voices saying that the vetting process is slow despite the additional funds. I have pointed out repeatedly that the Hospital Authority's ("HA") drug approval process is too complex and time-consuming. For a new drug, it takes as long as 23 to 40 months from registration to administration by patients. That is why the process needs to be improved expeditiously.
As a matter of fact, money is not necessarily a panacea. Even though the Government is allocating more than $15 billion to improve health care workers' salaries, expedite replacement and procurement of medical equipment, and establish a public health care stabilization fund, the shortage of health care manpower will nevertheless remain.
Over the past month, staff of HA in the health care and supporting grades have demanded pay rise and improvement in fringe benefits. Such increases, however, can never make their pay comparable to that of the private sector. Can LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9035 the salary adjustment reduce their working hours and the patients' waiting time for treatment?
The Liberal Party has supported enhancing private-public partnership all along and has called on HA to expand the scope of cooperation to ease the pressure on the public health care system and speed up patient treatment. To our surprise, Dr LEUNG Pak-yin, Chief Executive of HA, said in his reply last week that he was concerned that enhanced cooperation might lead to an even higher turnover of specialists, thus affecting HA's training of specialists. In other words, HA is facing a dilemma as to whether it should intensify its cooperation with the private sector, for both options would result in shortage of doctors on various fronts.
Early this month, the Medical Council of Hong Kong ("MCHK") voted down the proposal to relax internship requirements for the training of local specialists. It reflects precisely the strong protectionism in the local medical community, which negatived even the extremely conservative proposal to relax the admission of overseas talents.
Deputy President, I would also like to make a declaration: my daughter and son-in-law are working as doctors overseas. There have been many recent media reports putting labels on me and attempting to suppress me, lest people do not know I have an ulterior motive for the interests of my daughter and son-in-law. However, may I ask these people this question: What are they afraid about my daughter and son-in-law?
It can therefore be seen that the authorities cannot rely solely on MCHK to solve problems. Earlier on, the Liberal Party has urged the Government to take the initiative to follow Singapore's steps in drawing up a list of recognized training institutes for overseas doctors and allowing medical graduates from recognized institutes to practice in Hong Kong's public hospitals without having to go through the licensing exam. Last week, a similar proposal was suggested by the Our Hong Kong Foundation to request a review on the recruitment mechanism of overseas doctors.
Incidentally, Deputy President, I have earlier requested the Legislative Council Secretariat to conduct a study on the recruitment mechanism of overseas doctors. I have just read through the English text of the report, which is well-written and detailed, and I believe it will help our colleagues gain a better 9036 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 understanding. We frequently mention Singapore which, as a matter of fact, has been importing foreign doctors for decades, and so is Australia. The report will be distributed to Members in due course once it is translated into Chinese.
The ageing population and the "one-hour living circle" of the Greater Bay Area have led to continuous expansion of Hong Kong's private hospitals. They have snatched doctors from their public counterparts, which has further overstretched the public health care system. The authorities should really stop putting up any more delay and should offer competent solutions as soon as possible.
Deputy President, we face shortage not only in health care personnel; in fact, the same problem is faced by different sectors. While the Financial Secretary has undoubtedly put forward improvements in this year's Budget for a number of hardware issues, hardware alone will not be of much help unless adequate software is provided.
The Administration has spent $600 million on renovating public toilets with improved ventilation systems and advanced facilities. What is the outcome? Eventually, there is a lack of toilet cleaners. Another $200 million has been earmarked for social welfare measures, including the acquisition of properties for elderly homes, but such measures cannot help resolve the long-standing problem of 20% shortage in carers for the elderly, as most local workers are unwilling to take up obnoxious jobs. Similarly, the $200 million being allocated to expand the construction industry apprenticeship programme has not drawn a lot of new blood to the construction industry, due to a lack of interest in the industry among most young people. Many parents would rather pay to send their children to tertiary institutions, hoping that they can join less laborious industries.
I would like to say in passing that, various construction projects have recently encountered difficulties caused by our pan-democratic friends' constant filibustering. The insufficient employment among workers has resulted in a difficult situation. When young workers have completed their training, they only get work for two days and then have to stay out of work for the next four days. What can they do?
In May this year, which is next month, the minimum wage will be raised again. Actually, the catering industry is already deeply troubled, with LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9037 manpower being their biggest challenge. Currently, the catering industry in Hong Kong has to draw on its own resources amidst a severe manpower shortage, as many young people would rather get a more comfortable and higher-paying job in the security sector. Many employers are having a tougher time than their staff as they and their families have to take up the dishwashing and toilet cleaning work when they lack the manpower for such jobs.
Therefore, I would like to point this out to the Financial Secretary: Please do not assume that labour importation is under the policy purview of the Chief Secretary for Administration and the Secretary for Labour and Welfare only. In my opinion, it is just the other way round. This policy area is most relevant to the Financial Secretary and one that he should intervene with priority. Over the past two or three years, micro-enterprises and SMEs have struggled hard to remain in business. Will the Secretary wait until they are closed down before doing anything? The labour shortage will eventually discourage investment in the sector. Can the Financial Secretary afford a continuous decline in Treasury revenue? There is therefore no reason why the Financial Secretary should not take the initiative to lead various bureaux in admitting talents and importing labour on all fronts.
Admittedly, some colleagues would think I am judging the Chief Secretary for Administration and Secretary for Labour and Welfare through tinted glasses, and I am not dismissing the possibility of colleagues holding that view. Indeed, I am looking at things through tinted glasses.
Deputy President, the legal framework for municipal solid waste charging is still under discussion. Many colleagues have found serious problems in the implementation details, and they could foresee that illegal littering will become a very serious issue. So far, the Administration has failed to convince Members that the problem can be solved.
The issue is that, over the past few decades, the Administration has all along believed that the problem could not be solved by implementing a levy. It is no wonder that Hong Kong is making no headway in waste reduction measures. To put it correctly, no environmental policy has even been started in Hong Kong. A proper policy should be guiding the public to change their behaviour through incentives and education.
9038 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019
I would like Members to consider this: Is it difficult be to have the public take useless plastic bottles, glass containers and waste paper to recycle? They would be more willing to recycle if they get paid for it. What matters most to the people is a convenient recycling location, and even better would be a refuse collection point just downstairs from home. If additional incentives are provided―such as food coupons, tax deduction coupons or a $20 banknote in exchange for a certain amount of recyclables―they would only be more than happy to do so!
As I have said time and again, the Administration should make it a priority to step up education efforts and complementary measures on recycling and provide stronger incentives to encourage waste reduction. When facing a complicated environmental issue, we must discard the old and backward mindset in planning and adopt an innovative win-win solution.
On behalf of the industry, I certainly welcome the Administration's pilot scheme for collection of food waste from commercial and industrial sources. The scheme is aimed at paving the way for waste disposal charging. However, the scope of the scheme will primarily cover wet markets managed by the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department and shopping centres run by the Housing Authority. In my opinion, in order to accurately assess the practical difficulties that restaurants encounter in recycling food waste, the pilot scheme should be expanded to cover restaurants and stores in general, especially those in districts with a lot of restaurants, such as Tsim Sha Tsui, Mong Kok, Causeway Bay and Wan Chai. This will help formulate more efficient improvement measures and suitable complementary measures to assist the community-wide implementation of food waste recycling from commercial and industrial sources.
Deputy President, the community has started talking about reducing plastic consumption in recent years. The industry, under my lead, has taken the initiative to work with the Government to launch an incentive scheme for reducing plastic consumptions by encouraging takeaway customers to opt out of plastic tableware. We expect to see more restaurants joining the second round of the scheme. In the long run, however, Hong Kong will need to introduce or redevelop a recyclable plastic substitute that will not contaminate the environment and encourage the industry and the public to use the product. Some people in the industry say that while they want to replace the not so LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9039 eco-friendly utensils with greener choices, the cost in doing so is not at all cheap. They hope the Government will provide a subsidy similar to technology vouchers for the purchase of eco-friendly utensils.
Deputy President, while the Budget has made no mention of the vacancy tax, I would like to take this opportunity to point out that this tax will not help free up supply of first-hand properties. On the contrary, it will result in developers passing the costs from the vacancy tax onto the buyers. This can further lead to price rise in first-hand and second-hand properties and a vicious cycle of ever-increasing housing prices that will make home ownership even harder for real home buyers.
In fact, the Government's proposal of the vacancy tax has already raised wariness among developers, dampening their interests and budgets in land acquisition. In the end, this will only cause another drop in the supply of private housing.
Deputy President, rather than making wasteful efforts, it would be better to speed up the commencement of the projects under the Lantau Tomorrow Vision in order to create more land for Hong Kong. According to the information from the Government, public rental housing production will take a nosedive in 2022-2023. Furthermore, there will be a shortage of about 400 000 sq m and 1 million sq m of gross floor area for Grade A office space in core business districts by 2023 and 2041, respectively. The figures do not, however, take into account the new developments in the Greater Bay Area and the land necessary to sustain Hong Kong's economic growth in the long run.
Given the severe scarcity in land provision, the Government should clearly explain to the public the reality of the situation and help them realize Hong Kong's desperate need of large-scale developments such as the Lantau Tomorrow Vision, so as to solicit public support for expediting the implementation of the plan.
Deputy President, with regard to education, the Liberal Party supports the strengthening of professional training. While the number of subsidized places provided by the Study Subsidy Scheme for Designated Professions/Sectors will be increased from 2 776 in the 2018-2019 academic year to 3 236 by the 9040 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 academic year 2019-2020, that will still leave almost 1 000 subsidized places for the academic year 2018-2019 unused. I hope that the Administration can look into the reason behind. Are the tuition fees too expensive? Is the subsidy not attractive enough? Or is it because of inadequate publicity that resulted in the few applications from eligible students? The Administration should ensure effective use of the subsidized places to attract interested students.
Lastly, kindergarten education is a topic that I talk about almost every year. The Liberal Party has always held the view that there are imperfections in the policy of free quality kindergarten education. Non-subsidized private independent kindergartens are becoming more polarized, as some are being phased out while others are charging increasingly higher fees to enhance their quality in teaching. This will reduce the options for middle-class parents and increase their burden. In fact, we are already seeing a drop in the number of local private independent kindergartens from 108 in the 2017-2018 academic year to 105 in the 2018-2019 academic year. In view of this, I urge the Administration to adopt the Liberal Party's recommendations in its mid-year review of the Free Quality Kindergarten Education Scheme, which includes subsidizing middle-class parents with pre-school education vouchers for them to send their young children to private independent kindergartens. Please do not deprive them of the right to make choices.
Deputy President, I so submit.
MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, on the day the Financial Secretary announced the Budget, I summarized the Budget in a few words, i.e. overly generous on infrastructure but stingy on people's livelihood. The Government forecasts a surplus of only $58.7 billion for 2018-2019 and fiscal reserves are expected to reach $1,161.6 billion. However, according to the data released by the Government, as of the end of February this year, in the first 11 months of 2018-2019, the Government's fiscal surplus reached $99.8 billion, $40 billion more than the amount estimated by the Financial Secretary. Although we know that government spending is higher in March and the surplus may be lower, experience tells us that it is very likely that the annual surplus will exceed the estimated amount.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9041
Therefore, the final fiscal reserves in 2018-2019 may reach $1.2 trillion. What is the purpose of having such a huge fiscal surplus? We notice from the Budget this year that a substantial surplus is used on countless construction projects. We can see from the Appendix of the Budget that the Government's medium range forecast of the expenditures on the Capital Works Reserve Fund will be significantly increased from about $85 billion in 2019-2020 to $147.7 billion in 2022-2023, a cumulative increase of 73.5%. This far exceeds the growth rates of our economy, inflation and expenditures on people's livelihood. This is a black hole in the funding system, which allows the SAR Government to become a spendthrift.
Although there are huge expenditures on infrastructure, there are negligible expenditures on people's livelihood. In the Budget last year, in the face of public grievances, Paul CHAN introduced a remedial scheme to hand out $4,000 to eligible people. However, when we debate the new Budget today, the money has still not been handed out, and hundreds of thousands of people still have not received notification to confirm their application. The public criticized this scheme for being slow in processing their applications, responding to enquiries and handing out money. Some people criticized that their calls to the Caring and Sharing Scheme hotline were never answered and they even said that they might not live long enough to receive the $4,000 as it might take years to hand out the money. This remedial scheme involves an administrative fee of up to $310 million, infuriating members of the public. As it turns out, the new financial management philosophy of Carrie LAM's governing team has created chaos and social grievances.
Since the new financial management philosophy is just like old wine in a new bottle, it is not difficult for us to understand why the so-called relief measures in the Budget this year, including providing a one-off grant and increasing the value of elderly health care vouchers, are just stereotype practices and small favours. The Government has not reviewed the existing Comprehensive Social Security Assistance ("CSSA") policy and ignores the fundamental problem that the CSSA payment cannot help the grass roots cope with basic living expenses. Hence, it fails to respond to the situation of a widening disparity between the rich and the poor in Hong Kong.
The support provided by the Financial Secretary to the grass roots is only a drop in the bucket, and there are fewer and fewer measures to benefit the middle class. The reduction of salaries tax and tax under personal assessment for this 9042 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 year is subject to a ceiling of $20,000 rather than $30,000, and the rates to be waived this year is subject to a ceiling of $1,500 per quarter for each rateable property, which has reduced by 40% as compared to the ceiling of $2,500 last year.
This miserly attitude of the Government has intensified the grievances of the public. According to the results of the three Budget follow-up surveys conducted by the Hong Kong University this year, the satisfaction rating of the Budget was declining. At the end of February, the rating was 47.1 and the net satisfaction rate was -16%. By mid-March, the relevant rating fell to 42.5 and the net satisfaction rate was -33%, which hit a new low since 2003. In addition, 62% of the respondents considered the distribution of wealth in Hong Kong unreasonable and only 26% considered the distribution reasonable. Facts and public opinions prove that the Budget this year is unpopular and absolutely unjust.
The Budget is stingy in terms of people's livelihood, but the words "Greater Bay Area" appear 21 times and "Belt and Road Initiative" 12 times in the entire Budget. The relevant measures include allocating as high as $38 million in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area Development Office. The Budget talks about "capacity building", "expanding market coverage" and providing opportunities for young people. However, we all know that these are empty words that cannot really resolve the difficulties faced by young people in Hong Kong, especially in respect of housing. The Budget does not contain any measures to restrict home purchase and not a word is said on how to suppress speculation and alleviate the housing burden of young people in Hong Kong. As for setting aside $2 billion for constructing transitional housing, this is basically a band-aid measure. The SAR Government is turning transitional housing into a permanent policy and it has evaded the issue of speculation in the housing market.
Deputy President, in addition to making insufficient efforts to solve the housing problem, the Government has introduced a policy that may push up the assets value. The Budget this year intends to allocate $20 billion for the purchase of 60 properties in the private market for accommodating more than 130 welfare facilities. This proposal has given rise to extremely great dispute in the community. People query why the Government has not used the large number of vacant government properties and has not brought back some properties LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9043 divested by Link REIT; and why it has even sold land originally intended for "Government, Institution or Community" purpose for private housing construction. Instead, it now proposes to buy private shops at an average price of $300 million. According to market analysis, there are only about 10 shops in the market sold for more than $300 million each year. Shop investors should have sufficient information to make arrangements earlier than the Government and they can insist on not reducing prices or even increase prices to get the greatest profits. Then, the Government will be propping up the market in disguise, and in turn consolidate property hegemony. I hope Secretary LAW Chi-kwong has clearly got my message.
Deputy President, another expenditure on people's livelihood that has aroused wide public concern is related to health care. The Budget this year will provide additional recurrent funding of over $700 million for the Hospital Authority ("HA"), earmark an additional $5 billion for HA to expedite the work in upgrading and acquisition of medical equipment and enhance training, and also earmark $10 billion to set up a public health care stabilization fund. However, the Government has not suppressed demand at source. As manpower is limited but demand has steadily increased, the initiatives have failed to address the crux of the problem. The major reason or one of the major reasons why the health care system is on the verge of being overloaded is that the population is increasing, and the largest source of the increasing population is definitely the people coming to Hong Kong on One-way permit. If the Government does not address the problem at source, suppress new demands and rising demands, and reduce the One-way permit quota, the provision of increasing health care expenditures will not alleviate the situation of the public health care system and the accident and emergency departments being overloaded, the pressure of frontline health care personnel will not be relieved and the public will continue to face the problem of declining quality of public health care services.
Deputy President, in respect of education, the Budget has not proposed measures to increase the number of subsidized undergraduate places. At present, only 18% of students in the relevant age groups can enrol in subsidized undergraduate courses. Since 1994, the number of undergraduate places subsidized by the University Grants Committee has remained at around 15 000. On the contrary, the number of non-local students enrolled in subsidized undergraduate courses has continued to rise every year, with the largest number being Mainland students. In four years, the number of Mainland students has 9044 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 increased from 11 822 to 12 301. Given the shortage of undergraduate places, a large number of local students eligible for admission to universities can only enrol in associate degree or self-financed undergraduate courses. If self-financing tertiary education is promoted owing to insufficient subsidized undergraduate places, this reflects the lack of commitment on the part of the Government. The objective result is that the Government has pushed students to fall into the dire situation of having huge student loan debts. Does the Government intend to solve this problem? In fact, education is part of social capital. The Government needs to make good education planning to nurture excellent local talents and thus reduce the reliance on foreign talents. Nevertheless, the SAR Government has done just the opposite. In the name of developing "talent-intensive" industries, the Government has essentially imported a larger number of immigrants at a faster speed, and has reduced the investment in nurturing local talents in the long run. In the past few years, the number of people coming to Hong Kong under various types of admission schemes has been on the increase, with the highest proportion being Mainlanders. In 2018 alone, about 25 000 Mainlanders were granted permits to stay in Hong Kong through five types of admission schemes, reaching a record high. In the past three years, the number of people who finally obtained the right of abode in Hong Kong through the admission schemes has exceeded 26 000, a 50% increase within three years.
According to an article written by Dr Edward YIU, in the past 15 years, the cumulative number of Mainlanders being allocated a quota through five types of admission schemes has reached 230 000, of which the cumulative number of people who obtained the right of abode was 25 000, i.e. more than 10%. If this situation continues, Dr YIU predicted that by 2028, the total number of people being allocated a quota would exceed 500 000, and among them, the number of people who obtained the right of abode in Hong Kong would exceed 123 000, i.e. a leap from over 10% to 25%. If this situation continues, it will exert heavier burden on public services and facilities in Hong Kong which are already overloaded. In the long run, the situation will really be inconceivable because public services and facilities cannot withstand the pressure of an ever-increasing population.
Deputy President, lastly, I would like to talk about tourism. With an excessive number of visitors, the communities are overloaded. This is another proof that our economic development is highly dependent on external demand. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9045
In the past three years, the fastest growing visitors to Hong Kong are Mainland residents visiting Hong Kong with an endorsement for group visit (i.e. "the L endorsement"), and the number of visitor arrivals increased from 6.98 million in 2017 to 9 million in 2018. In 2018, we received more than 11 million Mainland visitors under the Individual Visit Scheme, excluding visitors under the "one trip per week" policy. The proportion of same-day visitors to the total number of visitors was 55% last year which also hit record high. Yet, in the past three years, the percentage of the added values of the tourism industry to Gross Domestic Product ("GDP") decreased from 5% to 4.5%. Even though there was a surge in visitors, the percentage of the added values of the tourism industry to GDP has dropped, and there was enormous burden on community facilities, which are social costs. This economic model simply brings losses instead of profits but the Budget this year still provides the tourism industry with an additional funding of $350 million. This definitely cannot solve the problems.
Hence, the Budget this year only reflects that the Government attaches importance to infrastructure but neglects people's livelihood, tilts towards finance and real estate and imports foreign demand. Under such kind of financial management mindset, the Government has all along regarded infrastructure and hardware equipment as investments in promoting our economy, while education, health care, elderly care, retirement protection and social welfare are regarded as expenditures rather than investments to improve the quality of life of Hong Kong people. Should this situation persist, the deep-seated contradictions, wealth disparity and high property prices in Hong Kong cannot be resolved and will only keep deteriorating.
Deputy President, with these remarks, I will vote against the Appropriation Bill 2019. (The buzzer sounded)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Gary FAN, your speaking time is up. Please stop speaking.
MS CHAN HOI-YAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the current-term Government has adopted a new fiscal philosophy …
(Mr Gary FAN stood up)
9046 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Gary FAN, what is your point?
MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I request a headcount.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Gary FAN has requested a headcount.
Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.
(While the summoning bell was ringing, THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair)
(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Ms CHAN Hoi-yan, please continue with your speech.
MS CHAN HOI-YAN (in Cantonese): President, the current-term Government has adopted a new fiscal philosophy which advocates making good use of fiscal surplus and allocating resources where they are required on the premise of ensuring sound public finances. The Government has earmarked a total sum of nearly $150 billion in new expenses for the new initiatives proposed in this year's Budget and the Policy Address delivered in October last year in an apparent move to implement the new fiscal philosophy of the Chief Executive.
In fact, some people believe that allocation of funding does not mean that resources will be well utilized. Instead, it is necessary for resources to be used properly and effectively. I also concur with this view. Given the huge reserves in the government coffers and the surplus consistently recorded, the Government should not only use resources to hand out sweeteners as a relief measure, but should take a step forward by planning ahead and making proper preparations for the problems and difficulties facing our community now and in the future.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9047
That said, I do not mean that the relief measure to hand out sweeteners is not important. On the contrary, it is more necessary for us to reflect on the question why the general public consider the most important part of every Budget to be the relief measure to hand out sweeteners. In my view, apart from handing out sweeteners, various Policy Bureaux should also ponder ways to utilize the current ample fiscal reserves and make bold planning for the future to improve the well-being of the public. The Government should not rely only on the introduction of one-off relief measures every year in an attempt to resolve perennial structural problems.
Take medical and health issues, my biggest concerns, as an example. We have all noticed the problem of overcrowding in public hospitals. In the past, the Accident and Emergency ("A&E") departments of public hospitals would only be overcrowded during the two seasonal influenza surges every year. However, in recent years, quite a number of health care workers at public hospitals have told us that the demand for health care services has basically remained at the peak all year round. In addition to A&E departments, medical wards and other services have all been overloaded. All they could do was to keep adding temporary beds. Their entire working environment has been similar to that of a field hospital. Not only patients but health care workers have suffered.
I would like to point out that influenza is actually not any new infectious disease, and influenza surges have not just emerged in the past couple of years. The overcrowding situation in public hospitals has recurred during influenza surges for many years. What is the reason for the Government's failure to solve the problem? In my view, there are two core problems: the first one is health care manpower; and the second one is the mode of providing health care services.
I would like to talk about the manpower problem first. In objective reality, the funding allocated to the Hospital Authority ("HA") has actually increased every year in the past 10 years or so. The Food and Health Bureau has earmarked a funding of nearly $70 billion for HA this year. Compared with 10 years ago, when $33 billion had been budgeted for HA for the 2009-2010 financial year, this year's funding has increased by 111%. However, as baffling as it is, despite the continuous increase in health care expenditures, the pressure on public health care services has exacerbated rather than alleviated. The most serious problem is manpower wastage. At this year's meeting to scrutinize the 9048 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 estimated expenditures, I have asked the authorities to provide the statistics on all types of health care staff in various hospital clusters in the past five years. As clearly shown by those statistics, in the past five years, all the clusters have experienced very serious manpower wastage in terms of doctors, nurses, allied health professionals and even health care supporting staff.
Take doctors as an example. In the Kowloon West Cluster, while 83 doctors were employed in the 2018-2019 financial year, 72 doctors departed in the same year. As indicated by these statistics, on the one hand, the cluster had hired 83 new doctors, most of whom were relatively young medical graduates with less experience; on the other hand, most of the 72 doctors who had departed were relatively experienced. The most striking situation was reported in the 2017-2018 financial year. While 78 doctors were hired that year, 77 doctors departed. To draw an analogy, this is similar to a situation where one keeps filling a bucket with water in an attempt to put out a fire, only to find the water leaking continuously from the broken bottom of the bucket. With all water leaked away, how could the person fill up the bucket with water to put out the fire?
Under the current situation, despite its enormous pool of resources, HA has failed to allocate them effectively. In order to improve manpower deployment and the use of public funds, one cannot help doubting if it is the most appropriate and ideal approach to continually allow HA to determine its own resource allocation.
During the Government's recent public consultation on the Budget, after careful consideration, I particularly hope that the Financial Secretary will, in addition to recurrent funding, earmark a dedicated funding of $1 billion to HA for providing additional resources to clusters with tight manpower supply and raising the remunerations and overtime allowances of health care personnel, etc., with a view to specifically addressing their problems and retaining talents.
In this year's Budget, the Financial Secretary has actually allocated a recurrent subvention of $700 million to HA, and he has for the first time ever clearly set out in detail in the Budget that the subvention is to be used for increasing senior health care posts, raising the remunerations and allowances of health care staff, etc., with a view to boosting morale and retaining talents. This shows that the Financial Secretary has made a response after listening to the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9049 demands of the public and health care personnel. I strongly endorse this move. However, what can be done to ensure that resources are properly used on health care personnel and patients in practice? The relevant Policy Bureau, namely the Food and Health Bureau, should be responsible for monitoring and regulating the use of resources.
Apart from the problem with manpower, the authorities should also review their mode of providing health care services. I have repeatedly pointed out that HA's management problem is actually not the only reason for the overcrowding situation in public hospitals. To a certain extent, the Government's previous emphasis on treatment and neglect of prevention in resources allocation and policy planning is also a reason. Hence, during the consultation on the Budget, I have asked the Financial Secretary to earmark $10 billion for primary health care, so as to support the development of various primary health care services. To resolve the conundrum of overcrowding under the public health care system at present, it is really necessary for us to uphold the principle of emphasizing treatment while attaching even more importance to prevention; make good use of fiscal resources; expeditiously set up a comprehensive network of primary health care services in the community; properly carry out prevention, triage and early intervention; make real efforts to improve patients' health at source and reduce the number of patients who need to receive inpatient treatment. Only by doing so can the overcrowding situation in public hospitals be alleviated.
In fact, although the primary health care issue has been discussed for years, people very often still have a vague idea about it. I have heard some people asking: "Why should the Government engage in primary health care? Should only the grass roots be eligible for health care services?" I have also heard people saying: "Primary health care is impractical. It is more desirable to allocate resources to improve the services of public hospitals."
In fact, the targets of primary health care services have never been limited to grass-roots people. As opposed to secondary and tertiary health care services, namely specialist and inpatient services, primary health care services have been the first level of services closest to patients' needs at the grass-roots level. Primary health care services include dissemination of health information to the public for disease prevention, family doctors, chronic disease management, triage services at public hospitals, etc. More importantly, by means of a series of 9050 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 physical check-ups and screenings for serious diseases, patients can be treated as soon as possible. This will spare them further suffering from the progression of their diseases and avoid adding more burden on hospital services.
I must emphasize the need for planning and coordinating primary health care services. It is impossible to figure out within a short period of time in what ways the services should be provided and promoted to the public and whether there are sufficient health care personnel to provide the services. We should bear in mind that population ageing will be an increasingly serious problem in the 20 years to come, and the demand for health care services will inevitably increase further. If we wait until a few more years later before we start our planning on primary health care services, I am afraid it will be too late given the more intense pressure on our public health care services by then.
However, the relevant Policy Bureau has given people the impression that it has not yet formulated a holistic policy on developing primary health care services. The most obvious example is the different roles between community health centres ("CHCs") and district health centres ("DHCs"). These two types of centres have been found to be very confusing, both in terms of their names and positioning. In fact, three CHCs have been set up under HA management in the community to provide the public with medical consultation and empower patients in their disease management under a multi-disciplinary health care service model. In contrast, DHCs have been making very slow progress. In fact, we must expeditiously set up enhanced CHCs in all 18 districts to lay a solid foundation for primary health care in the community in a more efficient, targeted and effective way.
Of course, these two types of centres should actually not be mutually exclusive. To members of the public, it is certainly better for the Government to provide as much services as possible. I would like to stress that the authorities should review and make good use of the existing mechanism and measures while exploring new services. For example, the Elderly Health Care Voucher Scheme ("Voucher Scheme") is precisely an important initiative in primary health care development. However, how effective has the Voucher Scheme been operating 10 years since its implementation on a trial basis in 2009? The authorities should indeed conduct a comprehensive, not a partial, review of the Voucher Scheme.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9051
As in last year, this year's Budget has proposed a one-off increase of the voucher amount by $1,000. Some elderly persons and I have found this a bit disappointing. According to information, since the trial Voucher Scheme was regularized in 2014, the voucher amount has never been adjusted. What is more disappointing is that the authorities have recently proposed a cap on the voucher amount used for optometric services every two years by imposing a ceiling of $2,000. With regard to the monitoring of the use of health care vouchers, we should ponder ways to prevent black sheep in the industry from misleading elderly persons into spending vouchers inappropriately, rather than imposing restriction on one single profession.
The Voucher Scheme desperately needs a comprehensive review but not patchy fixes. All aspects of the Voucher Scheme, including positioning, amount, flexibility of use and approach to monitoring, should be reviewed. After all, how can the vouchers play the role of enabling proper use of the health care resources in the private market? I hope that the authorities will respond expeditiously rather than tackling different problems of the Voucher Scheme in a piecemeal approach. Otherwise, the Voucher Scheme will end up being a project which is neither fish nor fowl. That is the outcome which I definitely do not want to see.
In fact, in this year's Budget, the Government has indeed undertaken to address some livelihood issues of public concern. For example, to say the very least, it has no hesitation in deploying resources to the provision of housing and health care services. However, we have also noticed a problem. While the Government has identified the livelihood issues and is even willing to deploy resources to make improvements, it apparently has failed to propose any policies to truly address the core issues.
The current situation has left people with the impression that the Government has no policies in place despite the availability of resources. The objective result of this situation has led the public to believe that the Government will only deploy targeted resources to put out fires with a view to allaying public discontent after problems have arisen, without proposing any supporting policies. In the absence of any policy or blueprint, it is very likely that the authorities will only focus on short-term objectives in policy implementation but not structural problems. This has been a problem in the development of both primary health care and of transitional housing. Members and the public alike hope that the 9052 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019
Financial Secretary will "have something to deliver" in the Budget. They also hope that various Policy Bureaux can "have something to deliver", listen to the views of Members and the public, show determination in policy implementation and make early planning in order to earnestly address public concerns about various livelihood issues.
With these remarks, I support the Appropriation Bill 2019. Thank you, President.
MR LUK CHUNG-HUNG (in Cantonese): President, during our residents' meetings in districts, what is the prime concern of the people over the Budget? It is the relief measures, i.e. the "candies" handed out to benefit the people directly.
I would say the "candies" handed out in this year's Budget are not too sweet, as only the grass-roots families on social welfare and students in need can receive a "double pay" and a grant of $2,500 respectively. Before Budget delivery, the Financial Secretary had constantly managed our expectation by claiming that the fiscal surplus for this year would not be abundant. Despite his surplus forecast of $58.7 billion in the Budget, the government revenue turns out to have exceeded his expectation. Barring any unforeseen circumstances, the Government will have a surplus of at least $99.8 billion or even more than $100 billion. How should the Government relieve people's burden in this situation? The Government must not evade reasonable public expectations.
The Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions ("FTU") has put forward two basic requests. Firstly, the Government should give students a school term allowance. Can this allowance be given to all students? Can it be granted across the board to avoid any labelling effect? In this Budget, the Government only proposes an allowance of $2,500 for students receiving textbook assistance, which reflects its bureaucratic attitude of evading problems, troubles, responsibilities and mistakes. I have not yet received a response from the Bureau on this issue. For all I know, as the Student Finance Office, which is responsible for distributing the $4,000 handout, is caught in a mess and a fiasco, it is highly reluctant to take up new tasks and handle new applications. If it is tasked to give $2,500 to every student in Hong Kong, it will have to develop another application mechanism, right?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9053
Yet, if the Government refuses to provide students in need with a subsidy or a school term allowance simply to evade responsibilities, will it be unfair to some parents? I would like to first declare my interest: I am a parent of a primary student and many of my friends in my generation are not rich. At present, textbook assistance, including full grant and half grant, benefits less than one third of students owing to its stringent eligibility criteria. As for travel subsidy, the percentage of successful student applicants is as low as 20%. What about the remaining two thirds of students? Do they all come from rich families? Is it that the sandwich class or the middle-class families do not have financial pressure? The Government should not be so bureaucratic and should provide all students with a school term allowance. Raising children is hard and tiring; a school term allowance for students is actually a grant to parents. Why can't the Government take this caring initiative to help parents out? The reason is that it wants to evade troubles, and this is what makes me most disappointed, not because of failing to obtain an allowance but the Government's disregard for the parents' request.
Our second request is even more humble. Some time ago, the Government's act of raising the eligible age for elderly Comprehensive Social Security Assistance ("CSSA") to 65 was severely criticized by the whole Legislative Council and the entire city for being mean and unsympathetic. It later introduced an Employment Support Supplement ("ESS") of $1,060 as a "remedy" to make up the difference. However, in this year's Budget, the Government has not proposed to provide one extra month of ESS in addition to an extra month of CSSA payment. The Government is really interesting; many of its jobs are half-done, including the provision of "double pay". The recipients concerned will naturally think that the Government is haggling over a small sum. President, the sum involved is actually very small. The Secretary, who is present now, should know that after the change in age requirement, the number of young elderly CSSA recipients who have turned to receive CSSA for able-bodied adults is less than 10 000. Granting them an extra month of ESS payment will cost the Government less than $10 million in total. How can a government sitting on reserves of $1,000 billion be so mean? When the elderly recipients get this "reduced double pay", they may either be outraged or find it ridiculous. How can they stop complaining?
At this point, I must talk about elderly employment. While the Government encourages elderly employment in quite a forceful way―"encourage" is a nice way of putting it―its measures are ineffective. 9054 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019
Apart from the Honourable colleagues in this Council, the Audit Commission joined in a few days ago to criticize the ineffectiveness of employment support services provided by the Labour Department ("LD"). How ineffective are these services? To illustrate, only 17% of job seekers aged above 50 got hired after using LD's employment services, whilst the number of successful job seekers aged above 60 referred by LD last year was so low that it stood only at 444. What is wrong? Is it because LD is short of hands or has taken a wrong approach? LD and the Labour and Welfare Bureau should look into the matter seriously.
Last time, when the Secretary answered a question on the difficulties facing elderly job seekers, he responded that LD had already introduced the Employment Programme for the Elderly and Middle-aged ("EPEM") accordingly. EPEM, under which employers may receive a monthly allowance of $4,000 for 6 to 12 months, sounds good at first hearing, but its participation rate is in fact very low. According to the Government's estimate, there should be some 2 600 eligible cases per year; however, the number of applications is on the low side at 565, not to mention the number of approved applications. Only some 20% of employers eligible for this allowance have made an application. Why don't they apply for the allowance? Is it because of the lack of promotion, the excessively high application threshold or the cumbersome administrative procedures? What is the reason? How can EPEM help elderly job seekers get a job? For job seekers in this age group, employment support may have to go beyond the provision of allowance to include tailor-made or case-based services because, as compared to job seekers in other age groups, the elderly and the middle-aged are in need of more personalized services which will take into account their working ability, health conditions, and so on. The Government should formulate a good elderly employment policy rather than pushing the elderly to work in a forceful manner. I hope the Secretary and the Financial Secretary will reflect this view.
On the elderly issue, the Government has indeed made its commitments, including the allocation of $20 billion in the Budget for the purchase of 60 private properties to accommodate more than 130 welfare facilities, such as child care centres and neighbourhood elderly centres. Nevertheless, the most concerned facilities, namely, day care centres for the elderly, centres for the elderly, residential care homes for the elderly ("RCHEs") and standalone child care centres, do not seem to fall with the ambit of this $20 billion initiative. In our view, these facilities are more important because it now takes 38 months to wait for a place in a government-run RCHE and 12 months for a place in a day care centre for the elderly. Even for the most fundamental Integrated Home Care LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9055
Services, the elderly may have to wait for months. The serious shortage of residential and community care services for the elderly can thus be imagined.
According to a previous FTU's survey, 83% of elderly persons prefer ageing in place with the support of community care services. This preference is a big help to the Secretary. In fact, not all elderly people want to stay in RCHEs. They wait for RCHE places simply because they cannot receive proper care in the community. In Hong Kong, the percentage of elderly people receiving community care in extremely low. This percentage stands at 5.5% in Japan, another oriental society facing population ageing, and 2.5% in Australia, compared with 1% in Hong Kong. We therefore earnestly hope that the authorities will strengthen our community care services.
Speaking of ageing in place and community care, we should take note of the new trend of using gerontechnology. With the aid of technology products, such as alarm systems, lifting devices and bathing devices, the elderly can live safely and conveniently at home; meanwhile, these products can serve as a helping hand to the carers of the elderly. Yet, the Innovation and Technology Fund for Application in Elderly and Rehabilitation Care is now only open to organizations. Even for the $200 million to be allocated for the provision of Wi-Fi service this year, the Lotteries Fund will only accept applications from organizations, failing to benefit the elderly ageing in place. Can the Secretary spend these monies on installing home-use gerontechnology products to facilitate ageing in place? We believe this is very important.
Besides, the Government has planned to allocate $600 million to enhance the hygiene of public toilets, keeping them clean and fresh. Members of the public, being users, will certainly welcome this proposal. However, it is more important for us to understand the bitterness of frontline cleaning workers. A photo showing a cleaning worker having meal in a public toilet went viral some time ago. How can viewers of this photo not be saddened? Yet, the exploitation of outsourced workers shown in the photo is just the tip of the iceberg. Regarding the deep-rooted conflicts, I know that the Secretary already completed the relevant discussion and review earlier this year and has introduced a reform of the outsourcing system since 1 April. We must, however, make our stance clear. To us, this reform is only a midway stop which represents an initial progress. Many issues concerning outsourced workers, such as the calculation of their length of reckonable service and their entitlement to 17 days of public holidays and paid meal breaks, are yet to address. We even hold that 9056 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 the price factor should not carry a weight of 50% in tender evaluation. Instead, the ratios should be adjusted to 30:70, which means a weight of 30% should go to the price score and a weight of 70% to the service score (covering employees' remuneration and technical issues). This adjustment will, of course, lead to an increase in financial commitment, but the Government should act as a scrupulous employer. It would be best for all outsourced workers to be reappointed as government workers. However, if it is not feasible and the Government has no choice but to outsource its services, it should maintain an effective review of its system.
When the Government talked about its new fiscal philosophy, it said that resources should be allocated as required. Yet, it now has a sweet trouble, i.e. it keeps recording surpluses year after year. This trouble comes from its lack of courage to spend money boldly, given that its revenue is highly unstable, with 35% being derived from land premium and stamp duty. As a result, the Government dares not increase its recurrent expenditure significantly to improve education and health care benefits.
To address the problem of unstable revenue, the Government should seriously consider introducing a progressive profits tax to collect more taxes from the profiteering corporations. It may also need to formulate a more aggressive investment strategy to boost its investment income which now only makes up 7% of its revenue. The Temasek Fund of Singapore is a good example. This suggestion, as we believe, is worth considered by the Government to create a more balanced revenue mix.
We urge the Government to address the pressing need of the people and stop haggling over pennies for its bureaucracy will antagonize the people. The handing out of $4,000 is a painful lesson. President, I do not mean to bring up old scores, but what caused the Government to hand out $4,000? That was the absence of the "sharing" concept in the Government's management of public finance. What does it mean by "sharing"? For example, village enterprises in the Mainland will give people in their village a share in times of surplus. When we visit our home town, we often see the happy faces of villagers because the sharing mechanism gives them all a fair share. Can the Government ponder over this idea? Tax payers and rates payers are not the only ones who contribute to society. Those who pay little tax or cannot afford to buy a flat are the ones who suffer most under social injustice and exploitation. Yet, it is their toil which supports our society. Can the Government establish a reward mechanism LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9057 to share the fruits of economic development with these hardworking people who give play to the spirit of the Lion Rock? Can the Government make them feel happy, rather than angry, when learning that there are a trillion of reserves and billions of surpluses in the public coffers? When the fiscal surplus gives the Government and the Financial Secretary a hassle every year, they should think over what has gone wrong. For instance, will the information provided by the applicants for the $4,000 handout really become useless after this handout exercise? Can the Government be certain that there will never be another cash handout exercise? If the handout is likely to repeat, is it going to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on collecting the applicants' information each time? If the Government does so, it will create social conflicts and dissensions in each and every handout exercise. What a shame!
Now that there is a new fiscal philosophy which advocates allocating resources as required, I very much hope that the Government will have a holistic review of its fiscal policy. Thank you, President.
MR WILSON OR (in Cantonese): President, on behalf of members of the public, I have two questions to put to the Financial Secretary, but unfortunately, he is not present at the moment. The first question is when the $4,000, as promised last year, will be handed to the people. The second question is, as the Financial Secretary erred again in his estimates for this year resulting in an additional surplus of over $40 billion, why did he not hand out cash this year? When I was working in the district, some residents or people asked me to put these two questions to the Financial Secretary. Thus, I hope the Financial Secretary will respond later.
President, the Caring and Sharing Scheme is a decision made in the last financial year, but today, I and my colleagues working in the district still receive many enquiries from the public. They asked me, "OR, how come the money still has not been handed to me? When will I get it?" Some people even told me that as they had not received any confirmation message from the Working Family Allowance Office, they were worried that the Government had not received their applications.
While we understand that it takes time to process the many applications, I still would like to raise one point in the hope that the Financial Secretary and his team can learn from experience. Why is it that each time the Government hands 9058 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 out cash, the arrangements are so messy and cumbersome, and hundreds of millions of dollars are spent as administration cost? That was the situation when the Government handed out $6,000 in 2011; and the same situation recurred when $4,000 was handed out in the last financial year. We do not raise this point now to take advantage of the situation. In fact, we have all along proposed to the Government to establish a standing mechanism for sharing the fruit of the economy. Whenever the Treasury is awash with money, the Government can immediately share with the public. For example, the Financial Secretary has erred in his calculation this year and if he suddenly wants to hand out cash, this can be done expeditiously if a standing mechanism has been put in place. Hence, no extra work is involved and the administration cost can be saved. In the past, I often heard people say, "Refusal to heed good advice of the elderly brings immediate suffering". This aptly describes the present circumstances. I would also give an advice to the Financial Secretary and that is, "Refusal to heed the advice of the public brings suffering to the Government".
President, the second point I wish to raise is that the Budget has not said much on the housing issue. As this issue is the top priority, it is often dealt with in the Policy Address and the Budget will only make proposals for the Policy Address and earmark resources accordingly. The Housing Reserve established a few years ago is a typical example.
From 2014 till now, the Housing Reserve has accumulated $82.4 billion. Back then, the Housing Reserve indicated the Government's determination to increase housing supply, particularly to ease the shortage of public housing. Nevertheless, I do not know why the Financial Secretary has brought this huge sum of funding back to the fiscal reserves, giving rise to heated discussions among the public. People queried whether the Financial Secretary is handing the reserve from his left hand to his right hand; and whether he is playing financial tactics to cover up the shame of having a budget deficit in the future. In this regard, we have not heard any model answer from the Government and I have no intention to speculate the motive. However, as the Housing Reserve only receives revenue but not spending any, the increasing amount of reserve is certainly not conducive to housing supply. This indicates that the number of public housing units has not increased, hence no money has been spent and the shortfall between the supply and the target has widened. Eventually, those waiting for public housing will suffer because the waiting time will become longer with an increasing number of applicants.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9059
As the $82.4 billion is the accumulated amount, I am greatly surprised by the practice of the Financial Secretary this time. As regards housing policy, there are still many areas worthy of investment, thus I hope the Financial Secretary can pause and think. First, in the short term, I think it is most important to deliver the pledge made by the Chief Executive in June last year, i.e. continue to re-allocate private housing sites for public housing development. I ask the Chief Executive not to renege on her pledge because this measure will lead to a reduction of the government revenue.
At the end of last year, the Government has formally changed the ratio between public and private housing in the Long Term Housing Strategy from 6:4 to 7:3. Although the targeted supply of public rental housing units has increased from 280 000 to 315 000 units in 10 years with a net increase of 45 000 units, the Government is actually making empty promises because there is no increase in land supply; and the shortfall between the supply and the target is 67 000 units. Nowadays, what does the public think about the Government's determination in increasing the overall housing supply? Frankly speaking, the public considers that providing land will be more effective in showing the Government's sincerity than handing out cash. In June last year, the Chief Executive announces "Carrie's Six Measures", one of which is to re-allocate nine private housing sites to the Hong Kong Housing Society and the Hong Kong Housing Authority for building about 10 000 public housing units. That is a good start. However, may I ask the Financial Secretary to note that if he wants to fill the gap of the 67 000 units, the Government has to work even harder. The Financial Secretary surely bears the responsibility because he chairs the Steering Committee on Land Supply. He should at least explain in this financial year how he will fill or narrow the gap.
Those who suffer most from a stagnant housing supply are surely the grass roots living in tiny flats and subdivided units, but "shell-less" families who cannot afford home ownership and have to rent private property also suffer due to persistently high level of rentals. The Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong ("DAB") proposed two years ago to introduce tax deduction for rental payments for the middle-class with a view to encouraging them and making their lives easier when the Government had ample reserves. Two years ago, it seemed that the Financial Secretary had heard the idea of introducing tax deduction for rental payments and indicated in a radio programme 9060 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 that he would actively study the proposal, but since adjustments had to be made to the computer system of the Inland Revenue Department, the measure could not be introduced back then. I understand that some middle-class people and those living in rented units in my district became very hopeful after hearing what the Financial Secretary said. Nevertheless, in the Budget released in March this year, there was no good news; worse still, the Financial Secretary has changed his mind and bundled the issue of rent allowance with tax deduction for rental payments. The argument of the Financial Secretary is that introducing tax deduction for rental payments will basically benefit the middle-income and high-income earners, but it will increase the rental burden of the grass roots. Since the Government has not provided rent allowance, will the provision of tax deduction for rental payments in good times be a reasonable act? Although the Financial Secretary's argument seems plausible, the underlying logic is actually very simple. He is not willing to help the grass roots and he has not noticed the burden of the middle-class. After much ado, he only put forward a ridiculous argument.
The DAB has all along proposed that the Government should provide rent allowance and introduce rent control on subdivided units at the same time. This will prevent property owners from using the opportunity to raise rent and pocket the rent allowance provided by the Government. The problem is that the Government insists that it will not introduce rent control and even exaggerates the loopholes of rent control one-sidedly. Presently, the Financial Secretary even uses the argument about rent allowance to repudiate tax deduction for rental payments.
Finally, in relation to housing, the Financial Secretary indicated in the Budget that he would consider allocating funding for the Secretary for Labour and Welfare to purchase community facilities. I think that is a good move worthy of commendation because the Financial Secretary has noticed the problem. However, my view is that the Financial Secretary can consider in a wider perspective. For example, he can consider allocating funding to the Transport and Housing Bureau or other Policy Bureaux to strategically buy back commercial properties in public housing estates, i.e. the properties sold by the Link Real Estate Investment Trust ("Link REIT"). Many people say that this measure is impracticable, but frankly speaking, we really do not know how to deal with the "big mountain" of Link REIT. If this problem is not addressed, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9061 there is no way out for the grass roots at all. Since the Labour and Welfare Bureau cannot address the problem, can the Financial Secretary consider whether the Transport and Housing Bureau can purchase some of Link REIT's properties so that the people can really live and work in contentment?
President, I will now turn to the second topic of my discussion, which is Elderly Health Care Vouchers ("EHVs"). We often hear news about people buying spectacles or dried seafood, etc. with EHVs. I have with me an advertisement of a company selling spectacles, stating that people who buy spectacles with EHVs can get supermarket coupons or point-to-point transport services. President, frankly speaking, one can imagine how much profit the shop has obtained from EHVs.
In fact, many old folks in my district told me that if they are sick, the EHV amount is not sufficient for medical treatment; and if they are healthy, they do not know how to use EHVs. Eventually, by the end of the year, they will use EHVs to buy dried seafood or spectacles, etc. The Government really has to think of ways to tackle such problems; more importantly, it has to address the problem of service providers charging varying fees for health care services. At present, consultation fees differ for elderly people who are using EHVs and those who are not. The Secretary for Food and Health openly said that a review would be conducted, but frankly speaking, the public may not want patchy fixes. The Secretary would certainly say that having a review was better than nothing. If the Policy Bureau really intends to review the matter, I hope that it can conduct a comprehensive check-up to solve these problems as well, so that old folks will really find EHVs useful.
Besides, we have often suggested that old folks should be allowed to buy blood pressure monitor with their EHVs. Considering that the Policy Bureau often promotes healthy living; buying a blood pressure monitor will not be too extravagant, will it? Furthermore, can an "EHV sharing plan" be introduced? If a couple have EHVs and the health of the husband is better than the wife, I think they should be allowed to share their EHVs, but they cannot do so at present. Secretary Prof Sophia CHAN has not accepted this suggestion; she only said that she would consider and address the problem. I think it is really a waste of our effort.
9062 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019
Moreover, the Government has increased the eligible age for Comprehensive Social Security Assistance ("CSSA") Scheme―Secretary Dr LAW Chi-kwong is now present―leading to extensive discussion in the community. I would like to tell the Secretary that nearly 500 000 people in Hong Kong are aged 60 to 64; they comprise 7% of our population and many of them have retired at the age of 60. Frankly speaking, it will be very difficult for them to rejoin the labour force. At present, the supporting services for employment are inadequate and these old folks do not know how to find a job and they cannot secure employment. I very much hope that the Secretary can empathize with them. I would also take this opportunity to ask the Government to address the needs of young elders with measures such as lowering the eligible age for EHV Scheme and the public transport services scheme at a concessionary fare of $2 per trip to 60. Besides, can it maintain the eligible age for CSSA at 60? Even though I have made these suggestions, I feel that the Policy Bureau may turn a deaf ear to them.
President, I would like to discuss another subject, which is education. Recently, a female teacher of the Tung Wah Group of Hospitals Leo Tung-hai LEE Primary School committed suicide, allegedly out of stress. It is a very unfortunate incident. Earlier, the mismanagement of Hing Tak School in Tuen Mun also aroused extensive discussion in the community. Some people have pointed their fingers at the school-based management policy which has been implemented in aided schools and Direct Subsidy Scheme schools since 2005, saying said schools are unregulated under this policy.
President, I support the spirit of school-based management. Under this policy, every school is required to set its management direction according to its educating philosophies or needs, which was initially a good idea. However, after discussing with my friends in the education sector, I realize that the Education Bureau has been too passive in its role in school-based management. In particular, when faced with mismanaged schools, complaints of teachers or improper acts, the Education Bureau has given people the impression that it just sits on its hands.
At present, the Education Bureau provides general school-based support services to assist schools in establishing their governance styles and education positioning. Frankly speaking, to what extent has the Education Bureau intervened? Can it really fix problems when they occur? I have not noticed that problems have been resolved so far. All I know is that when a problem LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9063 occurs in a school, the Education Bureau will require the school to submit a report and address the problem on its own. Is school-based management really such an ideal policy? If schools handle complaints on their own, it will give the public an impression that inquiries are conducted by peers. It is a matter of confidence and impression. No matter how the Education Bureau handles complaints or how it enhances the complaints mechanism, schools will be involved in the process to a certain extent and complainants will not rest assured. I consider the current arrangement very unsatisfactory. When the Education Bureau investigates complaints, it will have to address the requests of schools, including those of teachers and parents. This will inevitably give rise to suspicions and cases of one person's word against another's. President, imagine that when a teacher lodges a complaint about the governance or other problems of the school, he or she will arouse the attention of the stakeholders of the same school. I think the authorities should properly address problems of the complaints mechanism and improve the relevant arrangements.
President, I would like to point out that the entire Budget gives me an impression that the Government intends to address some long-standing problems which are very difficult to tackle, but I think the direction of handling the problems and the policies are to a certain extent, not supported by the public. In Brother Paul's Announcement in the Public Interest ("API"), he plays with a ball and looks very relaxed, but will he really listen to the views of the public and different stakeholders?
To be fair, we cannot say that the Budget is poorly prepared. Before I finish my speech, I would like to give the Financial Secretary and his team the following words of encouragement: There is always room for further improvement. I hope that civil servants can really be determined to respond to the demands of the public; they should visit the districts more often to listen to the views of the public instead of shooting an API with someone playing with a ball. Public officers should not simply visit some social welfare facilities without listening to the actual voices of the residents. I think that each and every Government policy should be down-to-earth. As a member of DAB, I will continue to give proposals on different policies to enable the Government to fully understand public opinion in a down-to-earth manner.
President, I so submit. Thank you.
9064 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019
MR AU NOK-HIN (in Cantonese): This is the second time I take part in a budget debate, and likewise it is the second Budget of the current-term Government. Unlike last year, the Financial Secretary has, in this year's budget speech, used a very poetic tone in all seriousness to describe his economic outlook for Hong Kong in the coming year. He said: "Every cloud has a silver lining. Even though we are not out of the woods yet, we have every confidence in our future." I wonder from where the Financial Secretary has got this blind optimism. Perhaps the "silver lining" behind him is the red sun in the north, but the more blindly optimistic the Government becomes, the more pessimistic I am.
In his speech, the Financial Secretary has gone to great lengths to analyse the global political and economic situation, discuss how the trade war between China and the United States has deteriorated and how world trade and economy have changed. He held that "we should maintain a clear and flexible mind, identifying the unique positioning of Hong Kong, grasping the opportunities, leveraging on and giving full play to our strengths". However, Financial Secretary, in the face of the new norm of global politics and economies, what does the entire Government think and what action will it take?
As the trade conflicts between China and the United States escalated last year, Hong Kong's global position in commerce and trade or what it should do when being caught between China and the United States has become an issue of great global concern. Both the British and American Governments have repeatedly raised queries on the status of Hong Kong in a number of committee reports, including the possibility of realizing a high degree of autonomy, and there are even warnings of the possible removal of the special treatment enjoyed by Hong Kong.
It seems that the trade war between China and the United States is over for the time being and Hong Kong has ostensibly escaped unscathed, but how many times has the Government responded to the queries raised by the rest of the world during the course, and in particular, in this Budget?
Over the past year, the Government has completely ignored the concerns expressed by the rest of the world about the unique social status of Hong Kong, and has never directly responded to the queries raised by the British and American Governments in their committee reports regarding "one country, two systems". Instead, it simply repeated that the "implementation of 'one country, two systems' has been effective".
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9065
At the meetings of the Universal Periodic Review of the United Nations, the Government denied all the concerns expressed by the rest of the world about Hong Kong's society, and had even talked about the Belt and Road Initiative and the Greater Bay Area when the United Nations discussed the human rights issues. Under such a political and economic situation, the Government's so-called "flexible mind" is to keep promoting the development of the Greater Bay Area. This has not only served to realize the vision project of the Communist Party of China on global political and economic development, but has also proactively included Hong Kong into the planning of the Greater Bay Area. The best example is that the Government has been continuously exaggerating the development of innovation and technology in the Greater Bay Area. In this Budget, in response to Carrie LAM's remarks that the Greater Bay Area has the potential to become the Silicon Valley of the East, a considerable amount of resources have been set aside for the development of the Hong Kong-Shenzhen Innovation and Technology Park. The Government does not seek to develop the local innovation and technology industry, but join hands with the Greater Bay Area to encourage the flow of talents, thereby bringing the development of Hong Kong's innovation and technology as well as the planning of the entire city into the development plans of the Mainland. This has naturally aroused the concern and vigilance of different countries in the world.
Over the past two weeks, a number of higher education institutions in the United States have joined hands to clamp down on Chinese-funded technology companies such as Huawei and ZTE, and Hong Kong has become the target as well. The Massachusetts Institute of Technology announced that it would ramp up its screening process for collaboration proposals from four regions, including Hong Kong, and special attention would be paid to areas such as data security and industry competitiveness. This precisely reflects that the Government's heavy reliance on the Mainland market would directly result in the loss of opportunities presented by the Western world. It seems that the Government's claim to identify the unique positioning of Hong Kong is to abandon our unique positioning in associating with different societies in the world.
There is another very good example in this year's Budget, and that is, the development of Cyberport 5. If Members have read a recent report in Apple Daily, they should learn that, after checking the shops in Cyberport one by one, the 90% occupancy rate being claimed is not true as 30% of the shops are not 9066 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 engaging in information technology business. However, the Financial Secretary now proposes to develop a new phase of the Cyberport. May I ask where the shops are and where the demands are?
We have been calling for the development of the South Island Line (West) for many years. May I ask if the Transport and Housing Bureau has drawn up a timetable today? The kaifongs cannot benefit at all. Although the Financial Secretary's proposal to develop the Cyberport seeks to benefit the Greater Bay Area as well as innovation and technology, complementary measures should also be introduced. The Government had used the funding earmarked for celebrating the National Day and the anniversary of reunification to develop e-sports, but it received lukewarm response. Why is that so? Because of inconvenient transportation. The incurable problem of the Cyberport is inconvenient transportation, and this is why, as revealed by the media, the shops therein are almost completely vacant. In my opinion, instead of developing Cyberport 5, the Government should better improve the transport ancillary facilities.
As the Government is often intransigent and fails to learn from experiences, will blunders only arise in respect of large-scale economic planning? Even the introduction of the simplest measure that does not require overall policy support, such as the annual handout of "candies", turned out to be very annoying. How can members of the public expect the Government to genuinely achieve the goals of "supporting enterprises, safeguarding jobs, stabilizing the economy and strengthening livelihoods"?
In last year's Budget, the most controversial proposal was the Caring and Sharing Scheme. As the Government only cared about people having land and properties, many members of the public (including the 3 million sandwich class people) were unable to benefit at all. The Government then hastily launched the so-called "gap-plugging" proposal, but the host of problems left behind have still remained unresolved. Secretary LAU is now present at the meeting, he can ask the 400-odd District Councils members in Hong Kong how many people have received $4,000. Some people have not even received the confirmation message and came to me every day. I am really mad.
In fact, the measure of handing out "candies" or cash is very pathetic as it shows that members of the public have no expectation for the Government, nor do they think that its long-term planning can benefit people's livelihood. As it is LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9067 unlikely that the Government can provide good education and health care services in the long run, people prefer getting cash handout. However, the Government's cash handout measure has become a nuisance. As a matter of fact, members of the public do not have the slightest trust in the Government's governance. Very unfortunately, the Government cannot even do the simple job of handing out "candies" properly, so how can it build public confidence?
This year, it is actually out of my expectation that the Government has again completely failed to address the problems relating to handing out "candies", tax rebates, rates relief, extra month of CSSA payment, sandwich class and property-less class. Given that the surplus recorded this year is higher than expected, it can actually be used to introduce more worthwhile measures to help the people of Hong Kong relieve their plight. And yet, the Government has neither handed out "candies" nor introduced long-term measures. What can we do then?
This year, the offer of tax rebates and rates relief would cost the Government as high as $35 billion, but the additional expenditure incurred from payments of CSSA and a series of corresponding "double pay" is only $4 billion. There is a nine-fold difference between them. Many people who are offered tax rebates or rates belief belong to the hard-working middle class, and the amount of resources allocated by the Government varies greatly among people from different strata. May I ask what relief measures have been introduced by the Government? I am not asking the Government to hand out money every year, but it should at least tell us that the surplus of each year has actually been used to ease the plight of Hong Kong people. Not only is the health care system overloaded, there are also serious problems with the Government's cash handout measure and fiscal philosophy. The Government could not say that nothing would be done because the amount of surplus has decreased this year, nor was there any plan to introduce "gap-plugging" measure or short- and long-term initiative. Last year, after realizing that there was omission, the Government ultimately decided to plug the gap. This year, however, it does not even bother to introduce any "gap-plugging" measure. Has it done justice to Hong Kong people?
Last but not least, I would like to sum up my speech for this budget debate. The system of the Legislative Council in Hong Kong has always been criticized as seriously incomplete because Members do not have sufficient power to 9068 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 introduce bills, the work has been led by the Government, and the separate voting system and functional constituencies have all along hindered the effective operation of this Council, which in turn hindered the genuine practice of democracy. I have always believed that although this legislature, by its name, is the Legislative Council, its real power lies in examining public finance, and the implication of budget debates on the Government's administration is greater and more practical than those of policy debates on the Motion of Thanks.
The importance of democracy lies in the restrictions therein, and check and balance does not only refer to the mutual supervision between the executive and legislative authorities, but also the balance of power between them. When the Government has become increasingly despotic, adopted a high-handed approach of governance and ignored the voices of the community on the belief that it is a "good fighter", then the power of the Legislative Council to examine public finance would precisely be an important power to monitor and restrict the Government. In the past, whenever democratic Members raised opposition against Budget proposals and even took the opportunity to propose social reforms, the Government and the pro-establishment camp had always described this as filibustering, in an attempt to narrow the room for scrutiny of the Budget by this Council by all possible means. They believe that if the Rules of Procedure ("RoP") is amended or the debate time on the Budget is shortened, democratic Members would no longer stand in the way and hinder the scrutiny. This has not only exploited the room of the democratic camp, but also that of the entire legislature, thereby relegating the power and status of the entire Council.
Last year, the Government had blatantly taken advantage of the pro-establishment on the issue of elderly CSSA, and this is indeed the greatest irony of self-relegation of pro-establishment Members. Yesterday, Mr LEUNG invoked for the first time the power conferred by the revised RoP to reconvene a Council meeting after it was adjourned, so as to continue with the Second Reading debate on the Budget. He went on to stress that it was an obligation of all Members to attend the meetings of the Legislative Council. However, let us take a look at the number of Members present in the Chamber now. There are plenty of empty seats. I would like to point out that Members' absence from the meeting to cause suspension may be a gesture of opposition, and it can also be one of the legislative strategies.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9069
Over the past few years, the President of the Legislative Council has been narrowing the room of budget debates of Members. Today, he went further to use a nearly threatening or warning tone to tell Members that regardless of the number of Members who have spoken during the Second Reading debate, public officers would respond at the next Legislative Council meeting. This has rendered it impossible for quite a number of Members to explain their viewpoints, and this right of Members may likely be taken away. This can be said to be the sorrow of this Council.
I think Members should think about some very basic issues. After the current-term Government put forth the principle of "single site, multiple uses", the Budget also mentioned the provision of funding to tie in with this principle. Let us think about this: In the small constituency where I am the District Council member, even the site Ap Lei Chau Inland Lot No. 137, which is only as large as the President's podium, has to be put up for auction due to an inadequate supply of private buildings. As the Government is obliged to make up for the shortfall of land supply, so every piece of land counts and must be put up for auction. However, when I proposed to the Government that the site could be allocated to the Environment Bureau for the development of the "Southern Community Green Station" and provisions had already been made by the Government in the Budget a few years ago, it turned down the proposal. I was actually thinking along the line of the Government's policy strategies, and sought to help it address the district problems by suggesting the use of that site to develop the "Southern Community Green Station" instead of private buildings. And yet, the Government rejected my proposal. I am the representative of people's opinion of that district and the Hong Kong Island, and I am supposed to be empowered to deal with the problems of the local residents jointly with the Government. However, the Government had refused to do so. How can we talk about governance and connecting with people then? These do not exist at all.
The recycling work of the Environment Bureau is even worse. It engaged a contractor to provide all the recycling services required by the Hong Kong Island and the New Territories, hoping that the quantity of recyclables would increase year after year. However, it turned out that the contractor has failed to meet even the target tonnage. Worse still, the business opportunities for recyclers operating in the market have been reduced by the Government. The introduction of the Producer Responsibility Scheme on Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment in the past was a lesson to be learnt as it had enabled 9070 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 individual recycler to grow in power. The current recycling of glass containers has repeated the same mistake. How the can the practice of waste levy collection convince the public? In fact, I have discussed these matters with government officials, but unfortunately, with such ecology, I failed to see a government that is willing to connect with the people. Therefore, the democratic camp is obliged to seriously scrutinize this Budget.
I so submit.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I notice that there are some inaccuracies in the speech given by Mr AU Nok-hin just now, and I would like to remind Members here that the three meeting dates of budget debates were scheduled before the commencement of this legislative session. Among them, the second meeting to resume the Second Reading debate of the Appropriation Bill 2019 is dedicated for Members to speak. The meetings of yesterday and today have reserved sufficient time for all Members to speak, so they should make good use of the time to speak. And, according to the convention, the next meeting will be dedicated for public officers to speak and the deliberation of the Bill in committee of the whole Council.
From this, it can be seen that the room for debate has remained unchanged and has not been narrowed. If Members fail to make good use of the time, the meeting will not be able to proceed in a normal manner. I notice that during the meetings of yesterday and today, Members have requested headcounts time and again. This Council will adjourn at around 8:00 pm tonight, so I hope that Members will make good use of the time to deliberate the agenda items.
(Mr AU Nok-hin stood up)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr AU Nok-hin, what is your point?
MR AU NOK-HIN (in Cantonese): President, can you allow me to elucidate certain viewpoints?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9071
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): There is no such need as I have not asked you to elucidate.
MR AU NOK-HIN (in Cantonese): But after you said …
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I have not asked you to elucidate.
MR AU NOK-HIN (in Cantonese): President, I think you have misunderstood me.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I have not misunderstood you. Please sit down.
Dr CHENG Chung-tai, please speak.
(Mr AU Nok-hin remained standing and raised his hand as indication)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr AU Nok-hin, what is your point?
MR AU NOK-HIN (in Cantonese): President, I request a headcount.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.
(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)
(Some Members made some noises inside the Chamber)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Members please keep quiet.
Dr CHENG Chung-tai, please speak.
9072 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019
DR CHENG CHUNG-TAI (in Cantonese): Before I state my position in respect of this year's Budget, I wish Members will look at the following sets of figures objectively. The first set is about the housing problem in Hong Kong. Hong Kong has been the most unaffordable housing market in the world, in terms of both prices and rents, for nine consecutive years. The property price to median household income ratio has risen further from 19.4 in 2017 to 20.9 today. In other words, it takes a Hong Kong person 20.9 years to be able to buy a residential flat even if he does not eat, buy clothes, spend any money or do anything.
The other side of the housing problem, which Members will certainly bring up, is the waiting time for the allocation of public rental housing ("PRH"). As at the end of 2018, there were 150 200 general applications and non-elderly-one person applications accumulated to 117 400, with 207 600 in total. The average waiting time for general applications was 5.5 years while the waiting time for elderly-one person applications remained at 2.9 years. There is no need to say too much about the housing problem as everybody is well aware of it.
Another problem is health care. In general, the occupancy rates of public hospitals have all reached 110%, with some as high as 140%. In respect of the waiting time for an appointment at specialist outpatient clinics in various districts, taking orthopaedics and traumatology for example, the worst is New Territories East, which is 150 weeks; and for gynaecology, it can take as long as 133 weeks in New Territories West. Healthcare problems have obviously been a hot topic in recent months.
Apart from housing and health care, the most objective issue is education in that the number of student suicides is a precise number. According to the statistics concerning suicides in Hong Kong collected by the Centre for Suicide Research and Prevention, the University of Hong Kong, between 2012 and 2016, among full-time students aged 15 to 24, there were 8.1 suicides in every 100 000, which was 76% higher than the number 10 years ago in 2004. Last year, that is 2018-2019, 23 school children committed suicide, and the youngest was only 10 years old. Such a number is just appalling.
I believe our colleagues in the Secretariat who are about the same age as I am will find this humiliating: the median starting salary of university graduates in 2017 was only some $14,300, $1,000 less than that in 1999. What kind of salary for a university graduate is that? Every year, students scramble for associate LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9073 degree places or places in universities, but the salary they get after graduation is even lower than that in 1997 by $1,000. I have not yet compared the expenditures of the Government on housing, health care and education but I have just found that university graduates now are so poor.
In respect of the labourers, recent findings show that with foreign domestic helpers excluded, the median weekly working hours of Hong Kong people is 44 hours. Starting from the second quarter this year, the median weekly working hours have increased by four hours, that is, each person is working four more hours a week, with 15.5% of them working over 60 hours. But at the same time, their median monthly income is only $18,000. That means during the last decade, disregarding the inflation, the salary increase of Hong Kong workers was less than 10%. Compared to that of 2009, the salary this year, 2019, has increased by less than 10%.
As regards the cost of living, the Economist Intelligence Unit has recently published in its latest report that among 133 cities, Hong Kong, Singapore and Paris share the title of the world's most expensive city. In 2017, 1 377 000 people lived in poverty in Hong Kong, and the poverty rate stood at 20.1%, a record high over the past nine years. In other words, for every five persons in Hong Kong, one lives in poverty.
When it comes to the elderly, they are in a dire strait, with those waiting for places in government subvented residential homes even worse-off. In 2017-2018, 6 611 elderly people died while waiting for such places, an increase of 10% when compared to the number of 6 027 in 2016-2017. In other words, in those two years, the rate of elderly people who died without getting a place increase by 10%. In the same year, there were 37 911 elderly people waiting for such places, an increase by 2 000 when compared to the number of the previous year. It was record high in 10 years, with an average waiting time of three years. The most objective figure is that even after the implementation of the Government's poverty alleviation policy targeting at the elderly, their poverty rate still stands at 30.5%, which is even worse than the rate of one in five among the overall population in Hong Kong. We can see from this figure that one among three elderly people is poor.
Well then, in the face of such objective figures, the most outstanding point of this year's Budget is that it targets at the grassroots, in the sense that neither relief measures nor handing out of money is provided especially for them. Last 9074 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 year, the Government spent $300 million on administrative costs just to hand out $4,000 each and it was subsequently bitterly criticized. In handing out $11 billion, it incurred $300 million in administration costs. The Government said that it would not hand out cash this year but it would take specialized measures. Fearing that it cannot handle the administration work well, it will follow the established systems to provide $2,500 to each of the grass-roots recipients of the Comprehensive Social Security Assistance Scheme or other assistances such as the assistance schemes of the Student Finance Office, working subsidies or transport subsidies to those who already have accounts registered in the Social Welfare Department under the above schemes. But what about the others? We already mentioned the "N have-nots" two years ago and now they have become the target, so much so that they are totally ignored.
As regards the homeless, we all know that there is no policy that takes care of them. Compared with the past, just five years ago, which is not too long, the number of homeless people in Hong Kong has increased by 60%, and female homeless people are now numbered to almost 150. These are only the statistics compiled by non-profit making organizations under the Government.
The slogan of this year's Budget is "supporting enterprises, safeguarding jobs, stabilizing the economy, strengthening livelihoods". Members may have forgotten that a few months ago I presented certain statistics, which no one would have paid attention to because at that time there had been a 30% downward adjustment in the stock market and property prices also went down by 20%. When Paul CHAN was preparing the Budget, he tried to create an atmosphere that the Hong Kong Government might face financial difficulties and Hong Kong might run into financial troubles owing to the slowdown in international trade. Hence he had to manage the public finances prudently and proposed to "support enterprises, safeguard jobs, stabilize the economy and strengthen livelihoods".
The fact, however, is that the Government still has a fiscal surplus of $58.7 billion this year. But it says the fiscal surplus is not much because government expenditure is also very high. In what areas does the Government spend money on? It is obvious that the one to benefit is the business sector. The Government will earmark $5.5 billion for the development of Cyberport 5 but it was revealed by the media two days ago that Cyberport had a vacancy rate of 20% to 30%. It is proposed in the Budget that $2 billion will be injected into the Innovation and Technology Fund for launching a Re-industrialization Funding Scheme. Transitional housing will also get the same amount because the Government has said it has to tackle the housing problem. The Government LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9075 will also provide $16 billion for universities to enhance or refurbish campus facilities, in particular those for research and development, but what is the purpose of that? It is still a question in the long run. Also, it will provide additional funding to increase health care manpower.
The Government will earmark $6 billion for Harbourfront enhancement and $600 million for refurbishment of public toilets. Honestly, no one would make such criticisms in this Council but to me, these measures are redundant. I am not saying that public toilets need not be refurbished. According to the statistics quoted above, however, Hong Kong people are in dire straits but the Government earmarks $600 million to refurbish public toilets. Why does it not just hand out the money to the poor instead? It will also spend $6 billion to enhance the Harbourfront. It only spent $11 billion to hand out money to all eligible people last year but it is going to spend $6 billion on Harbourfront enhancement now. What kind of livelihood strengthening measure is that? The Government just thinks that by increasing the infrastructural spending alone, it will be able to create an economic effect that will raise Hong Kong's GDP. However, our experience gained over the years proves that the ones to benefit are only the construction sector and construction consortiums.
One item that receives the biggest amount of funding, $22 billion, is the first batch of government projects under the "single site, multiple use" initiative, the most controversial of which is in Tung Chung. The Government says that land should not be used in the same way as Government land in the past, as this will waste land resources. It proposes to increase the uses of land. Take Tung Chung as an example. It proposes to build a market next to the Tung Chung MTR Station but the proposal is opposed by all residents in the district. What is the use of building a market there? Why should a market be built next to the shopping centre in the vicinity of the Tung Chung MTR Station? Under the "single site, multiple use" initiative, development projects will clearly include real estate projects, perhaps not completely real estate projects but commercial projects. On the whole, the provision of funds under this initiative aims obviously to benefit the business sector and the amount concerned is close to $40 billion to $50 billion.
The Government says it will not neglect "strengthening livelihoods". First, it will allocate $20 billion for the purchase of 60 properties to accommodate more than 130 welfare facilities. I do not wish to judge it basing on the conspiracy theory, attributing the Government's purpose to benefiting real estate developers by buying back land lots at high prices, but we have mentioned time 9076 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 and again that it only takes $20 billion to buy back 18 "insipid" shopping centres from the hand of Link Real Estate Investment Trust. Since the Government can allocate $20 billion, why does it not consider this proposal? In other words, the $20 billion is for strengthening people's livelihood on the surface, but obviously, the money will only benefit the business sector after all.
Moreover, $10 billion will be earmarked to set up a public health care stabilization fund to prepare for expenses incurred by public health care in unexpected circumstances. This is the most remarkable point in this year's Budget. Members may have forgotten that some years ago when John TSANG was the Financial Secretary, he set up the Housing Reserve and now the Government just brings the money from the Housing Reserve, which is now worth over $80 billion, back to the fiscal reserves. This tell us that the Government has always pretended to be doing something by means of moving money to different stabilization funds when there are ample fiscal surpluses. Do you know what "pretending to do something" means? In accounting terms, this is called "cookie jar reserve", a form of "black magic". When the Treasury seems to lack fiscal reserves, the Government will just bring the 80-billion-plus dollar of Housing Reserve back and says that it will not reduce the spending on public housing development. But when John TSANG set up the Housing Reserve, he said that it would only be used for building PRH, not public housing as the Government has now mixed PRH with the Green Form Subsidised Home Ownership Pilot Scheme housing and call them public housing altogether. It is quite absurd that people would pay to purchase public housing but many people are doing so today.
Now the Government proposes to earmark $10 billion to set up a public health care stabilization fund. How many people can it help? Of course, $5 billion of the fund is for acquiring additional medical equipment. But $10 billion can be considered just a drop in a bucket as the maintenance of the Drug Formulary alone requires $5 billion a year. And even though the Government proposes to provide an additional recurrent subvention of $400 million to expand the scope of the Drug Formulary, the increase is less than 8%. In the face of the general environment of Hong Kong, the statistics cited above are sufficient to illustrate the hardships that Hong Kong people are suffering from but all measures introduced by the Government are lacklustre.
In conclusion, this year's Budget targets against the people of Hong Kong and I will veto it. I so submit.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9077
MR JEREMY TAM (in Cantonese): President, about this Budget, I would like to speak on a few points first.
Firstly, it is about the idea of an international transportation centre. The Budget mentioned how to keep the Hong Kong International Airport ("HKIA") producing synergy and render it a regional hub and even the world's Aerotropolis. In fact, I have pointed out on other occasions that the Hong Kong aviation industry is going to face a very big challenge that lies in our airfreight business. At present, Hong Kong's airfreight volume ranks the first in the whole world―actually, there are not too many other aspects in which Hong Kong can still rank top in the world. Since Hong Kong does not require X-ray inspection be conducted on all cargoes, we have an edge over other regions in cargo loading speed, formalities or charges. Simply put, a cargo can be loaded on board so long as it manages to arrive at the airport 1.5 hours before the departure of the aeroplane. Cities in China and other areas around us can by no means make it because it will take them about four hours. This is precisely the reason why HKIA can continue to rank the first in the global airfreight market.
In this regard, the challenge that Hong Kong faces is that within a few years ahead, the International Civil Aviation Organization will require all airports around the world to examine their air cargoes with X-ray on a 100% basis. What is the current rate of cargo examinations done with X-ray at HKIA after all? The answer is around 1%, or within the range of a few percent. In future, if X-ray examination is to be conducted on all air cargoes, it will actually mean a very big challenge because things will be different from the past in aspects such as the screening procedures or even cargo packing. Two problems will thus be generated. First, in terms of time, it will be impossible in future for cargoes arriving at the airport 1.5 hours before the departure of the aeroplane to be loaded on board. Second, the biggest problem and challenge is that the cost of cargo packing will rise because the Administration and the Airport Authority Hong Kong ("AA") are discussing that cargoes which have been verified of completion of security screening will be packed in a non-airport area and be subsequently transported to the airport. Such an arrangement will involve costs on additional packing, formalities, etc. Hence, in terms of time and price, the gap between the competitive edges of Hong Kong and the adjacent areas will be closed. This should definitely not be overlooked; otherwise, Hong Kong's topmost position will be in jeopardy. I know that the Security Bureau, Transport and Housing Bureau, Civil Aviation Department and AA have met to discuss this subject many times. By raising this point again here, I merely want the upper echelon of the 9078 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019
Government to keep this matter closely in view and try to help the industry get over the hurdle in the present transitional period.
Someone may have a query. If Hong Kong has to apply X-ray examination to all air cargoes, and such a practice is also in place in the countries and areas around us, the time and costs involved will increase for all parties. And then what is the problem with this? The fact is not like this because X-ray examination on a 100% basis has already been in force in the areas around us (e.g. Mainland China), and people always feel that the airport in Hong Kong is relatively safe, so there is no need to implement X-ray examination on a 100% basis. Thus, I hope the Administration can put more efforts in this respect and explore measures that can alleviate the additional expenses of various airfreight companies. This is because these companies will only pass the additional cost on to the consumers, which will result in the decline of their competitive edge. A method that I can think of is that the authorities may consider granting remission to the fees that AA charges for airport franchises and land leases, so as to save the airfreight companies from significant cost increase that will weaken Hong Kong's competitive edge in the airfreight market.
Secondly, I must commend the Government for the passage of a piece of legislation relating to the aircraft leasing business earlier. Paragraph 115 of the Budget also states that a number of large-scale aircraft leasing companies have negotiated or reached deals with airlines around the world through Hong Kong. This is a pleasant thing to all, and we can also observe from it the effects of the passage of the said legislation.
(THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, MS STARRY LEE, took the Chair)
Besides, I would also like to speak on transport issues. Actually, electric vehicles have already become a general trend. If the Government wants to continue promoting such vehicles, it should not keep acting in the way as it is now. Earlier on, when the Government was questioned by Members at the special meeting of the Finance Committee, I enquired about the number of electric vehicles that government departments have actually purchased in the past. It turned out that the Government has only purchased seven electric vehicles in 2108. Of the 250 vehicles or so that the Government purchases every year, only seven are electric. Such a quantity is woefully mean indeed. If the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9079
Government does not even take the lead to buy more electric vehicles, it should just stop urging the public to buy them. The Government just fails to echo itself and even uses driving range problems and inadequate number of chargers as excuses. In fact, the electric vehicles of the Government are already parked in government car parks where it can provide additional charging facilities at any time. In the Central Government Offices and the Legislative Council Complex alike, there are plenty of charging facilities. Why does the Government still use charging issues as excuses? May I ask how it can convince members of the public in Hong Kong to buy electric cars? Although the arrangement of first registration tax concessions for electric vehicles is currently in place, vehicles still need to meet the conditions under the "One-for-One Replacement" Scheme or reach a particular price in order to enjoy partial tax concessions. Given that the Government need not pay tax for car purchase, it is even unjustified for not using more electric vehicles.
At the special meeting of the Finance Committee, I have also enquired about the current manpower or cost for processing small house applications. The figures turn out to be extremely horrible. With over 100 staff members processing small house applications, the processing target is just 2 300 applications per year. I have done a calculation and found that the processing of each application costs the public coffers around $20,000. Earlier on, the court has handed down a judgment on the small house issue, which clearly points out that government land should not be given to indigenous inhabitants for building small houses. How does the Government follow up on this front? The indigenous inhabitants say they will have some corresponding strategies and will consider whether they would appeal.
I must emphasize that the Civic Party has all along opposed the grant of government land to indigenous inhabitants for building houses. Government officials have answered relevant questions at the special meeting of the Finance Committee held earlier. About 10% of small house applications were made through the so-called land exchange or request for building small house on government land. Therefore, the Government should reduce the expenses in this regard, and take this advantage to adjust downwards the annual target of processing 2 300 small house applications. If my memory serves me right, there are 104 members of staff in the department that processes small house applications, with the processing cost of each application being some $20,000. This is very outrageous.
9080 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019
You might have noticed from the media a few days ago that some small house applicants are not Hong Kong people at all. These people have no Hong Kong Identity Cards, yet they can actually apply for building small houses. Some of them even trade their small house rights to the developers for HK$100,000.
Is this reasonable? Originally, small houses are intended for self-occupation. The small house policy back then stated very clearly that small houses were provided for the use by the owners and their family members. However, application for resale happens to more than half of the small houses built every year. It can thus be seen that people building small houses with their small house rights will apply for resale within five years. They are actually making profits from it, which is contrary to the original policy intent. Worse still, how can people with no right of abode in Hong Kong use small houses for self-occupation? If the owner only comes back to Hong Kong on vacation, then the small house should be called a holiday flat instead of a self-occupied residence. Is it tenable?
The Government subsidizes small house applicants with the revenues from taxpayers. While the processing cost of each case is some $20,000, such an amount is however not spent for the people of Hong Kong. Is it tenable? Is there any other policy likewise? We are not talking about an amount of a thousand or a few hundred dollars here. The processing cost of each case is over $20,000. Should our fiscal reserve be spent in this way?
It has come incidentally to my mind that the small house policy should not be serving a small group of people only, and we should not subsidize an expatriate―I define him as an expatriate, or overseas Chinese at the most―who has no Hong Kong Identity Card, no right of abode in Hong Kong, and was not born in Hong Kong. It is not even known if he has returned to Hong Kong. Yet he can come to Hong Kong and apply for building a small house and sell it afterwards, just because the grandfather of his great-grandfather was an indigenous inhabitant. People who are aware of the small house policy know this is not a matter involving just a couple of isolated incidents. Go and look around the New Territories. Why it can be seen everywhere that someone builds over 10 small houses in one go and launch them with pre-sale afterwards like uncompleted flats? Why do problems of all kinds arise accordingly? How can it happen that claimants of small house right come from different parts of the world?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9081
If small house is a traditional indigenous interest or right, why would the definition of traditional indigenous inhabitants cover British people, Americans, Hollanders and Malaysians? They are not Hongkongers at all. Why should we help such non-Hongkongers, who have no intention of returning for settling down in Hong Kong and utterly no connection with Hong Kong, at the expense of the public coffers? Is such a so-called traditional or indigenous right to be passed down endlessly generation after generation? I really do not know. The pro-establishment camp loves to say, "Hong Kong has returned to one country, China." If we all belong to China as one country, and my ancestors were also Chinese, then how come I do not have such a small house right? If the indigenous inhabitants say it is a right given by the British Hong Kong Government in the past, then this is a form of attachment to the British colonial rule. Why does the pro-establishment camp not criticize these people for attaching to the British colonial rule? Now, they should not attach to the advantages given by the British Government. They claim themselves as very patriotic, but in fact they love their dominion of small house rights instead of China.
I once watched an episode of television documentary that impressed me deeply. I cannot recall if it was Hong Kong Connection or something else. It said that before 1997, indigenous inhabitants of the New Territories would all celebrate the Double Tenth Festival with the flags bearing "blue sky, white sun and red earth" flying above their land. After 1997, they have become red flags with five stars. I do not know how to describe such a phenomenon. While the President of the Legislative Council can be a British subject, what else is impossible? I can understand this. Yet is it just because the ancestors of these people were Hong Kong indigenous inhabitants and therefore they can enjoy the small house rights generation after generation?
As I said just now, along this line of logic, we are all Hongkongers as well as Chinese people. Why do only some people have the small house rights? Or let me put it this way: if I had never lived in Hong Kong, man and boy, and were not born here, nor any of my parents were born here, could I receive other welfare benefits in Hong Kong because of my ancestors being indigenous inhabitants here? Definitely no. Why can this right alone be passed on from generation to generation? I really do not get it. Thus, in this connection, I will definitely propose an amendment to reduce the expenses in this respect during the Committee stage.
I so submit.
9082 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019
MR POON SIU-PING (in Cantonese): Deputy President, regarding the 2019-2020 Budget released by the Financial Secretary, society has not responded to it positively. According to a public opinion survey conducted last month by the Public Opinion Programme of the University of Hong Kong, 52.4% of the respondents were strongly dissatisfied or dissatisfied with the Budget, and only 19.4% of them were satisfied or very satisfied with it. The result is not surprising, for the relief measures proposed in the Budget are nothing to write about. In respect of the Budget last year, I criticized the $4,000 gap-plugging initiative introduced by the Financial Secretary as being cumbersome, meagre and overcautious. The complicated administrative procedure causes inconveniences in application, vetting and approval. The social discontent was not alleviated in the end. Now the $4,000 gap-plugging initiative is still being processed, there is still no definite date for eligible people to receive the money, and thus discontent with the Government has unnecessarily arisen.
In the Budget this year, the Financial Secretary has introduced no gap-plugging initiative at all. There are only relief measures that are routinely introduced each year, such as reducing salaries tax and profits tax, waiving rates, providing an extra one-month allowance to recipients of Comprehensive Social Security Assistance and Old Age Allowance, and providing a grant of $2,500 to each student in need. To put it mildly, all people will benefit from the series of measures introduced. To put it bluntly, these measures have been introduced as a matter of routine. As the Policy Address has announced the Lantau Tomorrow reclamation project that may cost as much as $1 trillion, and the Budget proposes spending $45 billion on investing in innovation and technology, members of the public are naturally dissatisfied with the Budget when they face high property prices and ongoing inflation. The Federation of Hong Kong and Kowloon Labour Unions ("FLU"), to which I belong, has even criticized the Budget for "drawing up ambitious development plans, failing to quench a nearby fire with distant water, and allaying people's hunger with cakes in a drawing".
Deputy President, the Budget Speech has not specifically made any mention of a concrete labour policy. In the Budget last year, the Financial Secretary mentioned that $15 billion would be earmarked for abolishing the Mandatory Provident Fund offsetting mechanism. Some of the initiatives for allocating additional manpower are also being processed. I have been concerned about occupational safety all along. While the establishment of Occupational Safety Officers I and II of the Labour Department has been expanded, the actual number of staff members has instead dropped. I hope the Labour Department LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9083 will conduct a review on the reasons for the insufficient manpower of frontline Occupational Safety Officers and make improvement expeditiously.
The statistics of the Labour Department on on-site inspections conducted by Occupational Safety Officers is contrary to common sense. I wonder whether this is attributed to the insufficiency of Occupational Safety Officers. Nowadays the number of site inspections conducted by Occupational Safety Officers is not based on the number of visits, but on the number of inspectors. For example, if two Occupational Safety Officers inspect the same site simultaneously, the number of inspections will be two, and if three Occupational Safety Officers inspect the site simultaneously, the number of inspections will be three. Such a computation method cannot reflect the actual circumstances of inspections and might be fraudulent. I hope that the Department will improve the way in which the statistics on on-site inspections are conducted.
Deputy President, in respect of transport policy, the Budget this year again proposes electronic road pricing as a means to alleviate traffic congestion. Departments such as the Transport Department and the Police are also promoting the adoption of innovative technologies to address issues such as increasing car parks and monitoring illegal parking. To rectify the increasingly serious problem of traffic congestion on Hong Kong roads, the most effective way is to reduce at source the number of vehicles travelling on the roads. The application of technologies for road management and car parking is a general trend, but I think that the Government should exercise discretion in manpower management when introducing electronic technologies for road use management and car parking. I think that the retention of adequate flexibility in the application of electronic technologies is of vital importance to professional drivers. The electronic road pricing scheme has yet to be rolled out at present. I wonder whether the scheme will be aborted like the proposal for the rationalization of traffic distribution among the three road harbour crossings. That said, I hope that irrespective of whether electronic road pricing can be implemented smoothly, the Government will still expeditiously allocate more resources to improve public transport services.
Deputy President, the Financial Secretary mentioned in the Budget Speech that the unemployment rate remained at 2.8%, which is the lowest level in more than 20 years. According to the Financial Secretary, "Total employment sustained growth and salaries increased continuously in real terms". However, low unemployment rate does not necessarily mean the improvement of 9084 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 grass-roots people's livelihood. A recent survey of the Economist, a renowned magazine, has revealed that Hong Kong is the most expensive city in the world. Hong Kong employees enjoy neither standard working hours nor universal retirement protection. The increase in minimum wages of grass-roots workers lags far behind their livelihood needs. The increase in food prices that are closely related to grass-roots people is far more than 2.6%, the inflation rate mentioned in the Budget. These cannot be explained away by the Financial Secretary saying that salaries increased continuously in real terms. Regarding the problem of a persistently tight labour market, FLU has noticed that some 650 000 family carers in Hong Kong have yet to be released to join the labour market. In 2016 and 2017, FLU conducted surveys on parents' views on the arrangement for childcare services, and many respondents considered that the number of places for childcare services was too small and the waiting time too long. More than half of the respondents said that childcare was a factor that affected their choice of jobs. Some parents even indicated that they received no external support in childcare, and they were unable to balance working and taking care of their children. Many women of the relevant age cohort were thus unable to go out to work.
In addition, of the 150 people who come from the Mainland to Hong Kong for family reunion each day, working-age women account for a large percentage. Apart from introducing measures to help them integrate into society, the authorities should also put in place measures to encourage them to seek employment. This will not only ease the burden on society but also release them to join the labour market.
A problem closely connected with releasing people to join the labour market is the shortage of manpower at residential care homes for the elderly. It has been reported by the media that foreign domestic helpers who participate in the Pilot Scheme on Training for Foreign Domestic Helpers in Elderly Care of the Social Welfare Department may probably be transferred to subsidized residential care homes. Despite the clarification from the Secretary for Labour and Welfare, this has still aroused concerns in the community and the labour sector. The Government has been requesting the Labour Advisory Board to relax the number of foreign workers to be imported for subsidized residential care homes, but I would like to reiterate that I oppose expanding the importation of foreign labour, and the Government should first improve the remuneration packages of the existing care staff of residential care homes. I also expect the Government to expeditiously complete its survey on social welfare organizations' salary LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9085 increments for their frontline staff and announce the findings so that we will know whether there are organizations which have not yet followed the proposal of the Government and raised the salaries of their staff. In addition, on training and recruiting local women to undertake jobs at residential care homes, the relevant measures should be targeted and flexible. They should aim at making it convenient for housewives to work at residential care homes and optimizing the use of local workforce.
In respect of social welfare, there has been widespread concern in the community about the Financial Secretary's proposal to allocate $20 billion for the purchase of 60 properties for accommodating more than 130 welfare facilities, including day childcare centres, neighbourhood elderly centres and on-site pre-school rehabilitation services. As indicated by the Secretary for Labour and Welfare earlier, given the existing shortage of services, the number of people waiting for many services has been on the rise, and some elderly people even passed away in the waiting process. This reflects the severe shortage of social welfare services provided by the Government. The purchase of properties for the immediate provision of services will alleviate the pressure of long waiting time, but the $20 billion will still only be a drop in the bucket and fail to meet social needs. Regarding the purchase of 60 properties, I am concerned about the prioritization of social welfare services and the selection of sites. I hope that the authorities will make effective use of resources and achieve the best results.
Deputy President, regarding the allocation of additional funding, I welcome the Government's proposal to provide additional recurrent funding of over $700 million for the Hospital Authority ("HA") to boost staff morale and retain talents. One of the specific measures is to increase the salary of ward supporting staff. As far as I know, following the release of the Budget, HA has further optimized the proposal for pay increase in response to the aspirations of supporting health care staff, but supplementary provisions will be needed to meet the relevant expenditure. I hope that the Government will be supportive in terms of resources and ensure that the funding will be put to proper use. Meanwhile, the existing proposal for pay increase does not cover supporting staff who joined HA before 2000. According to HA representatives, the proposal for pay adjustment for such staff under the old system will only be raised as early as September this year. I hope that the Government will urge HA to finish the relevant work as soon as possible and actively listen to the views of staff members in the process.
9086 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019
Deputy President, the policy on the five-day work week has been implemented for 13 years in the civil service, but some 20% of civil servants have yet to enjoy the five-day work week. I think that the policy needs to be reviewed comprehensively so that all civil servants can enjoy the five-day work week. In this connection, I believe that the Financial Secretary needs to be supportive in terms of resources. In addition, in the Policy Address the Government has undertaken to introduce Chinese medicine as part of the civil service medical benefits, but the Budget makes no mention of the allocation of resources for the provision of Chinese medicine service to civil servants. I hope that the Government can fulfil its undertaking as soon as possible.
Deputy President, I so submit.
MR HO KAI-MING (in Cantonese): Deputy President, on behalf of the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions ("FTU"), I would like to express some views on the contents of the Budget about the elderly and children.
On the whole, we think that this Budget is like "a piece of chicken rib". Luckily, the Financial Secretary is blessed with good fortune because being blessed with good fortune is more important than being good at playing football and he will not be scolded for handing out "a piece of chicken rib" because we have recently been busy eating popcorn, right? Popcorn tastes better than "chicken rib".
As the Andy HUI and Jacqueline WONG incident has become a hot topic in the community, we are paying less attention to the Budget. How to be a tough guy? Secretary Nicholas YANG may not understand that but Secretary Kevin YEUNG should understand that the response of Kenneth MA really showed the qualities that a tough guy should have. Even if he has been hurt, he still defends the lady beside him. Such broad-mindedness cannot be learnt by everyone. Many people have expressed appreciation for Kenneth MA, and Hong Kong people, real men and officials should have such broad-mindedness.
Have the Hong Kong Government, Hong Kong officials, especially Paul CHAN as a male Secretary of Department provided sufficient protection to vulnerable women in Hong Kong? We do not think the protection is sufficient. I dare not say that he is not a tough guy but it is a fact that he has not done enough. During the Budget consultation process, the Financial Secretary kept LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9087 asking us to pass him the ball but we noticed that he had not caught or had failed to catch a lot of balls passed to him, probably because of butterfingers. No matter whether he is good at playing football or blessed with good fortune, many balls have not been caught. Regarding some problems that Hong Kong has been facing for a long time, including an ageing population and the low fertility rate, FTU has expressed our views to the Financial Secretary but he has failed to catch any of the balls.
Let me talk about the fertility rate first. This rate has always been very low in Hong Kong. For a city relying on childbirth to avoid a continuous decline in population, the fertility replacement level should be 2.1, i.e. a couple should give birth to more than two children for the population to remain stable. However, Hong Kong's fertility rate is the lowest in the world, only 1.125, i.e. a couple stop having children after they have a child. There are many reasons why Hong Kong people are unwilling to have children. As we all know, it is very expensive to raise children. Many people do not even have places to live, working hours are long and there is a lack of childcare services. After the birth of children, nobody helps to take care of them and parents do not have time to teach them. Many Hong Kong people are reluctant to have children because of the problems relating to housing and working hours etc., which cannot be tackled by this Budget.
However, the Financial Secretary can take financial measures to reduce the burden on parents through allocation of funds. This is what the Government should do. First, we propose that the Government should allocate $3 billion to provide new-born baby allowances to new parents to alleviate their financial difficulties in meeting the expenses on their new-born children. But we found that the Government has not done so.
Next, a child development fund should be set up. I would like to tell the Financial Secretary that tuition fees in Hong Kong are relatively cheap. The cost of university education was $102,100 a decade ago and it has remained unchanged. If students cannot enter universities in Hong Kong and they have to study abroad, the expenses will be substantial. We hope that the Government will help all students open futures accounts with contributions to be jointly made by the Government and parents. The money may be used to meet the expenses on university education or further study in the future, to reduce the burden on families and provide students with more pathways. Of course, the Financial Secretary has not responded to our request.
9088 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019
We also understand that it takes a long time to set up a fund but FTU hopes there will be some proposals that can be implemented immediately. For example, as mentioned in the Budget, each student will receive a sum of money and we recommend $2,000. After we have expressed our views to the Financial Secretary, we know that the authorities may have many administrative reasons and difficulties, so allowances are only given to grass-roots students who are receiving assistance under the Student Travel Subsidy Scheme or the School Textbook Assistance Scheme. As only about one third of all students can be benefited, we are disappointed. Secretary Kevin YEUNG is now here and I hope that he will consider granting allowances to all students next year. Now that it is impossible to hand out money to everyone, is it feasible to distribute allowances to students? We hope that the Education Bureau will consider this approach to help alleviate problems encountered by students' families because of the many domestic expenses.
Singapore, Hong Kong's biggest competitor, is also facing the problem of a low fertility rate but it provides baby bonuses, Child Development Account grant, childcare allowances and three days' parental leave to encourage childbirth. Secretary LAW Chi-kwong is now absent―the policy of the Hong Kong Government is simply based on the policy objectives of the past decades which did not hinder childbirth or weaken people's desire for childbearing. But this policy is outdated. Even though Hong Kong has nearly $1 trillion reserves, the Government does not use the surplus to solve the problem. We think the Government is duty-bound to tackle this problem.
I mentioned the childcare allowances in Singapore just now. In fact, it is necessary for such allowances to be provided in Hong Kong. Before the Budget was announced, we conducted a questionnaire survey and interviewed more than 800 women. More than half of the women said they needed childcare services while 70% of the women said that childcare or care services in the neighbourhood were totally inadequate. 80% of the women hoped that the Government could provide childcare vouchers to facilitate the public in finding childcare places or institutions. Inadequacy of these services will directly affect women's working away from home. Not all families can hire foreign domestic helpers, not all families have family members to help out, and there may not be four elders and a foreign domestic helper in each family. Therefore, many mothers are forced to stay home to take care of children and they cannot go out to work. There is currently a potential labour force of about 500 000 women in Hong Kong but they cannot join the workplace and these resources have been wasted. I believe that LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9089 many people want to import foreign workers but instead, it may be better for all of us to work together to release this potential labour force of about 500 000 women. The Government should consider that.
Of course, we also hope that Secretary Kevin YEUNG will consider whether it is possible to implement childcare services in primary and secondary schools or implement long whole-day kindergarten services. We have put forward this proposal many times and we hope that the Government can make efforts in this connection and promote cooperation across bureaux in order to solve these material problems encountered by Hong Kong people.
As stated in the Budget this year, the Government will allocate $156 million to provide 400 additional places in aided standalone childcare centre. For the 56 000 babies born in Hong Kong each year, this is not a drop in the bucket but a drop in the lake and can only help a small number of parents. Moreover, these 400 places will only make up for the 1 000 places promised by the then Secretary for Labour and Welfare, Matthew CHEUNG, five years ago to honour his promise only. Nevertheless, the promise has not been fully honoured so far and only 900 places will be provided by 2023. The policy formulated five years ago in 2013 will not be fully implemented in 2023. How can this be endured by the Government? It has failed to provide 1 000 places in 10 years and this is really disappointing.
Home-based child carers could have alleviated the pressure of inadequate childcare services but there are considerable problems in this regard. We suggest that the Government should enhance home-based child carer training because this is not a formal job and, unlike post-natal care workers, home-based child carers are not protected under insurance coverage. Home-based child carers are only getting rewards instead of wages, at a level even lower than the minimum wage level. Hence many people who wish to engage in childcare or home-based child carer services are deterred.
Therefore, we have always advocated that resources should be invested to provide training and establish a registration system for home-based child carers. In this connection, Taiwan has done a lot in this respect but nothing has been mentioned in the Budget. We hope that the Government will assist working women through other means to release the labour force of these women and carefully review and allocate resources to improve the home-based child carer system.
9090 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019
We have also proposed providing financial assistance respectively to two groups, i.e. children aged between 0 and 2 and between 3 and 6, to enable parents to choose appropriate childcare services, i.e. using after school care or the services of home-based child carers to release the labour force of these parents. I think this is the best policy.
Deputy President, I would like to talk about the elderly or old folks. The Government introduced the Employment Programme for the Elderly and Middle-aged in 2018 but only 336 (13%) elderly job seekers aged 60 or above were successfully engaged and 30% of them were paid less than $10,000. The effectiveness of the programme reflects that the elderly in Hong Kong really have difficulty in employment. The audit report released yesterday also mentions that it is difficult to obtain resources and, even if resources are obtained, a very small number of people will be benefited. How can we solve the poverty problem encountered by the elderly in Hong Kong? As Hong Kong does not have a sound system, it is difficult for elderly people to enjoy retirement without worries. Moreover, Hong Kong does not have a universal retirement protection scheme to benefit all members of the public, making it necessary for elderly people to go on working after retirement to make a living. This is a problem indeed.
The Budget last year proposed that the elderly retirement age or eligible age for elderly Comprehensive Social Security Assistance be extended from 60 to 65, reducing social security for old folks. We believe that the HKSAR Government should provide more subsidies and assistance to old folks who have worked in Hong Kong for decades, especially those who have recently reached old age. Concerning the employment of the silver-haired, the Government intends to allow the elderly to work and the elderly are also willing to do so. Has the Government made complementary arrangements? I do not think so. The Budget this year does not contain any measures on labour or elderly matching services. After the Budget has been passed and we have been forced to accept "this piece of chicken rib", can the Government make more complementary arrangements? I think the Government must conduct a thorough review.
Deputy President, whether certain policies are implemented often depends on whether there is any surplus in Hong Kong. The Government often says that there is little money in the public coffers and there is only a surplus of more than $40 billion; thus, it cannot hand out money. This is an excuse or a reason commonly used by the Financial Secretary. For example, at the end of February LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9091 this year, there was a surplus of $99.8 billion, so the Government finally decided to provide an extra allowance to social security recipients, equal to one month of the standard rate. In fact, the Government only needs to spend $30 billion or a bit more to hand out $4,000 to an eligible person and the current surplus is sufficient for the purpose. However, the Financial Secretary also underestimated the income level of Hong Kong so that the surplus this year has increased by more than $40 billion to over $90 billion. Has the Government done it best to put the reserves to good use? The Hong Kong Government has a surplus of $1.2 trillion at present. If the amount is left unused and it conservatively estimates each year that the revenues will be insignificant, the public will not be able to enjoy the fruits of economic development. Hong Kong is facing these disturbing problems indeed.
Therefore, regardless of how much reserve the Government has, the problems of childcare, elderly care, health care, education, housing and transportation should be solved. The Government is too conservative in spending money. It should do its best to plan well for the use of its reserves. However, the public think that serious problems are encountered in the simplest act of handing out money and the Government made a mess in handing out money. If money will be handed out to 5 000 people each day, I do not know when it can finish handing out the money to 2.7 million people. How can this problem be alleviated? We should think harder and make more efforts rather than embracing a reserve of $1.2 trillion. I believe that the original intent of the new financial management philosophy of the Chief Executive is to get rid of the shackles of the bureaucratic system in the past. Nonetheless, we fail to see much difference under the new financial management philosophy. Hence we said that the Budget this year is like "a piece of chicken rib". Yet, we will still support the Budget.
We have held more than 10 residents' meetings on the Budget. Many attendants said that the Budget was really tasteless and yet not bad enough to be disposed of. (The buzzer sounded)
Thank you, Deputy President.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr HO, your speaking time is up.
9092 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019
MR CHAN HAK-KAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, there are many topics which the Hong Kong community needs to discuss or be concerned about, e.g. those in the current affairs section or the entertainment section in the news. Nevertheless, many colleagues say that the Budget this year has seemingly failed to catch the attention of Members or the media. I do not know if Members are aware of an earlier report saying that the Financial Secretary has again wrongly estimated the fiscal surplus, resulting in a much higher figure than his estimate.
Members will remember that before publishing the Budget each year, the Financial Secretary consults the Legislative Council and members of the public, and we do prepare a proposal to discuss with him. This year, we have put forward a total of 155 proposals. Certainly, the Financial Secretary will not accept them all. However, he often rejects our proposals for one single reason: there is no surplus for introducing these measures; our budget is tight and so it cannot be done.
Nevertheless, the newspapers point out each year that the Financial Secretary has wrongly estimated the surplus and we actually have a huge surplus. This has created a very big problem. We proposed many policies to improve people's livelihood which were refused by the Financial Secretary. Then, when it turned out that he wrongly estimated the surplus, he saved up the difference instead of using the money to help the people. The people would naturally become more and more aggrieved. If the Financial Secretary tells us that we do not have adequate reserves and so we cannot introduce too many measures to improve people's livelihood, we will certainly understand it. But, when the Government has amassed huge fiscal reserves and is still unwilling to help the grass roots who are in dire straits and the middle-class, it is definitely unjustifiable.
After reading the Budget this year, I would like to raise three points. My first point relates to the property market. The Budget describes the property market with this paragraph, and I quote, "On the property market, residential property transactions and prices fell in the latter half of last year, but current flat prices are still out of line with people's affordability." (unquote) Deputy President, this description was written a few months ago and is no longer applicable now. Property prices have not fallen. Instead, they have started to rise. In this case, can the short, medium and long-term measures proposed in the Budget to solve housing problems actually help the people? Apparently, the short, medium and long-term measures currently proposed by the Government are LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9093 entirely different from those expected by the people. The short-term measure proposed by the Government is to introduce transitional housing, but how many transitional housing units are available now? No matter what the Government has said, only 100-plus units are provided by the Lok Sin Tong Social Housing Scheme. To achieve the objective set by the Chief Executive, a very long time will in fact be needed.
The short-term measures we are referring to are in fact those which can immediately relieve people from their hardship. In other words, if I have a headache, I should take a painkiller to relieve my pain. If the tablet will not take effect until the following week, I will not take it. The short-term measures we have proposed are intended to provide immediate assistance to people living in poor environment. Many reports tell us that some people are having very miserable life; they sleep in fast food shops, cyber cafes or on the street. There are also reports saying that these people who do not have enough rest are prone to sudden death at work. These examples may be a bit extreme, but should we allow these things to happen in an affluent society like Hong Kong? If we think they should not happen, we should think of ways to solve the current housing problem in Hong Kong. If people have a place to live, will they sleep in fast food shops, cyber cafes or on the street? They will not, will they?
We suggest that the Government should provide rent allowance to those waiting for public rental housing, but the Financial Secretary says that it cannot be done because the measure would push the rents up. Of course, the possibility is there, but in providing rent allowance, there is no need for either the Government or the tenant to tell the landlord that the tenant has obtained rent allowance. If they do so, the landlord will certainly ask for a higher rent. In fact, that relates to a very simple economic theory known as information asymmetry. The tenant need not tell everyone he meets that he has obtained rent allowance. If the Government can provide rent allowance of several thousand dollars to those who have waited for public rental housing for many years, that will relieve their immediate accommodation difficulties, but the Financial Secretary is unwilling to do so and says it should not be done. Even though he has the money, he is unwilling to do so.
The Government says that providing transitional housing is a short-term measure, but I think it is a medium-term one. I have mentioned earlier the transitional housing provided by a charitable organization. In fact, Donald TSANG also suggested introducing transitional housing, but he called it youth 9094 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 hostel instead. Nevertheless, as Members are aware, after the three terms of Government, how many youth hostels have been completed now? None. In that case, what actually does the Government mean by a medium-term measure and what does it mean by a short-term measure?
The Government proposed to construct transitional housing. It allocated $2 billion to non-governmental organizations and made them responsible for it. Is the speed of construction fast or slow? As I understand it, Lok Sin Tong recently proposed to convert a primary school into transitional housing, but the costs of preliminary technical work such as investigations and drawing of plans already amount to tens of million dollars. Such costs, however, cannot be paid out in advance from the $2 billion. What should be done about it? The Government has asked the organization to complete the task well, but it does not pay first. Although the organization is called Lok Sin Tong, the name of which suggests that it is willing to do charitable work, it does not provide services for free. The organization needs to conduct cost management before it can help others. Can the Government really deliver its pledge of promoting the construction of more transitional housing by such measures? I find it very doubtful.
The second issue which I would like to discuss is health care. Members have discussed the shortage of health care personnel, but I do not know if they have noticed the situation of public dental services. I would like to provide some figures so that Members will understand. At present, primary school students have access to the School Dental Care Service and elderly persons can obtain dental services with their Elderly Health Care Vouchers ("EHCVs"), but what should an adult do if he has a toothache? There are only 11 government dental clinics across the territory. If members of the public suffer toothaches, they can wait for these services. There are 870 quotas for urgent cases each week, but how many people are these quotas for? They are for 7 million people in Hong Kong. How can 870 quotas meet the needs of 7 million people? Although not everyone has a toothache and not everyone obtains services from a public dental clinic, many adult members of the public really cannot afford the high dental costs at present. I have heard that some elderly persons who do not want to use their EHCVs lavishly on dental services will go to the Mainland for dental consultation. Some middle-aged people told me that if they wanted to obtain services from public dental clinics, they had to get up at 5:00 am and waited until 8:00 am when the clinics opened. Three hours were spent and all the quota slips would be distributed within 15 minutes. If one could not get a LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9095 quota slip then, he would have to go back the following week. Should this be the dental services provided by a government which has thousands of billions of reserves? Certainly, the Secretary would tell me that we have a shortage of dentists and dental assistants. If that is so, the Government should recruit more staff members and increase the resources in this respect. How much money has the Government injected in public health care services? Is it $50 billion-plus? The Government also indicated earlier that it would earmark $100 billion for constructing hospitals. Why doesn't it allocate more resources for dental services? What's wrong?
I am not sure if Members know that Hong Kong has signed an agreement with the World Health Organization to ensure that each member of the public will still have 20 teeth upon reaching the age of 60 or 80. Does anyone know about this agreement? Even Members do not know about it and the Secretary has not mentioned it. Has she done any work about it? Can the objective be achieved? I am really very worried about our colleagues, particularly those of the other side. I do not know whether they will still have that many teeth when they reach 60.
Deputy President, there are good proposals in the Budget this year. I am very concerned about animal rights. In this Budget, one item of funding is earmarked to provide subsidies to animal welfare organizations for holding activities to promote animal welfare. Such funding was never provided in the past. After I pressed for it, the Government initially provided $1 million, but later the amount was reduced to $500,000 for some unknown reasons. The amount is increased to $1.5 million this year. The rate of increase is obvious and this shows the importance which the Government attaches to animal welfare. The funding of $1.5 million will not be used carelessly as it can only be used after going through very complicated procedures and vetting processes. However, it is still a good measure because many animal welfare organizations are currently operating with great difficulties. They have to raise funds themselves and many voluntary workers may have to pay out of their own pockets to help animals. Nevertheless, it is not enough for the Government to provide funding. The problem regarding animal welfare in Hong Kong now is the lack of a comprehensive set of laws to protect animals. I understand that the Government will introduce a bill later and we will monitor the work concerned.
Second, some Members often mention the issue of euthanasia of animals. We certainly do not want dogs, cats or other animals to be euthanized. At a special meeting of the Finance Committee this year, I asked a question in which I 9096 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 said that the numbers of dogs, cats and other animals euthanized have reduced in the past three years, but they are still alarming. In 2018, 1 026 dogs, 330 cats and 5 000-plus other animals (possibly hamsters and rabbits) were euthanized. Although the numbers have dropped, the situation is still undesirable. Someone told me that even if he found a stray animal or a community animal, he would not give it to the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department ("AFCD") because he knew that AFCD would certainly euthanize it. Therefore, the figures provided by AFCD have dropped. I have considered the matter from a rather negative perspective. Nevertheless, we cannot deny that AFCD has done some work in recent years. In fact, it is undesirable that 6 000 to 7 000 animals are euthanized each year. At present, AFCD has adopted a more humane approach to deal with community animals, i.e. the "Trap-Neuter-Return" programme. The programme has actually been implemented on a trial basis for two years. AFCD says that the programme has not been very effective, but since the programme has been implemented in only 2 out of 18 districts, AFCD can introduce it in the other 16 districts. Why does AFCD not give it a try?
At a special meeting of the Finance Committee, I put a question to AFCD. It responded that it actually maintained an open attitude to the matter. If an organization made an application, AFCD would allow it to carry out the work. In fact, the Government needs to earmark funding to implement the work; if not, how can the organization carry out the work? Besides, reducing the number of community animals in a humane manner is the responsibility of AFCD and not animal welfare organizations. The community is trying to help AFCD now. It should not shift the initiative to welfare organizations. This is inappropriate. In this connection, I hope that the Government can help the people and our community animals with its plentiful fiscal reserves.
The Financial Secretary has wrongly estimated the surplus this year. I hope that when he considers the many proposals put forward by Members to improve people's livelihood next year, he will listen to their views instead of rejecting them with the excuse that we have no money. Thank you, Deputy President.
MR YIU SI-WING (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I speak in support of the Budget this year. The Budget this year ties in with the policies in the Policy Address and puts more resources into education, welfare and medical expenses. The estimated government expenditure this year is $607.8 billion, 13% higher LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9097 than the previous year, and the proportion of expenditure to revenue has increased from 90% in the previous year to 97% this year. The Government can still avoid a deficit budget. When formulating the Budget, in addition to keeping expenditure within the limits of revenues, the Government should also avoid unnecessary administrative costs. For example, although the original intention of the introduction of a $4,000 hand-out to each eligible person last year was good, the administrative procedures were too complicated, which not only incurred additional administrative costs but also gave rise to criticism of the public. The exercise was thus strenuous and unrewarding. The Government should learn a lesson and it should not repeat the same mistake.
Deputy President, the global economic situation is challenging this year and with the continuous trade friction between China and the United States, our economy is inevitably affected. However, the continuous growth in tourism can alleviate the pressure brought by external economic fluctuations and have a positive boost effect on society. I remember that after the SARS outbreak in 2003, our economy was in a downturn but the Central Authorities promptly proposed allowing travellers from China to visit Hong Kong on an individual basis, which directly benefited all related industries in Hong Kong and helped our economy rebound rapidly. This Budget reflects that the Government understands the importance of the tourism industry and is willing to introduce more measures to support the tourism industry. They include an additional allocation of $350 million to the Hong Kong Tourism Board this year, which is more than the $240 million last year. This reflects the Government's strategy to enhance Hong Kong's economic vitality through development of the tourism industry amidst the existing difficulties.
In terms of inbound or outbound tourism, the overall situation of 2018 was in fact favourable. There were 65 million inbound travellers last year, an increase of 11.4% over 2017. In respect of outbound tourism, the stamp levy increased by 8.1% over the same period last year and the number of air tickets sold has also increased significantly. However, due to the impact of the changes in the consumption patterns of local consumers and travellers from the Mainland, the performance of the retail industry is not as preferable as expected. The sales value has increased by 8.8% as compared with the same period last year but the proportion of inbound travellers is lower than the same period last year. In particular, the sales value in February this year decreased by 10.1% as compared with the same period last year, which proves that the recent retail sales is still affected by prudent consumer sentiment. The Government's decision to provide 9098 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 additional funding to support the tourism industry demonstrates that it has faced up to the problem.
Deputy President, the tourism industry market is being squeezed up by network sales in recent years. Together with other factors such as enhanced direct sales by suppliers and the general trend to get rid of intermediaries, business is difficult for small, medium and micro travel agents. The bosses of many small, medium and micro travel agents have to take up part-time jobs to make ends meet. However, the Government has failed to understand their actual difficulties and therefore, to my disappointment, the Budgets of these two years have not reduced travel agent licence fees. I hope that the Government will listen to the voice of the industry and reduce or waive travel agent licence fees in due course, as it has done before.
The Tourism Industry Authority ("TIA") is about to be established. The Budget this year allocates $350 million as seed capital for TIA after its establishment but I find this a very conservative amount. Referring to the current operating budget of TIA, it would be more appropriate for the Government to increase the seed capital for TIA to $500 million. Since TIA will operate on a self-financing basis in future, travel agents licence fees will be one of the important sources of its revenue. Therefore, if the seed capital has a deficit after a certain period of operation, the expenses will eventually be passed on to travel agents. TIA may then increase travel fee licence fees or other charges, which will put even heavier burdens on small, medium and micro travel agents, who are currently operating difficultly.
Deputy President, Hong Kong is an important tourist city in the region and 800 000 people are directly and indirectly employed in this sector. In order to maintain its advantages and continue to drive the development of the entire tourism industry chain, I am concerned not only about the support for the tourism industry in the Budget but also about other travel-related issues, and I hope that the financial allocation this year can achieve better results.
The first issue that I am more concerned about is related to the public toilets in Hong Kong. Last year, I pointed out at the Chief Executive's question and answer session that the hygiene conditions of public toilets in Hong Kong were bad, especially in tourist areas, which seriously affected the image of Hong Kong as an international city. I hope the Government can follow the example of the Mainland and launch a toilet revolution to comprehensively improve the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9099 hygiene standards of public toilets. This issue has the positive response of the Chief Executive and the authorities have immediately proposed to improve the public toilets in 23 tourist areas, and the projects have gradually been implemented. It is also proposed in the Budget this year that $600 million will be allocated in the next five years to renovate 240 public toilets. I welcome the authorities' emphasis on the funding arrangements for public toilets and I hope that the relevant works can be carried out as soon as possible.
In the process of implementing the public toilet revolution, in addition to improving hardware, refurbishing old facilities and adding smart elements, the Government should also review the management and wages of outsourced cleaners, reform the tender system and introduce a reward and punishment mechanism to comprehensively improve the hygiene standards of public toilets. With the development of big data platforms, the Government can automatically count the number of toilets with higher utilization rates and peak utilization hours or demand, so as to find out the circumstances under which it is necessary to increase manpower for priority cleaning of toilets with high utilization rates, as well as provide accurate data support for new toilets in the future. The system can also be connected to the electronic toilet map to facilitate users' search of surrounding toilets, monitor the utilization of toilets and avoid queues for toilets. These functions are very useful for public toilets in places such as tourist hotspots with heavier flow of people. Today, the Secretary for Innovation and Technology is also present. I hope that the relevant policies can introduce more advanced technologies to improve the cleaning and management standards of toilets.
The second issue is related to the shortage of convention and exhibition venues. Hong Kong is the convention and exhibition centre in the Asia-Pacific region but many Asian cities such as Singapore and Thailand have also positioned the convention and exhibition industry as a key development industry in recent years. Our neighbours, namely Macao, Guangzhou and Shenzhen, have also increased investment in the hardware and software of the convention and exhibition venues, and provided many preferential conditions and supporting facilities to attract exhibitors. It can be said that the competition in the surrounding areas is rather keen and the convention and exhibition industry in Hong Kong is facing severe challenges from competitors in the region. Currently, Hong Kong's convention and exhibition industry faces the most serious problem of venue shortage. According to information provided by the Government, the annual saturation days of the Hong Kong Convention and 9100 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019
Exhibition Centre ("HKCEC") in Wan Chai and the Asia-world Expo ("AWE") in 2018 were 75 days and 81 days respectively. The number of applications for exhibitions that were rejected because of the lack of venues was 18 and 20 respectively, and the number of rejected applications for conventions was 17 and 27 respectively.
In the past, our impression was that HKCEC in Wan Chai was saturated and AWE was slightly better because of its remote location. However, the data reflect that the extent of saturation of AWE tends to surpass HKCEC in Wan Chai. The Government has recently proposed the relocation of three government buildings in Wan Chai for the expansion project of HKCEC there. This is a good idea but the relocation work will not be completed until 2026. I guess that the expansion project of HKCEC in Wan Chai will take a long time and its completion is not expected within 10 years, let alone it availability, which will be even later. This will naturally constitute a kind of pressure.
At present, the Government is conducting a research on the expansion project of the second phase of AWE through the Airport Authority Hong Kong but it is still unknown when it will be put into use. In the short term, it can be said that there is very little supply of large-scale convention and exhibition venues in Hong Kong. Facing competition from surrounding cities, the Government must face up to the problem and formulate short, medium and long-term measures. Otherwise, Hong Kong's position as a regional conventional and exhibition centre cannot be maintained.
The third issue is related to smart tourism. The Budget this year proposes to invest $3 million in commissioning a consultancy study on smart tourism but according to information provided by the Finance Committee, the authorities have not provided clear guidelines on the requirements of the consultancy study. Although we can wait for the consultant to provide the details, the Government making the demands should have basic concepts and goals for the requirements of smart tourism.
I believe that smart tourism should take travellers, attractions and the Government as the starting points, each of which will perform different functions. From the perspective of travellers, smart tourism solutions must meet the individual needs of a large number of travellers and enhance their travel experience. In terms of attractions, obvious improvements should be made in the management, operation, services and quality of attractions through application LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9101 of technology. For the Government, it can obtain information on the consumption behaviours and sightseeing habits of travellers, as well as transportation, through the collection and analysis of big data, which will serve as the scientific basis for formulation of tourism-related policies. I hope that the Government can comprehensively sort out smart tourism through this consultancy study and formulate specific solutions for the future.
The fourth issue is related to harbourfront enhancement. The Budget this year will earmark $6 billion for developing new harbourfront promenades and open space, and for improving harbourfront facilities. It is the Government's plan to extend the length of the harbourfront promenades from the current 20-odd km to 34 km in about 10 years, and provide 35 hectares of open space on both sides of the Victoria Harbour. Deputy President, the indicators for harbourfront enhancement cannot be restricted to the length and area of the waterfront only. The more important indicators are the overall planning and overall impression. We cannot give full play to the characteristics and advantages of the Hong Kong waterfront unless the harbourfront areas are opened and connected systematically. For example, the waterfront areas from the Western District to Chai Wan are very distinctive but due to geographical and historical reasons, they are yet to be connected at present. If the Government can make up its mind to give priority to and work out plans and timetable for the connection, this will definitely be welcomed by the public and travellers.
In terms of the mode of operation, the Government also has experienced some success which is worth learning from. The public-private partnership and the Avenue of Stars are successful examples of harbourfront enhancement. The New World Development Co., Ltd. initially invested $40 million in the construction of the project and it was responsible for managing the venue for 20 years. It also cooperated with the film and tourism industries to turn the attraction into a local landmark, which has now become the most popular tourist attraction in Hong Kong.
The district-led model is an alternative. The Signature Project Scheme―Harbourfront Enhancement and Revitalisation at the Western Wholesale Food Market is a project carried out by the District Council. The project is supported by the vendors in the original wholesale market and the harbourfront area of the operating wholesale market is released to provide characteristic harbourfront open spaces. The project collects opinions from the public which serve as the bases for the planned use and design. Under the 9102 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 leadership of district organizations and by the District Council, the project is more easily supported by local residents and can meet the actual needs of the public. As the harbourfront in Hong Kong is an irreplaceable natural resource, the Government should cherish it and make good use of it to make this Pearl of the Orient more glamorous.
The fifth issue is related to Hong Kong Disneyland. Hong Kong Disneyland has recorded losses for four consecutive years. The attendance in the fiscal year 2018 increased year-on-year by 8% to 6.7 million. Although it was lower than the peak attendance of 7.5 million, the total revenue increased year-on-year by 18% to $6 billion. The earnings before EBITDA were $1.35 billion, increased year-on-year by 48%, the highest earnings since the opening of Hong Kong Disneyland. There was still a loss of $54 million, though. According to the agreement between the Walt Disney Company and the Hong Kong Government, regardless of whether Hong Kong Disneyland has incurred losses or profits, it has to pay royalties and management fees to the Walt Disney Company. This agreement is very unfair indeed. In the next few years, Hong Kong Disneyland will invest $10.9 billion into the expansion project and the total revenue will definitely increase. I think it is very unfair for Hong Kong Disneyland to continue to pay management fees and I hope that the Government will continue to strive for the waiver of management fees or royalties in case Hong Kong Disneyland suffers losses.
Deputy President, I so submit.
MR JIMMY NG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, according to the Budget, there is a continuing growth in the expenditure of the Government, and the expenditure this year will be 13% higher than 2018-2019. The Budget this year has again demonstrated the new fiscal philosophy of the Government of "adopting forward-looking and strategic financial management principles to invest for Hong Kong and relieve people's burden on the premise of ensuring healthy public finances". Nevertheless, as the surplus this year will not be as plentiful as last year, the Government will adopt a rather conservative strategy of financial management. I think that is understandable.
The main themes of the Budget this year are "supporting enterprises, safeguarding jobs, stabilizing the economy, strengthening livelihoods". On the surface, it seems to be a balanced and comprehensive budget expressed in LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9103 forceful terms and is unassailable. However, Hong Kong is a free society and it is expected that not everything will turn out as one wishes. On the day following the announcement of the Budget, I read the editorials of the major newspapers in Hong Kong. All of them have made friendly comments, in the hope that the Government will take them into consideration and do a better job in preparing future budgets.
For example, the editorial of Wen Wei Po says that "Regarding specific measures for promoting innovation and technology, creative industries and re-industrialization, etc., the Budget gives people the impression that the input lags far behind the requirement for grasping new opportunities. The funding allocated for innovation and technology in the Budget is regarded as generous, but only $5.5 billion is earmarked for developing Cyberport 5 and a dedicated provision of $16 billion is set aside for University Grants Committee-funded universities to enhance or refurbish campus facilities, in particular the provision of additional facilities for teaching and research. Apart from these measures, there is no 'major action' which can be regarded as striking". The editorial of Hong Kong Economic Times considers that in promoting economic development, Financial Secretary Paul CHAN has "focused on promoting the development of finance and innovation and technology, which are the right directions; but he has to work harder to catch up in enacting legislation to dovetail with the development."
Anyway, I think this Budget has strived to make corresponding arrangements in two areas. First, to tally with the major direction of development of our country and second, to tally with the policy initiatives of the Policy Address. A major highlight of the Budget is that it has made great efforts in emphasizing the major direction. If one reads the entire Budget, it mentions the Greater Bay Area 18 times in total. The Outline Development Plan for the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area ("the Plan") announced this year offers an important opportunity to Hong Kong. We must certainly seize this historic opportunity to enlarge our economic hinterland and open up new horizons in the next wave of development.
It is worth commending that the Financial Secretary has, in the Budget, accepted and responded to a series of proposals put forward by the industrial and commercial sectors, including those made by me and the manufacturers' association which I represent. First, regarding the proposed injection of $2 billion for launching a Re-industrialisation Funding Scheme, the sectors have 9104 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 expressed great support. I think the Government should broaden its perspective and expeditiously formulate a comprehensive re-industrialization policy to enhance the industrial structure of Hong Kong in the long term. The Government should also expedite the work of the Committee on Innovation, Technology and Re-industrialisation by formulating a clear blueprint of re-industrialization policies and making plans to implement the proposals in six months. It should specifically identify industries with edges and potentials, such as Chinese and Western medicine, food products, moulds and design, etc., provide targeted support and encourage high-end production lines and talents to return to Hong Kong to promote diversification of industries in Hong Kong. Meanwhile, the Government should also explore the repositioning and development potential of traditional industries and formulate targeted financial support measures.
Second, the Government has considerably stepped up its effort in supporting small and medium enterprises in the Budget, including waiving business registration fees again, which shows that the Government has heeded good advice. Certainly, apart from continuing to waive the business registration fees, the Government should also consider making the waiver a standing arrangement. For example, the Inland Revenue Department can raise the turnover ceiling so that more enterprises will become eligible for waiver of business registration fees; amend the existing conditions of waiver and allow limited liability companies to enjoy the same conditions as companies of sole proprietorship and companies with unlimited liability; or learn from the practice of Singapore to permanently waive the annual business registration fees for some designated types of enterprises.
Furthermore, I notice that it is stated in paragraph 110 of the Budget that (the Government) "will keep a close watch on the external and local economic situation and introduce appropriate measures when necessary to support enterprises and stabilise the economy". In this connection, given that the future economic environment may not be optimistic, it is all the more necessary for the Government to insist on doing the right thing and introduce more supportive measures in a timely manner. This will really relieve the operational burden of small and medium enterprises.
I would like to point out specifically that the Budget has earmarked $300 million to expedite the development of digital infrastructure, including making available high-quality 3D digital maps of the whole territory in phases, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9105 which will come into full operation by the end of 2022. Speaking of digital maps, Google maps is probably taking the leading position in the market at present, but they are not entirely reliable. As early as two year ago, at a joint meeting on innovation and technology development in the Lok Ma Chau Loop, I told the public officers that Google maps was wrong in that the Lok Ma Chau Loop was included within the boundary of Shenzhen instead of being part of the Hong Kong SAR. I do not know if the SAR Government has taken any follow-up action about the mistake, or whether Google was aware of the mistake but took no action to rectify. The mistake has still not been corrected when I conducted a search on the Internet just now.
As Google is a major technology leader and an American company, making mistakes in its digital maps is not a trivial matter, particularly when the United States are recently banning export of high-end technological products to China. If the Lok Ma Chau Loop is mistaken as a region administered by China, there are inevitably concerns about any unnecessarily hindrance to the innovation and technological development in the Loop. Thus, I hope that the SAR Government will face this problem squarely and when it develops its own 3D digital maps in the future, the information therein should be most updated and accurate, doing better than Google maps.
Finally, I would like to talk about the measures for promoting diversification of the economy in the Budget and their effectiveness. According to the research information provided by the Legislative Council Secretariat, the financial services industry has registered a new high of 19% of Gross Domestic Product ("GDP") in 2017, on the other hand, the trading and logistics industry, the biggest pillar industry, has continued to contract, taking up 21.5% of GDP. Judging from the economic contribution, the Government's previous efforts to diversify the economy has seemingly failed to yield desirable results. In particular, the emerging cultural and creative industries, being considered a potential growth driver, seem to have lost the momentum of development in recent years. Its economic contribution as a percentage of GDP has registered persistent decline from the peak of 5.1% in 2013 to 4.4% in 2017. In the past various budgets, the Government has committed over $3 billion to nurturing the industry alongside the setting up of the Create HK Office. In view of the downward signs, it may be necessary for the Government to revisit the support measures for the sector as well as their effectiveness and consider what further actions should be taken.
9106 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019
While the development of the cultural and creative industries is so-so, the development trend of the innovation and technology industries is not optimistic as well. Although in the past few years, the Government has earmarked considerable funding and vigorously injected resources to promote the development of innovation and technology, the GDP contributions of these industries have only remained at 0.7% from 2013 to 2017 without any notable signs of growth. I certainly understand that development of innovation and technology takes certain time to complete the cycle, unlike lighting a piece of paper with a lighter. However, considering the past experience of the Government in promoting the cultural and creative industries, we must be vigilant of any downward signs in the future development of innovation and technology.
I certainly believe that development of innovation and technology is essential to the diversification of our economy and we cannot afford any failure. The Administration should take extra care in ensuring a growing contribution of the innovation and technology industries to GDP, so as to practically solve the series of social problems arising from the uniformity of the industrial structure, such as high property prices and rent, structural unemployment and wealth gap.
Everyone says that Hong Kong is a blessed place. Despite the changes of the times and the fluctuations of economic development, Hong Kong is able to capitalize on its favourable conditions for continual development and maintain its position as Asia's world city. This reminds me of these poetic lines, "But lend me strength, good wind. To soar up to the azure sky at last."2 At present, a historic opportunity is placed in front of us by the Plan announced recently. The Plan clearly supports Hong Kong in "making great efforts to develop the innovation and technology industries" and "exploring re-industrialization in sectors where it enjoys advantages".
While the Budget does not contain many new ideas, it is well-balanced and heads towards a right direction. I hope that Hong Kong will stand ready to surmount the forthcoming challenges in the year ahead. I will support the Appropriation Bill 2019. Deputy President, I so submit.
2 Translated by YANG Xianyi and Gladys YANG,
MR KWOK WAI-KEUNG (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I speak to support the Appropriation Bill 2019.
The Government estimated that last year's surplus was $58.7 billion, yet it ended up to be over $100 billion. We also have a fiscal reserve of some $1,100 billion as at 31 March. Hong Kong is financially very robust. Looking around the world, Hong Kong may be regarded as having enormous assets, yet we have become one of the places with a severe wealth disparity amongst developed regions worldwide.
According to the data from the 2016 Population By-census conducted by the Census and Statistics Department, the Gini coefficient has risen to 0.539, which indicated an increasing disparity between the rich and the poor in Hong Kong. Even after taking into account post-tax post-social transfer household income, the Gini coefficient still stood at 0.473. As we all know, a Gini Coefficient at 0.4 is actually a dangerous threshold. Comparing to the Gini coefficients of other countries, e.g. 0.356 of Singapore, 0.39 of the United States, 0.35 of the United Kingdom and 0.31 of Canada, Hong Kong's condition is highly undesirable and its Gini coefficient is also the highest amongst advanced regions. In November 2018, the Government published the Hong Kong Poverty Situation Report 2017, which revealed that the local poor population was around 1.37 million in 2017, representing a poverty rate of 20%. Even after the intervention of services or subvention schemes, the population in poverty still amounted to 1 million (or 14.7%).
As the saying goes, "the problem lies not in shortage but in unequal distribution". The Government, having an abundant fiscal reserve and without debts, is definitely capable of doing more for the grass roots and providing more equal opportunities to the children of poor families. However, even when the fiscal surplus hit record high time and again in the past, the Government only symbolically increased spending or set up different funds to deal with the problems with making any long-term commitments. It is known to all that wealth disparity is an important factor attributing to Hong Kong's deep-rooted conflicts. Therefore, relieving the disparity between the rich and the poor is the top priority task of the Government.
The Government will definitely say that it has already done a lot of work in respect of tax revenue or wealth redistribution to relieve wealth disparity. Nevertheless, let us not forget that the former Chief Executive introduced a two-tier profits tax rate regime. Under this regime, not only companies/small 9108 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 and medium enterprises with profits will benefit, even large enterprises will also benefit as enterprises having a profit of over $10 million will also enjoy a half-rate profits tax concession for the first $2 million of profits. Why did the Government not take the advice of The Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions and introduce a progressive profits tax rate? For companies with profits of over $100 million, the tax rate will increase by 0.5% or 1%; as for companies with profits over $20 million, $30 million or even $100 million, will the tax rate be further adjusted upward so that people earning more will pay more tax? As a matter of fact, the two-tier profits tax rate regime has, to a certain extent, set off some of the past efforts and effects in wealth redistribution.
Besides, many big landlords may reap huge profits through property speculation or ownership of many properties. I am not talking about properties for self-occupation but for speculation. How come capital gains tax is not levied so that the Government can have more revenue and hence more resources for the poor?
Moreover, as currently the Government has a huge amount of surplus, there are many voices urging the Government to hand out cash. Unfortunately, the Government had listened to the advice of the opposition camp to hand out cash on a selective rather than universal basis. Hence the handout exercise is all in a mess. Why did the Government hand out cash? In fact, many people will not be able to benefit from tax rebate and rates waiver. Not only the "N have-nots" cannot benefit, housewives who work hard every day to take care of their families cannot benefit as well. Housewives have no job, thus no income, and the properties in which they live may not necessarily be under their names; therefore, they cannot get a penny from the Government. The problem is, housewives take care of their families; is the Government aware of the value of such kind of unrewarded labour in society? Does the Government not bother to hand out cash to housewives for convenience sake? This excuse is actually not acceptable. Certainly, there are also other carers who take care of the elderly or sick relatives. In fact, carers have also relieved the medical or institutional burden of society. Why does the Government ignore these people? Handing out cash is actually nothing heinous, only that the authorities should think of a way to redistribute wealth in a fairer and more effective way.
Certainly, many fellow colleagues also mentioned earlier that the Government's cash handout exercise is ill-planned, chaotic and a complete failure.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9109
Deputy President, this scheme of handing out cash via the Community Care Fund is not a bad one. However, as evident from experience, if the Government hands out cash again in future, it seems that the same mistake will recur because there are simply no adequate measures to reduce the administrative cost. Therefore, I hold that the Government should really mend its way and consider if there are better ways to hand out cash in future that can minimize the administrative cost, thereby avoiding meaningless disputes amongst members of the public. When members of the public learn that so much money is involved in handing out cash, they may consider the measure unworthy. They may query why the hard-earned money of taxpayers or the poor is used to pay the administrative cost. That is the concern of the public.
Second, let me talk about the housing issue. Hong Kong is plagued by problems of high property prices, high rent burden, and a seriously imbalanced and distorted property market. Apart from the matter of supply and demand, I do not know if the Government has also considered the rent issue. In fact, without rent control, rents keep rising to generate significant return for investors, and indirectly push up property prices. Apart from self-occupation, flats can also be investment tools and rent is a component for calculating returns. High rentals will inevitably drive up the price of flats as investment tools. Therefore, the Government has made a serious mistake for not implementing rent control.
Deputy President, there is currently a huge number of poor households. Over 90 000 households are living in sub-divided units―the actually number should be even more―and more than 200 000 households are waiting for public rental housing ("PRH"). Some children have to bend down to study on the upper deck of a bunk bed. I did so when I was young, but I do not want our next generation to face the same predicament. Hence, I hope the Government will step up its efforts in housing construction. It is stated in this Budget that the authorities will set aside $2 billion for constructing transitional housing, a measure applauded by all. No matter how high the cost is, solving the problem solved is of paramount importance. Moreover, the construction of transitional housing should be done swiftly. If there are repeated delays, as in the case of PRH, how many years do members of the public have to wait? Therefore, I hope the authorities will exhaust this $2 billion as soon as possible to provide more housing units as far as practicable, and then think about the next step. If $2 billion can provide 4 000 housing units but there are over 200 000 PRH applications, the supply is definitely insufficient. For this reason, just now I asked the Government to exhaust this $2 billion as soon as possible, so that more 9110 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 resources can be provided expeditiously. Certainly, PRH must be constructed in the long run, thus it is most important to identify sites for the purpose.
Third, I would like to talk about harbourfront development. In fact, I believe all Hong Kong residents would love to use the harbourfront and its leisure facilities. We welcome the Government's additional allocation of $6 billion for the development of the harbourfront promenade. We all look forward to having a continuous promenade along the northern shore of the Hong Kong Island. The same vision is shared by the Central and Western District, Wan Chai District, Southern District or Eastern District. However, as the saying goes, "haste brings no success", we should make more efforts to create favourable conditions.
I recall that when I just became a District Council ("DC") member, I joined LAU Hing-tat, an appointed DC member back then, to fight for harbourfront facilities. Thanks to his professional expertise, we had set up many new sections of promenade together in the Eastern District. We also learnt that the feasibility study for the boardwalk at the North Point Ferry Pier underneath the Island Eastern Corridor was completed, and upon DC's approval of the final scheme, funding application can be made to the Legislative Council. The $6 billion earmarked could offer hope for the Eastern District, because the construction progress of the boardwalk underneath the Island Eastern Corridor could be expedited. However, I would like to point out that according to the current schedule, both sides of the pedestrian boardwalk along the North Point Ferry Pier would only be completed by around 2025 or 2026. I hope that whichever side the boardwalk is completed, it will be opened to the public, so that we do not have to wait until 2025. I look forward to the partial opening of the boardwalk by 2022 or 2023.
Next, I would like to talk about extending the scope of buildings eligible for subsidy. As everyone knows, the Policy Address proposes that $2.5 billion will be used to facilitate lift modernization in aged buildings. We have received a lot of views from kaifongs and members of the public, saying that the current application threshold, based on the rateable value of the domestic unit concerned, has never been relaxed even when property prices have increased by several tens of percentage points or have doubled over the years, thus many aged buildings, especially those in the urban areas, are not eligible for application. Actually, those aged buildings are not luxurious properties, they just happen to be situated in the urban areas and their rateable values have been pushed up by buildings in their vicinity. Therefore, I hope the authorities concerned will review afresh the application threshold, so that residents of aged buildings―particularly the elderly LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9111 with no income―can apply for subsidy. Certainly, the Operation Building Bright 2.0 is also underway, so we hope the Government will conduct a review in due course and consider providing subsidy of the next stage.
Lastly, I would like to talk about the $200 million Urban Forestry Support Fund to be set up by the Government. We support this proposal as it is conducive to enhancing tree caring and management as well as training of talents. I recall that some years ago, I had deliberated with the China Arborist Association, the Tree Management Office and the Development Bureau on this issue and we had made a lot of efforts on accreditation of qualifications, training or curtailing the practice of arboriculture by laymen. Nevertheless, in the final analysis, most of the trees now planted in Hong Kong are not regulated. The Government will be mad when hearing this comment. Why do I say there is no regulation? In fact, as we all know, enough space should be reserved for trees to grow, but trees currently planted on the roadside do not have enough space to grow at all. In many cases, the roots of these trees will crack the road surface or tiles, or the protruded roots will trip the elderly. These scenarios are in fact conceivable and we cannot say we are aware of the problem.
In this connection, I think the Government should have a comprehensive tree planting plan. It should assume that the trees planted will grow and be retained for a long time. My present impression of the Government's mentality is that trees can be replaced anytime since it only costs a few thousand dollars to several ten thousand dollars for each seedling. If the Government has such a mentality, it will not cherish trees. As the saying goes, it takes 10 years to grow a tree, but 100 years to nurture a man. Very often, trees grow alongside us. For instance, there were originally two very beautiful trees at the former North Point Estate on which luxurious residential buildings now stand. Before the trees were removed, they were visited by many kaifongs. I believe similar situation also occurs in other districts because human beings have feelings with trees. Therefore, I hope the Bureau can attach great importance to this matter.
Certainly, the development of the arboriculture industry also concerns the safety and regular inspection of trees in Hong Kong, Kowloon and the New Territories. Since trees are social assets, proper managerial resources should be allocated. Hence, I hope the Government can step up its efforts in respect of professional training and provide a clear career development path, so as to attract more young people to join the industry.
9112 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019
Deputy President, my fellow colleague, Mr LUK Chung-hung, is greatly concerned about the protection for staff employed under government outsourcing contracts. In his speech delivered earlier, he also mentioned that the current review has only dealt with some of the problems. Therefore, we hope the Bureau will continue with the review, so as to provide more protection for frontline cleaners whose incomes are the lowest yet they have to undertake the most tiring work, and have to clear up refuse all the time. In particular, the authorities should, without delay, seriously deal with the problem of switching contractors once every two years. Here I sincerely express my respect to all workers responsible for cleaning and clearing up refuse, and wish them good health.
Thank you, Deputy President.
(Mr Gary FAN stood up)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Gary FAN, what is your point of order?
MR GARY FAN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, I request a headcount.
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Gary FAN has requested a headcount.
Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.
(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)
DEPUTY PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr SHIU Ka-fai, please speak.
MR SHIU KA-FAI (in Cantonese): Deputy President, the Financial Secretary has set four major directions in this year's Budget, namely, "supporting enterprises, safeguarding jobs, stabilizing the economy, strengthening LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9113 livelihoods". While I trust that the Financial Secretary or the SAR Government can achieve the last three goals, I have great reservations about whether they can reach the first, i.e. "supporting enterprises".
In this year's Budget, the 75% proposed reduction in profits tax and the proposed rates waiver are subject to a ceiling of $20,000 and a ceiling of $1,500 per quarter for each rateable property respectively. Both of these concessions are less generous than the same for last year. Meanwhile, despite the proposed waiver of business registration fee, no reduction has been proposed for most of the other licence fees. I understand that the Government has to cut its concessions in view of its declining fiscal surplus in the past two years, from over $100 billion in the year before last to several ten billion dollars last year. I appreciate this need; after all, members of the Liberal Party are not unreasonable people. But may I ask the SAR Government whether the many policies introduced in the past year or so are meant to "support enterprises" or burden them? Are such policies meant to remove unnecessary constraints for enterprises or get in the way of businesses? I have serious doubt about this.
Chief Executive Mrs LAM said on a previous occasion that it was fine for the public to vent their anger on the Chief Executive. Mr Bernard CHAN, the hot favourite to be the next Chief Executive, also pointed out that as there were not many political issues facing the current-term Government and livelihood issues dominate, the Liberal Party has criticized the Government more harshly than before. I am not sure if they were talking about me in their remarks. As a matter of fact, I often criticize the Government. Some of my friends, including the President, know that I have always been a staunch supporter of the pro-establishment camp. I will definitely perform basic duties like promoting the stability of Hong Kong and loving the country and Hong Kong. However, being a Member of the Legislative Council, I am obliged to monitor the Government and speak for the trade. While I agree that the Government should legislate for the well-being of Hong Kong people, do certain laws really serve a purpose? Will some of the laws help the minority at the expense of the majority? That is the point.
Let me start with the recent measures for regulating person-to-person telemarketing calls ("P2P calls"). I was outraged at a meeting for this issue. Deputy President, why was I so angry? That was because I was only given three minutes to speak at the meeting, and I simply did not know how to illustrate my viewpoints within that time frame. Apart from crying out in anger, I had no idea how I could present my views. Now that I have 15 minutes of speaking time, 9114 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 and seeing that the Secretary is present, I would like to take this chance to express my views on these regulatory measures.
The real purpose of regulating P2P calls is to prohibit companies from making phone calls to sell bank loan offers. Most of us in Hong Kong have received such calls which are really annoying. Worse still, these calls have increased in recent years. As I said on various occasions, Mr CHAN Chun-ying, who represents the banking sector, has already clarified that under the amended Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance effective from 2013, banks will not call any customers without their prior authorization. While some bank staff may know their customers, the bank concerned will not call these customers without their authorization, let alone cold calling (i.e. calling potential customers not known to the bank). Therefore, when a member of the public gets a cold call from the so-called "bank", the call is made from an intermediary of a finance company but not from a bank.
The Government wishes to ban cold calls by regulating P2P calls. It has hence enacted legislation to introduce an "opt-out" mechanism under which it is an offence for a commercial organization to call a company/individual which/who has registered its/his phone number onto the specified register. The offender will be liable to a fine of $100,000 on first conviction and a fine of $500,000 on subsequent convictions. Yet, various channels for traders to have daily connections with customers, including email and fax, are already subject to statutory regulation and cannot be used at will. In order to promote a new product, a trader will often call his customers to see if they are interested in the product, or he may visit them in person. However, if he has not made an appointment with his customers, they will usually refuse to answer the door. Although the trader may place television commercials or hand out flyers on streets, what is the use of handing out flyers if he is selling piling rigs? Will the public consider him being unfriendly to the environment? While it is important for traders to promote their products to the target customers, this legislation has made the identification of customers extremely difficult. How can they identify their target customers in future? How much manpower is needed to obtain prior authorization before calling target customers?
Regarding the Government's phone register and system, the Bureau has not mentioned in its document for the last meeting that there is an annual search fee of $1,600 payable by enterprises. Given that there are currently a total of 300 000 business registration certificates in Hong Kong, if 10% of this figure is taken as the calculation basis (i.e. assuming that 30 000 enterprises have paid for LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9115 the search service), the Government will generate an annual income of $48 million. This fee has increased the operation cost of enterprises, but this is not a big deal. The biggest problem is that the regulation of P2P calls does not cover overseas P2P calls, hence the Government cannot regulate telemarketing calls from the Mainland. Presently, most of the P2P calls are made from the Mainland. After the enactment of legislation, all call centres will move to the Mainland and their Hong Kong staff will be dismissed. The Mainland's telemarketing calls will continue to flood into Hong Kong as they are not subject to the Government's statutory regulation. Since this legislative exercise creates troubles to our business sector without freeing Hong Kong people from the disturbance of P2P calls, how can it achieve the purpose of removing unnecessary constraints?
Deputy President, I have not lost my temper this time for I have sufficient speaking time to elaborate my viewpoints. I hope to reason things out calmly, and I also urge the business sector to tell their difficulties clearly. The general public in Hong Kong often think that the business sector is very influential, but the fact is that we are "pigeon-hearted". The Secretary is well aware that the business sector does not have much influence.
Secondly, I would like to talk about the issue concerning electronic cigarettes ("e-cigarettes") and heat-not-burn ("HNB") cigarettes. We are indeed infuriated. We share the concern of the Government, health-conscious people and education groups that we should promote the health of Hong Kong people. In the past, the concern was the use of e-cigarettes by children under 12 and the Government had hence obtained a number of reports in this regard. Yet, the present advocacy is a total ban of e-cigarettes. My stance on this issue is clear. Earlier on, the Hong Kong Council on Smoking and Health ("COSH") provided 15 e-cigarette samples for analysis. The ingredients of each sample are subsequently listed in the analysis results, but I do not know which e-cigarettes were sampled by COSH from the market. There are more than 1 000 brands of e-cigarettes in Hong Kong, not to mention those produced in Shenzhen or by illegal manufacturers. It is therefore hard to tell whether the e-cigarette samples collected are of good quality. Even worse, the Government is planning to ban HNB cigarettes altogether. In my view, the authorities are just trying to confuse the public. Although I am a representative of the business sector, I did not have the votes of some famous brands. Yet, that is not a problem because we are now talking about an issue which concerns the overall business environment in Hong Kong, the matter of fairness and the public's right to choose.
9116 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019
The Secretary has previously advised that the harm brought about by HNB cigarettes and conventional cigarettes is more or less the same. On the last page of the Bureau's submission to the Legislative Council (LC Paper No. CB(2)1175/18-19(03)), we learn that seven HNB cigarette samples were sent to the Government Laboratory for testing of nicotine and tar yields by the Department of Health, with the results showing that the nicotine and tar yields in HNB cigarettes were comparable to those in conventional cigarettes. However, many people did not read this submission in detail. It is pointed out in the document that HNB cigarettes and conventional cigarettes are comparable in terms of nicotine yields, in what sense are they comparable? While the nicotine yields of conventional cigarettes range from 0.1 mg to 1.3 mg per stick, six out of the seven HNB cigarette samples has a nicotine yield of 0.2 mg whereas the remaining one has a yield of 0.1 mg. How can we say that the nicotine yields of these two types of cigarettes are "comparable" when the yields of conventional cigarettes, which range from 0.1 mg to 1.3 mg per stick, are so much higher than those in HNB cigarettes? As for the tar yields, while those in conventional cigarettes range from 1 mg to 14 mg, the respective yields in the seven HNB cigarette samples are 5, 4, 4, 5, 4, 4 and 4, all of which are on the low side. How can the Bureau say that the nicotine and tar yields in these two types of cigarettes are comparable?
Deputy President, why did I read out the above figures at length? If HNB cigarettes are proved to pose the same or higher health risk, I will certainly support the Bureau in banning HNB cigarettes to minimize the health hazard to Hong Kong people. Yet, when the truth is that HNB cigarettes are less harmful than conventional cigarettes and the SAR Government tells us that it is going to ban the former rather than the latter, what sort of logic is that? How can it convince the people in Hong Kong and educate young children? How can it do this?
Regarding the importation of labour, I have discussed with Secretary YANG on different occasions. As I know, the Chief Executive once expressed her hope that labour shortage could be solved by an increasing use of artificial intelligence in Hong Kong. I believe that, years later, robots can take up many types of work which are now done manually. However, I am not sure how long we will have to wait to see this happens. At this very moment, many industries in Hong Kong are short of hands. The current unemployment rate of 2.8% in Hong Kong, as told by the Chief Executive on different occasions, indicates an almost full employment situation; on the other hand, more than 70 000 job LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9117 vacancies are posted at the Labour Department, which reflects that many industries are short-staffed. For example, the taxi industry is in need of 1 200 drivers after the Government's earlier announcement that 600 taxi licences would be issued. But where can we get so many drivers? When all of the industries in Hong Kong are short-handed, the Government says nothing about labour importation. How then can we operate our business? I trust that with the efforts of Secretary YANG, technology can give solutions to labour shortage one day. Nevertheless, how can the Government "support enterprises" if it does not offer any immediate solution to this problem?
I am often vocal when issues of this kind are discussed at meetings. Take the cooling-off period for example. Coerced purchase is a common problem in a number of industries, such as the fitness industry, where customers are not allowed to leave the shop before making purchase. On this problem, I have pointed out repeatedly that the Customs and Excise Department can indeed institute prosecution under the Trade Descriptions Ordinance against those traders who have indeed committed criminal offence. Why don't the authorities enforce the existing legislation but insist on making a new law? While a new law may not be able to put the black sheep behind bars, it makes the operation of the whole industry increasingly difficult. The Government, instead of removing unnecessary constraints for the business sector, is making business operation increasingly difficult.
In a recent proposal for occupational safety and health, the Government proposes to increase the penalty for employers in industrial accidents for fear that the protection for employees under the existing labour legislation may not be sufficient. Currently, the maximum penalty for failing to provide employees with adequate safety precautions is a fine of $500,000 and imprisonment for 12 months. The Government, however, proposes to raise the fine level to $6 million or 10% of the company's turnover, given that the fine previously imposed for fatalities was only $27,000 on average. In case of industrial accident, even if the employer had provided protective equipment such as safety belts and safety helmets, the employee might, for convenience sake, not use the equipment, leading to accidents. Please note that the number of work-related deaths dropped by three to four times between 1998 and 2016. While all the relevant parties have been working hard to improve occupational safety, the Government has recently proposed to increase the penalty simply because the court imposed a small fine of $27,000 on average. If the Government has queries about the light sentencing, it should find out why the judges imposed light 9118 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 sentences. Are employers always the culprits for industrial accidents? Is it possible that the responsibility should fall on employees who failed to give due regard to work safety? Last year, 4 000 prosecutions were made against employers regarding industrial accidents, as compared to 10 against employees. The Government should enhance safety education for employees rather than making new laws at will. Who dares to do business after the substantial increase in such statutory penalty? In spite of the Government's advice that the maximum penalty may not necessarily be imposed, the possibility of being punished to the maximum does exist. A company may have to close down if it is fined 10% of its turnover. All the aforesaid measures are devastating to business.
(THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair)
"Supporting enterprises" should thus start from the basics and legislation should not be so harsh. Should the public think that certain actions should be taken, the Government may simply invite the business sector for discussions to work out a solution together. As regards the legislative exercises mentioned above, the Government should not take them forward hastily to entertain populism as that will be unfair to the business sector.
Thank you, President.
MR CHUNG KWOK-PAN (in Cantonese): Mr SHIU Ka-fai is not the only person who chides the Government, as I, CHUNG Kwok-pan, have also done so. However, he may raise his criticisms mostly in the legislature, while I do so mostly outside the legislature. The Liberal Party belongs to the pro-establishment camp, but why does it chide the Government in many cases? The reason is that the Government is becoming increasingly populist. Many policies of the Government serve to undermine small, medium and big enterprises, including vacancy tax on first-hand residential properties that targets at property developers, and cold calls related to small business operations of small and medium enterprises. If the policies introduced by the Government are effective, we will be willing to render our support, but these policies are not effective. Mr SHIU Ka-fai also mentioned this point just now.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9119
As far as the Budget is concerned, the Financial Secretary initially announced that the surplus this year might drop by two thirds over last year to only $40 billion to $50 billion, and our estimate at that time was a surplus of at least $70 billion. But the surplus ultimately turned out to be $90 billion, or some two thirds of that of last year. Nowadays Hong Kong enjoys structural surplus, with a surplus of some $100 billion recorded each year. When the Government has money, it can certainly undertake a lot of tasks.
First, given the scarcity of land, Hong Kong needs to take forward the Lantau Tomorrow project for land reclamation, which will probably cost $500 billion to $600 billion. Members of the public are thus concerned that our fiscal reserve would be depleted. Hong Kong records a surplus of some $100 billion each year, and a tiny portion of $100 billion or so will already meet the cost for land reclamation. Hong Kong has the means to pay the hundreds of billions of dollars needed for land reclamation in the coming 10 years or so, and we will not have to use our fiscal reserve or the Exchange Fund. We support land reclamation and hope that the project can be commenced as soon as possible. Without land, nothing can be done. Land reclamation has been an effective measure in Hong Kong as many places are created through land reclamation. A case in point is Tseung Kwan O, where there are now some 500 000 residents. If land reclamation was not conducted in Tseung Kwan O, where could we accommodate these 500 000 people? I hope the reclamation project can be launched as soon as possible.
Money makes life easier, but is it that anything can be done with money? Not necessarily, and a case in point is medical services. At present, everyone is yelling for help. We do not have enough doctors to cater to the needs of patients. However, the Government has the money to build many hospitals, and has set aside $100 billion to $200 billion to expand and upgrade health care facilities. The present problem is that we have the hardware but not the software. Years ago, we proposed the admission of overseas health care talents, and now we are finally seeing some progress. In the past, the strongest resistance came from the Medical Council of Hong Kong ("MCHK"), but MCHK has recently offended the public and met citywide criticism. I believe that they dare not throw a spanner in the works now. We hope that the admission of overseas doctors can be implemented as soon as possible. In particular, Hong Kong people's children who graduated from overseas medical programmes should be allowed to return to and practise in Hong Kong. This will do immeasurable good.
9120 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019
Certainly, it takes time to admit overseas doctors or allow them to apply for practising in Hong Kong. But what can we do when the health care system is now overburdened? As the Government has money, it can do one thing, namely expanding the service scope of Elderly Health Care Vouchers ("EHVs"), such as lowering the eligible age to 60 or even 55, or increasing the amount of EHV, so that holders of EHVs may seek treatment at private hospitals or clinics. When some patients have switched to the private health care system, the pressure on public hospitals will be eased to some extent.
In addition, all political parties in the Legislative Council agree that the Government should expand the scope of the Hospital Authority Drug Formulary, and provide subsidies to rare disease patients. This year, the Government will allocate an additional $400 million in this connection. As we have an additional $40 billion in surplus, can the $400 million be increased to $1 billion or $1.5 billion? Can the subsidies for new drugs be increased from $1.5 billion to $2 billion or $2.5 billion? As the Government has not anticipated an additional surplus of $40 billion or a total surplus of $90 billion, it will certainly not be a problem to allocate an additional $1 billion or $800 million for increasing the subsidies for new drugs or rare diseases. Members from all political parties have raised no objections and will invariably render their support.
In respect of welfare facilities, the Government has indicated that it will allocate $20 billion for purchasing 60 properties, or an average of some $300 million for each property. I wonder what can be bought with $300 million in the property market of Hong Kong nowadays. It will certainly not be enough for purchasing an entire building, but it will be way too expensive for purchasing a single flat. I wonder how the Government plans to purchase these properties. Certainly, if the Government can identify properties for welfare facilities, we will absolutely be supportive, but I do have doubts about the actual implementation of the plan.
President, having heard the speech of Mr Steven HO who represents the agriculture and fisheries sector yesterday, I have empathy with him. After I talked to Mr HO, he said "you are not alone and I am with you". What is the problem that I am talking about? In his speech yesterday, he expressed his wish that the Government would conduct studies on the future development of many industries, particularly traditional industries. In this day and age, the Legislative Council has at least one seat that has its representativeness. How should the Government develop the agriculture and fisheries industry? Mr Steven HO said LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9121 that the Government should conduct some studies, but it had remained indifferent. The development of the agriculture and fisheries industry is not infeasible, only that the Government knows not how to do so or is unwilling to do so.
This is not the case with the textiles and garment sector which I represent. We will try to conduct studies on our own. If the President still remembers, he should know that 20 years ago in 1999, we prepared a report on the way forward for the textiles and garment sector―I remember that the President was also involved in preparing the report. The report was prepared with government subsidy. At that time, the Government allocated $6 million as consultant fees for conducting the study. Six months ago, I proposed that the sector should also conduct a similar study and I therefore applied to the Government for funding. I could apply to quite a number of funds for subsidy, including funds that support the development of small and medium enterprises. The amount I applied for was only $4 million, which was not high, but the Government surprisingly only granted $1 million. How ridiculous! While the Government allocated $6 million 20 years ago to support a sector in conducting a study, it only allocated $1 million today or 20 years after. What does this mean?
Mr Steven HO said that the Government should take the initiative to conduct a study for the agriculture and fisheries sector. If the Government is not willing to conduct a study for the textiles and garment sector, we are willing to do so on our own. The Government once supported my sector to conduct a study. It allocated $6 million 20 years ago, but it only allocates $1 million 20 years after. What does this mean? Is this a kind of deflation? The fiscal reserve of the Government stood at only $700 billion or so 20 years ago, but nowadays despite our huge fiscal reserve and the Exchange Fund's assets of some $4 trillion, the Government is unwilling to support the development of my sector. What kind of attitude is this? We in the textiles and garment sector are willing to conduct a study on our own. We are able to pay $4 million, not to mention $1 million.
My sector had completed a report on our own. The conclusion is that traditional industries will become new industries if new technologies are applied. Secretary Nicholas YANG had indicated his support. It is a global trend to develop environmental industries as new industries. In response to my proposal, the Financial Secretary said that he would allocate funding to us and include the relevant policy in the Budget. Surprisingly, however, no Policy Bureau is willing to follow up this task. This is similar to the problem raised by 9122 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019
Mr Steven HO. Despite tasks undertaken by the sectors, no Policy Bureau is willing to take follow-up actions. I therefore would like to tell Mr Steven HO that "you are not alone and I am with you". We are both miserable.
Traditional industries are under the ambit of the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau, the application of technologies is under the ambit of Secretary Nicholas YANG, and products of new industries are under the ambit of the Environment Bureau. We were at a loss as to which of the three Policy Bureaux should deal with our proposal. Our final consensus was that it should be dealt with by the Environment Bureau, but we received no response after presenting our proposal to the Environment Bureau. The Environment Bureau only focused on implementing waste charging, and was indifferent to our proposal to develop new environmental industries. I wonder whether the Bureau did not know how to take up the task or did not want to do so. The Government often says that it will apply new philosophies and develop new industries, but we have received no response after completing a report and presenting our proposal. The Financial Secretary indicated that he would provide us with necessary assistance, but no Policy Bureau was willing to follow up this task. I am at a loss as to what this means.
I absolutely agree with the incumbent Chief Executive's active promotion of the future development of Hong Kong, but the work of the Government is by no means conducive to industrial development, economic development and the commercial sector. As such, the Liberal Party seems to have turned from a Super Invincible Blue Ribbon party to an opposition party that constantly criticizes the Government. Can the Government demonstrate any sincerity? Mr Steven HO hopes that the Government can conduct a study for his sector, but the Government is not willing to do so. My sector had conducted a study on our own, but the Government ignored our proposal. We have demonstrated our sincerity by raising a proposal that is conducive to the economic development and industrial development of Hong Kong. The Government does not need to undertake any heavy burden. It only needs to introduce policies for us, and our sector will be able to work hard on our own. However, we have so far seen no policies introduced by the SAR Government to support the upgrading of traditional industries to promote economic development. It will be of no use if one fails to put money to proper use and merely stashes cash in his pockets.
Thank you, President. I so submit.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9123
MR CHAN HAN-PAN (in Cantonese): President, I concur that Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan has hit the nail on the head when he expressed his feelings. As pointed out by Mr CHUNG, the ample reserves of the Government at present will not be useful unless Policy Bureaux are willing to put them to use. The funds approved by the Financial Secretary will not help resolve the problems unless Policy Bureaux act accordingly and put them to good use.
While this year's Budget has incorporated many proposals we put forward to various Directors of Bureaux and Secretaries of Departments, in fact, it really depends on whether Policy Bureaux accept the proposals. If not, the funds approved by the Financial Secretary will never be put to the best use. Hence, I now realize that the Financial Secretary is in a very difficult position.
In recent years, in the wake of the onslaught of typhoon Mangkhut, two issues have become the major headaches in the minds of the people. First, Hong Kong people are not allowed to be absent from work. Even on the occasion when typhoon signal No. 10 is hoisted, as soon as the signal is lifted, all people will have to go to work at once. If MTR services are not available, they have to take the minibus. If minibuses are out of service, they have to take the ferries. Anyway, they are required to go to work.
The second headache for Hong Kong people is that they are not supposed to fall ill because they may die or go bankrupt because of their illness. Why do I bring up the health care and transport issues? It is because I would like to talk about these two issues. First, I will talk about health care. With regard to ophthalmic services in public hospitals, the information of the Hospital Authority ("HA") shows that the wastage rate of ophthalmologists in public hospitals have been the highest among all specialties over the past three years. For example, 30 ophthalmologists departed the seven hospital clusters in the past two years, representing 20% of all ophthalmologists. Among them, 14 had held the position of Associate Consultant or above. In other words, most of those who departed used to be senior doctors. Almost half of the 30 doctors who left were senior or veteran doctors. We can easily guess the reason for their departure. Given the extremely heavy workload in public hospitals, doctors are required to perform 50 to 60 consultations every morning. They have to cope with a massive workload. It is therefore just a matter of time for ophthalmologists to resign. This situation will not benefit patients either. As it is impossible for hospitals to fill their vacancies immediately, the remaining doctors have to deal with an increased number of patients. In other words, the consultation time 9124 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 doctors can give each patient will reduce accordingly. After a patient enters a consultation room, the doctor may only keep inputting data in front of the computer, with very short time left to briefly check the eyes of the patient. The doctor may not have noticed the sex of the patient before asking him or her to leave. This is an example of specialist services in the public sector. In the end, patients may either keep waiting for public health care services or consult a private doctor on a self-financing basis.
To resolve this problem properly, it is certainly desirable to increase the number of doctors at public hospitals. However, in the short run, it is practically impossible to increase the number of ophthalmologists at public hospitals. We have no alternative but to find another solution. How can this problem be resolved? I have recently put forward a number of proposals to the Secretary for Food and Health and the Food and Health Bureau. I have asked the authorities to draw reference from the Cataract Surgeries Programme ("the Programme"), the first public-private partnership ("PPP") programme in ophthalmology launched in 2007. The Programme targeted cataract patients who had to wait for a long time back then. Currently, ophthalmic patients still have to wait for a long time for specialist services. The average waiting time of new cases for ophthalmic specialist services in Hong Kong is 92 weeks. Worse still, patients in the Kowloon East Cluster have to wait for as long as 162 weeks. Hence, the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong has proposed to extend the Programme to cover ophthalmic specialist services under PPP. Our proposal has consequently fallen on deaf ears.
Ophthalmic services are not the only one of the various specialist services found to have this problem. Other specialist services are also faced with this problem. When considering our suggestion, the Government may think that eye diseases, being non-fatal, can be put aside for the time being. However, eye diseases can result in the loss of eyesight. Should our suggestion therefore be taken more seriously? To elderly persons, their teeth and eyes are the most important, but the Government has even failed to properly help them protect these two organs. Elderly persons are not simply satisfied with the transport fare concession of $2. If they lose their eyesight, they cannot travel around without the help of other people. How can they travel by public transport? I hope that the Government will take this issue seriously. The Government may suspect that all ophthalmologists will leave the public sector if PPP is implemented because they will be better off in private practice. This is actually a misconception. Once PPP is implemented, the work pressure of doctors in LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9125 public hospitals will be reduced because most patients will seek consultation elsewhere. Will they still insist on leaving when their working condition is improved? I hope that HA and the Administration will carefully consider this question.
Furthermore, HA should put in place an internal incentive scheme. What is the reason for the exodus of ophthalmologists? The apparent problem lies in the low morale of HA's health care personnel. The problem currently facing various hospitals under HA is that "lazy personnel are rewarded while hardworking personnel are punished". As patients do not seek medical consultation at hospitals with unsatisfactory services, the workloads at those hospitals will reduce. Regrettably, hospitals providing good services will draw a large number of patients because of their good reputation. Consequently, good hospitals are over-utilized as the workloads of their health care staff have significantly increased. While HA is aware of the reasons for this situation, they have turned a blind eye and have not taken any improvement measures at all, making it possible for hardworking health care workers to die from overwork. To tackle this problem, we have recently expressed our view to HA in a meeting with its Director of Operations in the hope that they will make use of the substantial funds allocated by the Government in this year's Budget to improve their mode of operation, including putting in place an incentive scheme to commend and recognize outstanding health care staff as well as motivate underperformed staff. HA should reward and punish all health care staff of public hospitals in a fair manner. Given the current identical remunerations of all staff, will anyone be willing to work hard?
On the other hand, despite its huge establishment, HA's efficiency is very low. I will not go into this in detail. I hope that HA will take this opportunity to introduce reforms to raise efficiency. At present, doctors may have to fill out 20 pages of information in the medical record of each patient, but most of the information therein is insignificant. Will HA consider omitting those required information and reviewing if it is necessary for doctors to take up such meaningless tasks? These tasks will not benefit patients at all. I hope that HA will save doctors' time on filling out information so that they have more time for performing consultations.
In addition, I would like to talk about the recruitment of overseas doctors. Recently, such views as "doctors shielding each other" and "the hegemony of the medical profession" have frequently appeared in the press. In my view, to 9126 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 uphold social justice, the Hong Kong Medical Association ("HKMA") or the Medical Council of Hong Kong should abandon the biases and parochial misconception of their profession. With social justice, the public can seek medical consultation rather than dying of illness or going bankrupt. Therefore, I hope that HKMA can really consider carefully before casting any votes, particularly with respect to the recruitment of overseas doctors.
Transportation is another issue vexing the public. We often hear the term "overcrowded" in recent years, particularly "overcrowded" train compartments and "overcrowded" stations. The capacity of Hong Kong's public transportation has almost reached the "critical point". Passengers are packed like sardines on their way to work every day. On some occasions, they may even be denied access to public transportation. This is a problem which we have to find ways to address. In fact, Hong Kong's population has risen to 7.5 million, but our current transportation was planned based on the recommendations made in the Third Comprehensive Transport Study published in 1999, while our parking policy was formulated based on the Second Parking Demand Study Final Report published in 2002.
In its Audit Report published yesterday, the Audit Commission criticizes the Government for completely disregarding the demand for more parking spaces and turning a deaf ear to public demand for many years. Despite the increase in Hong Kong's population by one million in the past 20 years, the Government has only introduced minor fixes and enhancements. In response to Members' suggestions, the Government completed the two-year Public Transport Strategy Study ("the Study") two years ago. I must stress that the Study focused only on public transportation but not the overall transportation strategy. The recommendations made in the Study include the franchised taxis scheme recently proposed by the Government, and the introduction of an express bus service similar to the existing residents' coaches. Can the Government resolve the problems facing the public simply by announcing these plans? To my great disappointment, these proposals seem to have caused conflicts in the industry.
In my view, Hong Kong must progress with the times. The local transportation should also progress with the times. It is necessary for the Government to conduct the Fourth Comprehensive Transport Study. Apart from continuing with its policy of according priority to railway, we have recently proposed the construction of the "Tuen Mun-Tsuen Wan-Kwai Chung-Sha Tin Railway" and we have even provided the Government with the routes. The LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9127 railway proposal connects all railway lines. Should any problem arise with any railway line, passengers can still reach their destination via another line. Regrettably, the proposal has fallen on deaf ears too.
In addition, will the Government increase the number of parking spaces and connecting points to facilitate movements of the people? Will railway development rely solely on the existing railway system? Will the Government simply allow the current condition of the Light Rail in Yuen Long to remain the same? As to Hong Kong's road networks, how can the Government strike a balance between limited roads and an increasing number of vehicles? Is it necessary for the Government to explore the feasibility of providing a certain number of park-and-ride facilities in every district? Will the recently proposed smart car parks become a new solution to the parking problem? The Fourth Comprehensive Transport Study should address people's pressing needs. Furthermore, in recent years, all residential units are built in Northwest New Territories. The residents there have to go to work by public transport. If the transport problem cannot be properly addressed, the entire New Territories will be paralysed in the event of traffic congestion in Sha Tin or vehicle breakdown on Ting Kau Bridge. Despite its housing construction in Northwest New Territories, the Government has failed to provide ancillary road networks. How can the residents there travel around?
I hope that the Government will really consider carefully the views expressed by Members. They should not simply listen to views they find palatable and ignore those they find otherwise. In fact, it will not do them any harm to listen to some unpalatable views, including the views on the rationalization of traffic distribution among the three road harbour crossings ("RHCs"). Why do I bring up this issue? I have to stress that the Government's proposal for the rationalization of traffic distribution among the three RHCs is merely a proposal, which is not feasible despite its good intention. Why? The Government's proposal simply seeks to manage traffic flows by adjusting tolls, whereas our proposal seeks to rationalize traffic flows with time management. In our view, it is necessary to incentivize more road users to drive at non-peak hours so as to achieve traffic diversion to other time periods. If some vehicles have used the RHCs toll-free period by 7:30 am, no congestion will take place in the later periods. However, the Government has proposed to substantially increase the tolls for one of the RHCs, resulting in congestion at all the three RHCs in the end.
9128 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019
According to the Member who has been branded the "superstar" returned from the New Territories West ("NTW") constituency, it is impossible for him not to support the proposal for the rationalization of traffic distribution among the three RHCs, including the suggestion to lower the tolls for using the Western Harbour Crossing which will be most beneficial to a great majority of NTW residents. I would like to tell the Government that the majority of the public use public transport services, including buses. If this half-baked proposal results in congestion at the three RHCs, a great majority of NTW residents will bear the brunt.
We must deal with this issue rationally. We have made a request to the Government. Despite the recent withdrawal of the proposal for the rationalization of traffic distribution among the three RHCs, the Government should provide subsidies to lower the fares of residents' coaches, minibuses, taxis and buses under its policy of encouraging travelling by public transport so as to benefit the public. To cater for drivers who have to make cross-harbour trips, we hope that the Government can build more park-and-ride facilities in most places in the New Territories.
Mr Wilson OR, Mr Vincent CHENG and I have put forward a total of nine proposals to the Government in the Budget debate today to address the problems with parking. I hope that the Government will consider the feasibility of deploying resources to conduct a comprehensive research on transport strategy to address one of the biggest problems vexing the public by bringing Hong Kong's transportation back onto the right track consistent with reality.
President, I so submit.
MS YUNG HOI-YAN (in Cantonese): President, one of the measures proposed in this year's Budget that has attracted more attention is the allocation of $20 billion in the next three years for the purchase of 60 properties for accommodating more than 130 welfare facilities. Such facilities include day childcare centres, neighbourhood elderly centres, on-site pre-school rehabilitation services and co-parenting support centres. Earlier on, I raised some questions at a special meeting of the Finance Committee about the mechanism adopted by the Social Welfare Department in purchasing those properties. Such questions include how to issue tender invitation, how to determine if the price level is LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9129 reasonable and whether professionals experienced in land and housing development will be allowed to participate in the purchase.
However, the Director of Social Welfare did not give me a direct answer. She only said that the Government proposed the measures to meet the keen demand for welfare services and to tackle the problem of venue shortage. She said that the Government would set up a task force to study the issues relating to the purchases. For example, it would explore the supply of properties in the market, formulate a purchase strategy, and consult the Financial Services and the Treasury Bureau and the Independent Commission Against Corruption to ensure that public money would be used properly. It is obvious that the Department is still exploring and studying how to implement the measures at the present stage and I hope that the Government will provide us with an early answer and tell the public specific details about the implementation, including the districts in which the facilities are to be provided.
Many districts are suffering from an acute shortage of welfare facilities. The residents of many public housing estates, especially the old ones, have to travel to other districts to use the welfare services provided there owing to the lack of such facilities in their own districts. Very often, the elderly, children and the underprivileged are those who need welfare services the most. But they have to travel a longer distance to other districts because of the lack of relevant services in their own districts. For instance, there being no day childcare centre in Tai Po, parents have to carry their small children to Sheung Shui in the Northern District to use the service there. That is definitely impractical and unfeasible. Hence the Government must study thoroughly what kinds of facilities are needed in which districts; otherwise, it will be difficult for ordinary people to use welfare services in other districts.
To get to the root of the problem, we can see that the culprit responsible for the absence of welfare services in some public housing estates is the Link Real Estate Investment Trust ("Link REIT"). I will not go into details of the history of Link REIT as many Members have talked about it. It is reported that in the past two years, at least six social welfare organizations were evicted from the premises in the shopping centres in public housing estates operated by Link REIT after their tenancy expired or the entire properties were sold. I think the Government must look squarely at the difficulties faced by social welfare organizations in negotiating for renewal of their tenancy in the shopping centres 9130 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 in public housing estates operated or sold by Link REIT. Otherwise, no matter how many properties the Government purchases, the needs will never be met. I hope that the Government will consider this problem very carefully.
In the long run, instead of spending huge sums of money on purchasing private properties, the Government should conduct proper planning on social welfare. On many occasions I have asked Nicholas YANG, the Secretary for Innovation and Technology, how Hong Kong can properly analyse big data. As a matter of fact, the analysis of the demographic data is very important. It is also very important and even essential to incorporate the provision of welfare facilities in land sale conditions and include in the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines ("HKPSG") the planning ratio of social services based on the demographic structure in the relevant districts. Moreover, the Government should review the uses of various kinds of idle premises, including vacant school premises, government quarters and vacant non-domestic units in public housing estates, to ensure proper use of land resources.
President, in this year's Budget, the Government announces that it will set aside about $22 billion to take forward the first batch of projects under the "single site, multiple use" initiative. From 2016 onward, I have requested the Government to make good use of land resources and build government complexes in various districts to provide more one-stop ancillary facilities, such as child care services, comprehensive family service centres, indoor stadiums, markets, clinics and parking lots, for people in the districts. Mr CHAN has also mentioned the parking problems in Hong Kong, which is a problem not just affecting a small community, Hong Kong Island or New Territories East but the entire territory. The problem cannot be solved simply by the Government urging Hong Kong people to reduce the use of private cars. As there are already large numbers of private and commercial vehicles, the Government must provide sufficient parking spaces to ease the traffic congestion.
It is necessary for the Government to conduct a review again, analyse the big data and use smart technologies to build more automated car parks. Of course, the Government has said that it would consider providing automated car parks in two trial points but we hope that the Government will provide automated car parks in various districts to test their functions and effects. Moreover, will the authorities still follow the criteria set in the HKPSG when considering the number of parking spaces to be provided in the new car parks? According to the past criteria, there can only be 200 parking spaces in a housing estate but a new LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9131 automated car park may accommodate 1 000 parking spaces, which is way above the standard. Hence, I hope that the Government will review whether the HKPSG is applicable to traditional car parks only, but not to new car parks. It is hoped that the Government will spend more resources to study how to carry out the planning of parking spaces and set the position of automated car parks.
President, next I will talk about another issue. As a working mother, I am greatly concerned about whether the resources provided by the Government for working families are sufficient and on point. Take childcare service as an example. There are some 150 000 young children under the age of three in Hong Kong and about 50 000 babies are born each year but there are about 700 subsidized childcare places only, which means over 200 young children are scrambling for one place. Past statistics showed that some expectant mothers began applying for this service when they are pregnant for five months. As a matter of fact, I am also waiting for childcare service and I began to apply when I was pregnant for five months. My child is about three months old now but I have yet to hear any news from the relevant organizations. I believe many mothers are just like me, waiting for a childcare place.
The Government should introduce family-friendly policies that are on point. It should know that with no one taking care of their children, mothers will certainly stay home to do the job. Of course, they can hire foreign domestic helpers to do so but I wish to tell the Secretary or President that it costs $4,520 a month to hire a domestic helper and government childcare centres charge about $6,000 to $8,000 a month. This is a rather big sum of money and families have to bear very high domestic expenses each month, which even middle-class families find it difficult to afford, let alone grass-roots families.
In this year's Budget, the Government proposes to allocate an additional funding of about $156 million to enhance child care service. However, in his answer to my question raised at the special meeting of the Finance Committee, Secretary LAW said that the provision of $156 million could improve the quality of childcare service only and it could not reduce families' spending on this service, say, from $6,000 or $8,000 to $4,000 or $5,000. The money can only be used to reduce the pressure on charge increase, hire more teachers, improve the service quality or provide rent subsidies. As the $156 million cannot provide any help to the general public, we expect that in future Budgets, the Government will increase the funding on childcare service to help the grassroots and middle-class families. If $156 million is not enough, maybe it can be raised to 9132 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019
$300 million or $400 million. It is still a small amount but many families will benefit from it. I hope that the Government will introduce practical measures to help the grass roots and people in general.
Moreover, the Government should allocate more resources to review the service needs in various districts. I have mentioned above that the Government has not yet consented to construct municipal government complexes. We expect all markets to have an all-in-one design, providing one-stop service facilities including parking spaces. As a matter of fact, there are needs for many ancillary facilities. For example, if a wheelchair bound person or ex-patient has bought a property which is located in a crowded area where the streets are narrow, he will have great difficulties accessing his property. Hence, if such buildings have an all-in-one design with all ancillary facilities properly provided and convenient transport available in the vicinity, it will benefit everyone in the neighbourhood.
President, I welcome the proposal in the Budget to further raise the limit of vouchers under the Elderly Health Care Voucher Scheme to $8,000 to allow users greater flexibility. It has been reported by the media from time to time the abuse of vouchers, like optical companies asking elderly people to buy reading glasses costing as high as $2,000. Such cases certainly need cracking down but I also hope that the Government will allocate more resources to carry out more publicity campaigns to teach elderly people how to use the vouchers properly and avoid getting scammed. The accumulation limit of the vouchers this year is $8,000 but I hope that the Government will abolish the upper limit altogether to allow the users more flexibility so that they can use the unspent vouchers indefinitely.
The health care problem keeps deteriorating in recent years. We have also kept discussing issues concerning doctors in the last two weeks. Such issues include long queues waiting for the services at the accident and emergency ("A&E") wards, overcrowdedness of medical wards, acute shortage of health care personnel, the excessive workload of frontline health care staff and their extremely low morale. Given the insufficient quotas for consultation at day and evening outpatient clinics in various districts, people are forced to seek medical attention at A&E wards, waiting for three, five or seven hours before they can be attended to. I hope that the Government will tackle the problem from the management of the Hospital Authority, enhance the primary health care services and look squarely at the problem of clinics in shopping centres in public housing estates being driven away by rent hikes. Once again I would like to urge the Government to provide evening consultation services at the general outpatient LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9133 clinics in places such as Yuen Chau Kok in Sha Tin to ease the pressure on the services of A&E wards and medical wards of neighbouring hospitals.
Lastly, I wish to talk about the Civil Service. We have been striving hard to demand that the Government review the grade structure of the disciplined services and adjust their remuneration packages appropriately as soon as possible. Many disciplined services personnel tell us that their salaries are lower than that of government civilian staff with similar entry academic qualifications. That is really unfair because both are university graduates with the same entry qualifications but their starting salary is set at a lower entry level and they have less chance of promotion. Why should this happen? We hope that the Government will pay special attention to the Rank and File grades in the disciplined services as their remuneration packages are even more inferior to those of the government civilian staff.
In addition, I also hope that the Government will consider allowing the personnel who entered the disciplined services in 2000 the choice of extending their retirement age from 55 to 60. In fact, the retirement age for new civil servants entering the Civil Service has been extended to 65 since 2015. I think that the Government should treat everyone the same and consider allowing the disciplined services personnel recruited under the old system the option to extend their retirement age, to 60 for those originally retiring at 55, and to 65 for those originally retiring at 60. At the same time, the Government should conduct a comprehensive review on and improve the remuneration packages of all discipline services personnel, including overtime allowances and medical and dental benefits. It should also use land resources properly to speed up the construction of disciplined services quarters. The most important problem, however, is still the provision of parking spaces. If the lack of parking spaces in disciplined services quarters hampers disciplined services staff from carrying out their call-out operations, people's safety will be at risk. Hence, if the limit on the number of parking spaces provided in disciplined services quarters can be relaxed, it will help many people. I hope that these measures will meet their housing and parking needs.
President, I so submit.
MR VINCENT CHENG (in Cantonese): President, this is the second time I speak on the Appropriation Bill, i.e. the Budget, since I joined the Legislative Council. The latest Budget of the Financial Secretary has a smaller surplus than 9134 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 that of last year, while he also "hands out fewer candies" this year. Nevertheless, everyone knows that our fiscal reserve has actually increased when compared with last year's, which is expected to reach $1,161.6 billion. However, the strength of many measures to relieve people's burdens are reduced this year.
Nevertheless, I still welcome this Budget in general because I know that the Financial Secretary has put plenty of efforts in it with new options proposed for different social problems. For example, $20 billion is allocated for the purchase of 60 properties for providing social services such as day childcare centres and neighbourhood elderly centres; and, on our proposal, $2 billion is allocated to support the construction of transitional housing and $600 million to refurbish public toilets. However, as for some medium- and long-term measures and proposals, such as our request for increasing the amount of Elderly Health Care Voucher and paying DSE (Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education Examination) examination fees for candidates on a regular basis, the Financial Secretary expresses his reservation. I am somewhat disappointed. I expect the Bureau to keep listening to opinions for serious consideration, hoping that more progress in respect of medium- and long-term measures can be made.
President, in the following speech, I will express my own perspectives on housing planning, transport and parking facilities, municipal services and health as well as education in the Budget this year.
After the announcement of the Budget, I have collated the views of many residents from the residents' meetings and street booths I held and set up. I hope the authorities can listened to them in detail. In fact, there are currently two sores with Hong Kong society: the first one is housing for sure; and the second is public health care.
On housing planning, I showed a chart of housing ladder last year. I recall that I added the stratum of "transitional housing" below public housing back then. Now, a year has gone, and we may take a look at the quantity of public housing supply. On the waiting list for public rental housing ("PRH") there were 280 000 households one year ago; now there are 267 000. However, the waiting time for general applicants hits the new high of 5.5 years. I know the Government is proactively looking for sites to build houses, including its proposal of the Lantau Tomorrow plan which is currently under discussion, and inviting the Urban Renewal Authority ("URA") and the Hong Kong Housing Society ("HKHS") to make joint efforts in launching subsidized housing.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9135
The public housing production for the next five years mentioned by the Financial Secretary in this year's Budget is less than that of last year. Last year, he estimated that 100 000 public housing units would be provided, including 75 000 PRH units and 25 000 subsidized housing units. However, according to the housing production schedule provided by the Government this year, it is shown in the part on PRH that the number of public housing units completed in 2018-2019 is estimated to be 20 000. In 2022-2023, however, owing to the changing of the Tsing Yi project in the Kwai Tsing District into a project under the Green Form Subsidised Home Ownership Scheme ("GSH"), the number of rental units will be reduced to about 10 000, which is record-breaking low. In the few years ahead, what methods and strategies does the Government have to increase the number of housing units? Say, will it relax the plot ratio? The Government currently says it can do so, but I want it to tell more about its actual planning.
President, many members of the public are currently waiting for PRH, including the 110 000 residents of inadequate housing across the territory, in which 90 000 of them are tenants of subdivided units. These were the statistical figure of 2016. Everyone expects that the Government can put forward more medium- and short-term measures, e.g. strengthening its efforts in promoting the construction of transitional housing. Having accepted our views, the Government will allocate $2 billion for constructing transitional housing. I think the Government has already made the undertaking, although the project will not be taken forward in the form of a fund. If there is a substantial number of applications for transitional housing, I believe the authorities will definitely allocate additional resources for this initiative. However, the Government so far has not yet included transitional housing into the housing ladder of the Long Term Housing Strategy. I am so disappointed about this and hope the Government will coordinate well in terms of policy.
About transitional housing, I know many organizations would like to apply for idle land, temporary sites or vacant school premises of the Government for the purpose, but this is never easy. I hope the Task Force on Transitional Housing will make public its criteria for vetting applications to enhance transparency and remove unnecessary constraints. In respect of application by non-governmental organizations for vacant school premises for transitional housing purpose, I know that the Lands Department is going to update its list of vacant school premises available for community use. I also hope that the department can communicate well with the Education Bureau so that more vacant school premises can be allocated for use by non-governmental organizations. Earlier on, I also 9136 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 proposed a motion on expediting transitional housing supply in the Legislative Council, which was passed with the support of Members from different political parties and groupings. Although the motion has no binding effect, I wish to request the Government to provide no less than 10 000 transitional housing units within three years. I hope the Government will act towards this direction.
President, I notice that despite the recent decline in property prices, there is still a huge difference between the prices of private housing and the affordability of the general public. The Government indeed has to adopt a diversified approach to increase public and subsidized housing supply to cater for the needs of the grass roots and marginal middle class. For instance, the Government should invite URA to launch more "Starter Homes" again and invite HKHS to launch subsidized sale flats projects again. It is definitely inadequate to rely solely on the Hong Kong Housing Authority ("HKHA") for the current sale of some 3 000 to 4 000 units under the Home Ownership Scheme ("HOS") every year. As for the means to open up subsidized sale flats under HKHA and HKHS for launching rental scheme as transitional housing, I hope that the Government can announce more detailed information expeditiously. Besides, in the long run, we also need to explore the development of elderly housing and elderly apartments.
Apart from the aforementioned opinions on housing supply, the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong ("DAB") has also made many proposals previously. They include implementing tax deduction for rents, providing transitional rent allowance to grass-roots households, controlling subdivided units, and redeveloping public housing such as Shek Kip Mei Estate and Ma Tau Wai Estate. I recall the Financial Secretary's indication that all the above proposals may be considered, but there seems to be no progress yet. I hope everyone can keep striving together.
In addition to increasing housing supply, urban renewal also plays a very important role. Since URA's suspension of demand-led renewal projects, we hope that urban renewal would not come to a stop. According to latest government data, there are 14 000 old buildings aged 40 years or above in Hong Kong. Even if only those aged 50 years or above are counted, there are still some 8 000 of them. While the latter ones all concentrate in West Kowloon, including Yau Tsim Mong District, Kowloon City District and Sham Shui Po District, they are also seen in the Central and Western District. At present, the Government says all renewal plans are subject to the outcome of the district study for Yau Ma Tei and Mong Kok first. The strategic direction for future renewal LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9137 will not be formulated until then. This study involves a huge area of 212 hectares covering some 3 000 buildings. The Government said the results of the study will come out at the end of this year, and the study may even be cloned in other districts. However, this is an important matter, so I expect the Government to give more accounts to the Legislative Council as soon as possible.
Having spoken on housing issues, I would like to talk about the issue on car parks and parking spaces. Ms YUNG Hoi-yan and Mr CHAN Han-pan also talked a lot about this subject just now. I care very much about this subject, too. This is because the Audit Commission released a report about the current inadequacy of parking spaces yesterday. President, the Budget mentions that the Government will expedite the promotion of the "single site, multiple use" model in multi-storey development to provide more "Government, Institution or Community" ("G/IC") facilities. $22 billion has been set aside to take forward the first batch of projects, including the site for an ambulance depot at the Sheung Wan Fire Station. I know that the selected site in Sheung Wan is provisionally set for the development of a smart car park. Concerning the smart car park systems, although the Government says that six sites have been selected for pilot study (including the location at Yen Chow Street, Sham Shui Po, that I had my part in proposing it), I thumbed through the chapter on planning, provision and management of public parking spaces in the reports on the results of value for money audits newly released by the Audit Commission yesterday and learnt that the Transport Department has actually proposed in as early as November 2002 to launch a measure to address the parking problems in the long-term, i.e. the use of automated parking systems. From 2002 to 2018, it took the Government 16 whole years before commissioning a consultant to conduct a pilot study with a view to establishing the feasibility on developing smart car park systems. Is it not too slow?
Coming to this point, I am really mad. We have been waiting for 16 whole years, but it is not until now does the Government put forward the pilot study which cover six sites only, while the information on design, construction and project costs are all unavailable. We have to wait for a few years more. I am really worried that we might have to wait again for 20 whole years but the first smart car park would still be yet to come, when it would no longer be smart anymore. However, there are many ways for smart parking, including making use of government lands for short lease under flyovers to provide incentives to private parking companies for operating lift-sliding car parking systems as we always propose. These proposals can all be implemented as soon as possible. Why must we wait for a decade or more?
9138 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019
Having talked about parking and housing issues, I would also like to come to environmental hygiene. In January this year, DAB identified 10 dirtiest public toilets from the 18 districts of Hong Kong and released a list of them via a press conference. Why did we do so? Simply because public toilets are too dirty. Initially, the Government only confined to improving public toilets in tourists' hotspots. A few days ago, I visited a tourists' hotspot and saw that the public toilet has been improved. However, it is unreasonable that public toilets for tourists can be cleaner but Hongkongers deserve the dirty ones only. I do not know if the Secretaries of Departments and Directors of Bureaux have ever used the public toilets of Hong Kong but I would suggest that they take a look there. They are very dirty indeed.
Nevertheless, this year the Financial Secretary allocates $600 million for refurbishing public toilets of the Food and Environmental Hygiene Department ("FEHD") by phases. This project involves 240 public toilets and will be carried out in five years. DAB welcomes this. However, there are as many as 799 FEHD public toilets, excluding those toilets in FEHD public markets and facilities of the Leisure and Cultural Services Department. The Government says that it is going to refurbish 40 public toilets a year, which are indeed too few. I hope so much that the Government can expedite its pace on this, because pilot schemes are not required for the maintenance of public toilets. You can just do it as you wish.
Apart from environmental hygiene, I have to talk about the community caring measures too. The Secretary for Education is now present. Currently, the Government only provides to each student in need a grant of $2,500 to support their learning. In fact, we initially requested the authorities to provide a learning allowance to all students in Hong Kong to relief the burdens on all parents from their children's education. I also know that everyone was worried initially about the chaos that might occur. It might be handled poorly as in the case of the Community Caring Fund when case was handed out because it might be relatively a rush. In light of this, I suggest that the Government may look for other means, such as providing allowance to all students in Hong Kong as supplementary assistance to the parents. Currently, the pressure on middle-class families is really immense. As Ms YUNG Hoi-yan put it just now, they really have to spend a lot of money. I hope the Government can respond to the appeal of certain middle-class parents.
As for the waiving of examination fees for DSE candidates again, we express our welcome of this. Nevertheless, the current waiver is also a one-off measure. We expect that … examination fees are actually not charged in many LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9139 places overseas. Therefore, I hope that students' burdens from examination fees can be relieved in the long run.
Certainly, we care not only about students financially but also their mental health. During the Finance Committee's scrutiny on the expenditures of the Education Bureau, I also raised a question about student suicide. Relevant figures indicate that there were 73 suicidal deaths of students in the past five years. Last November, the Government released the report of the Task Force on Prevention of Youth Suicides with many follow-up items proposed for the improvement of students' mental health. I also raised relevant follow-up issues at the Panel on Education of the Legislative Council, hoping that the Government would respond proactively. For such cases, one is already too many.
We care about elderly people too. We demand for the regularization of the amount increased for Elderly Health Care Vouchers ("EHCVs"). In the new fiscal year, the accumulation limit of EHCVs will be raised by $3,000. However, as the case of last year, the Financial Secretary only provides an additional $1,000 on a one-off basis, which is to our disappointment. Although there are improvements with EHCVs, I hold that improvements should not be focused on a single aspect only; instead, they should be made holistically. Although we have yet to make the elderly use EHCVs properly to alleviate the pressure on hospitals, EHCVs do have their practical uses. Therefore, we hope to increase the resources for this measure and have it regularized.
President, regarding this Budget from the Financial Secretary, I think it is still inadequate from the perspective of caring of people's livelihood, particularly in respect of public health care, which is amongst the two sores that I mentioned at the beginning of my speech. This year, the Financial Secretary allocates $700 million to improve the rates of allowance for doctors and nurses, and $5 billion for acquiring medical equipment. The Government indeed put plenty of resources into public health care in the past. However, there is huge room for improvement in making good use of the resources for shortening people's waiting time for public hospital services. We always hear in the community that no matter whether it is for orthopedics, ophthalmology or whatever specialist services, it is all just waiting and waiting. While we have put in resources with the Financial Secretary having made targeted allocation, our next step would be discussion on how to improve the health care system. I hope that we can think practically for a way out and handle the matter well.
Lastly, President, I support this Budget. I so submit.
9140 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019
MR CHAN KIN-POR (in Cantonese): President, when the Budget this year was being drafted, the trade war between China and the United States was in full swing, and the Hong Kong economy was facing crisis. Under such volatile circumstances, the Financial Secretary has had not only to remain vigilant but also respond to social needs and promote economic development. Therefore, the Financial Secretary has revolved around the theme of "supporting enterprises, safeguarding jobs, stabilizing the economy, strengthening livelihoods", rolled out practical and effective measures, put public money to proper use, refrained from spending money casually, and ensured the money goes to the right place.
However, when the Budget was announced, China and the United States had already started trade negotiations. Given improved market sentiment and upturns in the property market and stock market, people again acted as if nothing had happened. As such, some people have again criticized the Budget for failing to "hand out candies" sufficiently and allocate adequate funding. That said, I would like to remind Members that recently many organizations, including the International Monetary Fund, the Asian Development Bank, the University of Hong Kong and various banks, have one after another lowered the projected economic growth rate of Hong Kong, saying that Hong Kong's recent statistics on retail sales and export have been undesirable. There are still hidden problems with the Hong Kong economy, and, as the outcome of trade negotiations between China and the United States is still unknown, the market will be full of uncertainties.
For this reason, we need a Budget that can stabilize the economy and safeguard jobs. We should not ignore the crises in our economy by reason of the transitory tranquillity of the Hong Kong markets, nor should we forget that our fiscal surplus has dropped from last year's $140 billion to this year's $58.7 billion. Despite a big drop in revenue, the Budget has still introduced routine relief measures, including reducing salaries tax and profits tax, waiving rates, and providing an extra one-month allowance to recipients of Comprehensive Social Security Assistance. In fact, a good Budget must be responsive to the time. If the Financial Secretary spent blindly and lavishly even though he knew clearly the big drop in revenue and problems with the economy, he was acting irresponsibly. I believe that the Financial Secretary is a responsible person. He will not do something irresponsible for the sake of winning momentary applause.
Regarding the specifics of the Budget, first, I believe that the commitment of resources in the Budget is targeted. The health care issue is the best case in LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9141 point. In recent years, the health care issue has been a grave concern in society. The waiting time for public health care services is getting increasingly longer, the departure of health care staff is deteriorating, the proposal of admitting overseas doctors has yet to be approved, and the public health care system is on the brink of a breakdown. The Budget will earmark $10 billion to set up a public health care stabilization fund for the Hospital Authority to cope with contingencies. An additional $5 billion will be earmarked for acquisition of medical equipment. Over $700 million will be used to boost the morale of health care workers and retain talent and an additional $400 million will be allocated to expand the scope of the Drug Formulary. Previous Budgets rarely designated the use of funds. I believe the move this year aims at accelerating the allocation of resources to help solve the problems expeditiously. Certainly, if the authorities want to rectify the existing imbalance in the health care system in the long run, they must properly undertake the second 10-year hospital development plan.
In addition, Hong Kong has done a lot of work in developing innovation and technology ("I&T") industries, but there are still concerns in society that the Government may be a quitter. The Budget devotes much space to explain that the Government has commenced the relevant work and committed over $100 billion so far. The Budget also announces that $5.5 billion will be earmarked for the development of Cyberport 5, additional resources will be allocated to ensure the timely development of the Hong Kong-Shenzhen Innovation and Technology Park, and an additional sum of $800 million will be provided for research and development. I believe that the Budget enables the public to clearly know that the Government is determined to promote I&T development and continue to regard I&T as a new driving force for economic development. Secretary Nicholas YANG is also present today. I believe that he is charged with an important duty and Hong Kong hinges on him.
In addition, I have also noted that the Financial Secretary will transfer the Tax Policy Unit to come under the Financial Secretary's Office. I believe that the Financial Secretary aims to step up the work of tax reform. In fact, various places in the world have conducted tax reform one after another to enhance their competitiveness. I once advised the Government to conduct tax reform, such as offering tax concessions, to attract foreign companies setting up regional headquarters in Hong Kong, thus enhancing the competitiveness of Hong Kong. As such, I hope that the Financial Secretary will expeditiously conduct a review to keep Hong Kong's tax regime up to date.
9142 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019
The Budget proposes setting aside $2 billion to support non-governmental organizations in constructing transitional housing. I welcome the Financial Secretary's decision and hope that the work can be commenced as soon as possible. In fact, the housing problem still distresses Hong Kong people. As the Government has decided to increase the ratio of public housing, the supply of private housing will naturally be reduced. There is a concern in society that property prices will skyrocket. I think that the Government should expeditiously commence the Lantau Tomorrow project. When long-term land supply is ensured, the concern in society will naturally be alleviated. Some Members often criticize the Lantau Tomorrow project as being distant water that cannot quench a fire nearby. However, many people of insight do not merely make criticisms. Rather, they come up with new ideas to solve Hong Kong's problems. According to them, as long as the Government is willing to adopt a new way of thinking and streamline cumbersome administrative procedures, housing projects can be completed well within 10 years. In the medium run, a multi-pronged approach can be adopted to develop brownfield sites and agricultural land to increase land supply. Our young people often envy Singapore's universal home ownership. In fact, should the Government demonstrate its determination, we can also achieve universal home ownership in the future.
President, I would like to talk about issues that are of concern to the insurance sector. I would like to first declare that I am a senior consultant of Well Link Insurance Group. The Budget proposes to assist the sector in seizing the business opportunities brought by the Greater Bay Area development and the Belt and Road Initiative. In fact, the Outline Development Plan for the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area has already proposed the following: supporting joint development in Guangdong, Hong Kong and Macao of cross-boundary motor vehicle insurance and medical insurance; promoting cross-boundary transactions of insurance products; supporting cross-boundary Renminbi reinsurance business; and supporting the development of a trading platform for international marine insurance. All these are exciting initiatives to the insurance sector. However, the sector also understands that we cannot finish exploring cross-boundary business in one day. The sector will cross the river by groping the stones. We hope to first set up insurance after-sale service centres and implement a Health Insurance Connect scheme in the Greater Bay Area. I have relayed my views to the Government time and again. I hope that the Government will liaise with the relevant departments on the Mainland. In the long run, I hope to see the diversification, expansion and enhancement of LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9143 cross-boundary insurance business in the Greater Bay Area. As such, the Government should allow all insurance companies registered in Hong Kong, including life and general insurance companies, to enter the Greater Bay Area.
As far as I know, the relevant departments on the Mainland are conducting an in-depth study on the proposal to set up insurance after-sale service centres in the Greater Bay Area. I hope that the proposal can be expeditiously implemented as the first initiative for cross-boundary insurance business in the Greater Bay Area. Since 2005, insurance companies in Hong Kong have given out a total of 1.8 million insurance policies to Mainland customers. With a large number of policyholders, it is natural that after-sale service centres should be set up on the Mainland. The Greater Bay Area can serve as the first pilot point. Following its success, the proposal can be further implemented in other provinces. The proposed after-sale service centres will provide Mainland customers with services such as inquiries, change of address, declaration and submission of claims, thus bringing convenience to customers. In addition, the sector is also striving to implement a Health Insurance Connect scheme in the Greater Bay Area to sell Hong Kong insurance products to residents in the Greater Bay Area through electronic platforms. Its mode of operation can be modelled on that of the Stock Connect programme of Hong Kong.
President, Hong Kong has long lost its status as an international insurance centre. Many international reinsurance companies and international brokerage firms have relocated their regional headquarters to Singapore one after another. The sector is pleased to see that the Government is making active efforts to regain Hong Kong's status as an insurance hub, but we hope that the Government can commit more resources in this respect. Sufficient talents must be identified for the sector before we can succeed in developing international business. In the past, the insurance sector mainly focused on local business, and therefore there has been a shortage of talents who are familiar with international business. Now, when we are to explore international business, we will need more world-class talents who are familiar with marine insurance, large-scale projects, railways, ports, captive insurance and reinsurance. For this reason, the SAR Government should assist the sector in attracting international talents to come to Hong Kong. The most effective way is to attract large international insurance brokerage firms to establish regional headquarters in Hong Kong, and these firms will bring international professionals here.
9144 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019
Moreover, I propose that an insurance institute be established in the long run. This will not only nurture talents who are well versed in international business but also train professionals for local business to maintain the sustainable development of the insurance sector, and provide young people in Hong Kong with more quality job opportunities.
I so submit.
MR HOLDEN CHOW (in Cantonese): President, in this session, I will spend a little time on discussing economic development and I will also present my views on the promotion of new industries in Hong Kong. I have noticed that for some time in the past, many colleagues have expressed their views on various livelihood issues. I will try to focus my views on economic development.
President, the Government announces in this year's Budget that it will offer a 50% profits tax concession to the marine insurance industry, which is welcomed by the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong ("DAB"). Over the past two years or so, I have made great efforts in urging the Government to enhance its assistance in the development of the high value-added maritime services. I have put forward some suggestions, to which the Government has responded positively. They include setting up Regional Desks of the Hong Kong Shipping Registry in selected Economic and Trade Offices and Mainland Offices and Liaison Units to render direct and prompt support to shipowners at the ports concerned. The Government has also promised to study the simplification of the regulation so as to promote the marine insurance industry.
President, I can recall that during the debate on the Budget and Policy Address last year, I mentioned about regulatory authorities overdoing the rectification of the local marine insurance companies. I cited an example relayed to me by the industry, in which a company was required to rewrite an annual report merely because of a few typos in it and no simplification or amendment of the procedure was allowed whatsoever. Such a practice is unconducive to the development of the industry. However, it is fortunate that the Government has responded positively in both the Policy Address and Budget this year. In particular, it proposes in the Budget tax concessions which will definitely be conducive to the development of the marine insurance industry and we welcome that.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9145
Looking ahead, I expect the authorities to promptly amend the existing legislation to facilitate the delegation of the power of the Director of Marine to sign certificates of exemption to controlling officers at the next rank in the Marine Department to further enhance efficiency. This will strengthen the Department's around-the-clock support, coordination and certification services provided to locally registered vessels. With these support and services, more overseas vessels will be attracted to register in Hong Kong and use Hong Kong's arbitration and marine insurance services, thereby fostering the development of the local economy.
President, I wish to stress that we must strengthen the development of the local high value-added maritime services and promote Hong Kong as a genuinely high value-added maritime services centre. At the same time, a number of high-end services such as vessel registration, trading, leasing, financing and insurance, as well as maritime management and arbitration should also be developed. It is my hope that the Government will attract more vessel financing agents, ship owners, maritime arbitrators and marine insurance companies to set up companies in Hong Kong, thereby forming an industrial cluster. Only with the establishment of such an industrial cluster can we provide one-stop services to clients and only through the provision of one-stop services can the whole city's competitiveness be boosted. President, the United Kingdom ("the UK") is very successful in this kind of operation and we should learn from it. Of course, the United Kingdom started much earlier and has a long history in this kind of operation. By learning from the United Kingdom's experience, however, I think Hong Kong should be able to catch up.
I hope that the Government will prepare detailed work plans and development blueprints to attract the above mentioned agencies, including vessel finance companies, marine insurance companies, marine arbitrator and ship-owners, to Hong Kong. What approaches and positive measures will the Government adopt to attract these companies and organizations to Hong Kong? I hope the Government will make greater efforts in formulating specific planning and objectives in this respect.
President, I am highly concerned about the development of high value-added maritime services, a new industry that I think Hong Kong definitely has the potential to develop and it will boost the local employment. There are also other industries that employ large numbers of people in Hong Kong. One of them is the insurance industry. While listening to Mr CHAN Kin-por's 9146 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 speech just now, I very much share his views on many aspects. He is indeed a seasoned member of the insurance industry and has shared with us many insightful points about the industry. DAB has had contacts with many practitioners of the insurance industry and learned that the industry is keen to expand its operation into the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macau Greater Bay Area ("Greater Bay Area"). To put it simply, they wish to effectively sell Hong Kong insurance products to the Greater Bay Area. I believe that it will facilitate the expansion of the insurance industry's operation and increase its market share in the Greater Bay Area.
The Outline Development Plan for the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area ("the Plan") was published in February. It talks about leveraging Hong Kong's leading position in the financial services sector and strengthening Hong Kong's status as a global offshore Renminbi business hub and its role as an international asset management centre and risk management centre. Since Hong Kong's most important inherent edge in the Greater Bay Area is its financial and insurance operations, through the expansion of cross-boundary investments and insurance operations between Hong Kong and Mainland peoples and organizations, it will foster the development of the real economy of the entire Greater Bay Area, including Hong Kong.
The Plan also talks about encouraging insurance companies in the Mainland to join hands with Hong Kong and Macao insurance companies to engage in cross-boundary Renminbi reinsurance operations, supporting insurance organizations in the three places to work together in the development of innovative cross-boundary insurance products such as those for motor vehicles and health, and exploring the establishment of a trading platform for innovative insurance products such as those for international maritime services. Most importantly, some have proposed to provide claims processing and policy servicing for holders of cross-boundary insurance products in the Greater Bay Area. As such, DAB has discussed with insurance practitioners and agreed that the arrangement for the provision of policy servicing is only a staring step. They wish to start from the provision of policy servicing and gradually work towards the sale of Hong Kong insurance products in the Greater Bay Area. Earlier on, I also asked a question at the special meeting of the Finance Committee and the Secretary gave us a clear answer that if pilot implementation was adopted, the insurance products for motor vehicles and health would be the first products to get the chance to provide policy servicing and claims processing arrangements in the Greater Bay Area. I am glad to learn that the SAR LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9147
Government has taken steps to conduct planning on it and we hope that the SAR Government will tell us what further and more specific steps will be taken to facilitate the industry's work in making a bigger "pie". As there are many people working in the insurance industry, it is very important to them as this can boost employment.
President, I wish to take this opportunity to express my views about Hong Kong's position amid the trade conflicts between China and the United States. DAB has urged the Government to help small and medium enterprises ("SMEs") to tide over the difficulties. Although this year's Budget puts forward a number of measures but they are all old wine in a new bottle. In the face of a new global economic landscape, the above mentioned trade conflicts between China and the United States, as well as the risks of economic downturn, I hope that the Government will step up the support for SMEs further, in particular, by giving SMEs guidance in exploring the market in the Greater Bay Area and taking advantage of the new opportunities available.
In respect of the SME Loan Guarantee Scheme, DAB has repeatedly stressed its hope that the Government will make special arrangements to help SMEs which have difficulties in securing sufficient cash flow, given the prevailing and unsettled trade conflicts between China and the United States. We have pointed out in the past our hope that the Government would reinstate the Scheme to help SMEs tide over the difficulties.
President, besides the above points on economic development, I also want to talk about judicial measures in this part. Concerning the protection of consumers' rights and interests, the SAR Government has recently announced the intention to legislate for a cooling-off period. In my response, I pointed out that even though DAB had always requested and striven for a cooling-off period, it also hoped that apart from protecting consumers' rights and interests, it would also consider the operational difficulties faced by the beauty industry and strike a balance between the two.
We know that other than the establishment of a cooling-off period, the Government has to deal with other measures for the protection of consumers as well. For example, I have repeatedly pointed out that the number of staff the Customs and Excise Department ("C&ED") in charge of handling unfair trade practices had not been increased and remained at 190 in the past three years. In the face of an increasingly complicated environment with an ever-increasing 9148 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 number of complaints about unfair trade practices, coupled with the difficulties in investigation, we have always hoped that the Government will increase the number of C&ED staff who handle the work in this respect. I welcome the Commerce and Economic Development Bureau's announcement that it would increase the C&ED staff establishment by 40 and I am also grateful for the Government's response to our aspiration.
However, please allow me to take this opportunity to tell the Secretary that an additional 40 staff may only meet the needs for the time being. In face of an increasing number of cases in which increasingly complicated tactics are employed to evade investigation and prosecution, the Government should adjust its manpower promptly. As time passes, I believe that 40 additional staff may not be enough and I hope that the Secretary will be more generous in increasing the manpower and resources for tackling this problem in the future.
Another point I wish to bring up is, as I have always said, that Hong Kong lacks a class action mechanism for consumers. President, I stress that I am talking about a class action mechanism for consumers, not a comprehensive class action regime. This mechanism is one way to protect consumers. As a matter of fact, I believe that this mechanism can help protect consumers against the exploitation or fraud committed by big consortiums. As least, it can spare them the risk of having to bear the litigation costs.
However, it is a pity. I hope that the Secretary for Justice has the chance to listen to my views. The Law Reform Commission has held over 20 meetings to discuss class action for consumers but it has yet to inform us of the progress made and I find it unacceptable that there is no specific date on which a decision can be made. Hence, I hope that the Government will listen to our views and give us an answer as soon as possible. After more than 20 meeting, what is going to happen to the class action mechanism for consumers? Has the Law Reform Commission come to any conclusion in its study? What is the next step? We hope that we can have a clear understanding of all these.
President, I would like to point out lastly that at the special meeting of the Finance Committee concerning this year's Budget, I asked a specific question about the use of screens to shield the victims or witnesses of sexual offences. From the authorities' reply, I find that the rate of screens being used in the High Count is higher but the rate of screens being used in District Courts or Magistrates' Courts in the past three years was in general less than 50%. We LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9149 want to reiterate that shielding the witnesses and victims of sexual offences aims to protect them when they give testimony. I think that the Judiciary is obligated to explain more and encourage the victims and witnesses of the cases to protect themselves by requesting to be shielded behind screens. I think that the present rate of screens being used in court is on the low side. The Government should give more explanation through public education and the judicial system should encourage the victims and witnesses of sexual offences to use screens to further protect themselves when they give testimony.
President, I so submit.
DR FERNANDO CHEUNG (in Cantonese): President, I will briefly state my views on this year's Budget by telling the stories of four persons.
The first person is Granny XU, whose full name is XU Taozhi, 71. About two months ago, she attended a public hearing held by the Panel on Welfare Services of the Legislative Council. That was the second time she spoke in the Council. According to Granny XU, on a few emergencies, she did not dare to go to hospital because she had to take care of her 87-year old husband who suffered from severe dementia and other chronic illnesses. She said it was better for her husband than she herself to stay in hospital. Her meaning is that if her husband is hospitalized, she may go to hospital with him. However, if she is the one in hospital, her husband will be left helpless. In fact, she once called an ambulance in the small hours as she had a fever and runny stomach and vomited. Yet, she was worried that her husband would be completely unable to take care of himself during her hospital stay. She therefore called a social worker for help. The social worker told her that no support was available in this case or she might consider taking her husband to the Accident and Emergency ("A&E") Department with her. The ambulancemen, however, told Granny XU that no one would take care of her husband at the A&E Department. Consequently, she decided not go to the hospital for treatment. Grandpa LEE, 78, another attendee at the same hearing, also had similar experiences. Even though the hospital had asked him to stay, he did not dare to do so because he had to take care of his dementia wife.
These stories are common among us―the carers. We have asked the authorities to provide emergency respite service in times of such emergency. When a carer has no choice but to stay in hospital, or in case of extreme 9150 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 emergency, can the authorities send someone to take care of the patient in the carer's home or arrange a short-term stay for the patient to receive respite service? We have asked Secretary Dr LAW Chi-kwong for this simple service, but he told me to call the hotline of the Social Welfare Department by myself.
Being a registered social worker, I need not make the call to know the answer for I know it too well. In order to obtain any emergency services, prior application is always needed. Chest X-ray films and a doctor's proof will also be required to show that the care receiver is suitable for residential care. Yet, we are now talking about emergencies that come up suddenly. Other countries have already provided this kind of service. For example, Australia has formed an emergency respite care team to provide home care services. If possible, the team will bring the care receiver back to its centre for the carer to take care of urgent matters first. Is this service costly? I do not think so.
Regarding this year's the Budget, I have proposed to Secretary Paul CHAN a new service to benefit all carers of persons with severe disabilities and high nursing care needs at a low cost of some $200 million. As these care receivers are eligible for the Higher Disability Allowance under the existing system, their number is known to the authorities. My proposal is to give a subsidy to all carers of persons with severe disabilities for them to hire a reliable home care helper―who may either be a neighbour or family member familiar with the care receiver―so that they may take a short break of four hours every week. Assuming an hourly rate of $56.7, the annual cost of this new service will be $200 million. Regrettably, this proposal has not been taken on board. Given that the expenditure on the proposed emergency respite service is easy to tell and will not cost the public coffers much money, Hong Kong should have formed a support team. Eventually, however, this has not been done. This is the first story.
The second person is Uncle WONG―WONG Kok-man―who is 81 years of age. Two years ago, he killed his sick wife with a back scratcher, although he loved his wife deeply. I know that because I have visited him for a few times in prison. Dr CHIANG Lai-wan, you may also remember you have visited him once. After a few visits, we have become friends. As known to all, this case was alarming to the whole society: How could this tragedy happen? Why did this man decide to kill his beloved wife? That is because he saw no way out and had no support. As a husband, he believed he had done his best to cook for his wife, bathe her and deal with her poo and pee. He did everything for her. Yet, LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9151 even if he did his best, he could not take good care of her. This made him believe that death was a relief for his wife.
Today, in this advanced society, how can we let any families consider death as the only way out? This is something easy to understand. In English, there is a saying called "it is not rocket science". We do not have to be well-educated to understand this.
"Ageing in place" is an impressive advocacy from the Government. In reality, it takes a long time for the elderly to wait for home care services. Right now, more than 7 000 people are queuing for these services, including the Enhanced Home Care Services ("EHCS") and the Integrated Home Care Services ("IHCS"). As the waiting time has increased from several months to 18 months in a few years' time, it is hard for the elderly applicants to receive these services. They have to wait long even for the daily services provided by elderly centres. Regarding this year's Budget, I have proposed to Secretary Paul CHAN that he should clear the long queue of over 7 000 people waiting for EHCS or IHCS in one go. How much will this proposal cost the Government? $600 million or so. Regrettably, this proposal has not been accepted. What is the lesson that we have learnt? Is Hong Kong in lack of experts in this field or short of land? The authorities should stop evading their responsibilities. We must not allow such tragedies to repeat. There were already three family tragedies in Hong Kong last year.
I am also following up on a case in which a young man in his thirties jumped from a height over 10 storeys after killing his mother. This man, who has survived in the end, loved his mother very much. He had hired two helpers to care for her before this tragedy happened. Is he really a cruel man? All he wished was to give his mother relief. What sort of society is this? Why have we allowed our people to take this last resort?
The third person is Mrs SO TO Lai-lin, who is above 70. Vivian TAM, a veteran media worker, took Mrs SO's personal experience as the blueprint for her story entitled "Bus Mother". Mrs SO is known as "Bus Mother" because she dare not take the MTR with her son, a mentally-disabled man in his forties. He has a full mouth of decayed teeth, making him look like Frankenstein when he opens his mouth. If he takes the MTR, passengers sitting opposite to him will always walk away after seeing his face. In contrast, passengers on buses will only see the back of other passengers. Therefore, she only takes buses with his 9152 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 son to protect him from mockery. She has previously stood up for his son and other mentally-disabled people to fight for their dental care.
A few months ago, Mrs SO was unfortunately diagnosed with lung cancer caused by a special mutation that I do not know much about. Yet, such mutation can be treated by a new third-generation targeted drug. She knew the waiting time was long at public hospital. Secretaries and other high officials, will you suggest your friends and relatives waiting for treatment at public hospital if they are diagnosed with cancer? Of course not. Patients tend to seek consultation at private hospital at the beginning. Mrs SO did likewise and the private doctor immediately prescribed this drug for her after consultation. Although this drug will cost her $50,000 to $60,000 per month, she has to use it as she does not want his son to become orphan too quickly. According to the information that she has looked up, her illness only gives her six months to live since lung cancer can actually take lives away in a short time. She has to put her hope on this drug, but she cannot afford the fee, not even for six months.
As a matter of fact, the money now she spends on this drug is supposed to be put into the Special Needs Trust for the use of her son after her death. Unfortunately, she cannot even reach the threshold for creating a trust account as her current savings are less than the required amount of $200,000. When she wishes to save money, her savings are now used to pay for the drug. How can she afford to pay a drug fee of some $50,000 to $60,000 a month? She once planned to receive treatment at public hospital instead of private hospital, but a public doctor told her, "Sorry, we cannot help you. You may ask St. James' Settlement for assistance." However, the Philanthropic Community Pharmacy of St. James' Settlement has agreed with pharmaceutical companies that a patient must use the first- and second-generation drugs before being subsidized to use the third-generation drugs. In other words, Mrs SO will have to pay by herself the drug fee for 10 months, involving $500,000 to $600,000, before she is eligible for the subsidy. But there is no way that she can afford this fee. She is like waiting for death now. This is a living example, and I am following up on her case now. The Hospital Authority has yet given us any positive response. This morning, I had a discussion with St. James' Settlement, but they said there was nothing they could not do because that was the condition set by the pharmaceutical companies.
President, all these stories are living examples in real life. Today, the Government is sitting on enormous reserves―I am not going to argue with government officials over the project that will pour billions or trillions of dollars LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9153 down the drain―but it just watches illness taking away the life of the most-disadvantaged. Is a monthly medical subsidy of $50,000 to $60,000 unaffordable to the Government? I thank Dr Pierre CHAN for mentioning my legislative proposal to protect the rights and interests of rare disease patients. Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan has also proposed to allocate $4 billion from the surplus of $40 billion for purchasing medicine. I have proposed to the Financial Secretary that a $20 billion "Dandelion Fund" be set up to give a solution to the high drug expenses to be borne by patients of cancer and rare disease patients over the next decade. We have made a detailed calculation for this proposal and are ready to give it to the authorities for consideration. If the authorities disagree with our proposal, they may just tell us. However, the Financial Secretary has not given us any response. President, our proposal is eventually left unaddressed.
The fourth person is Ms WONG Yuet-han, aged 67. She has caught the spotlight lately after attending the public hearing of the Legislative Council. During the hearing, she told us that she is a retired civil servant who worked as a ward assistant, i.e. general labourer, at public hospital before retirement. After retirement, she has a monthly pension of about $3,000 but that is not enough to make ends meet. She therefore scavenges for a living and, at the same time, keeps looking for a job. But she did not manage to get one single job after 10 interviews. Whenever an employer sees her face and learns her age, he will just turn his back and leave. She sought help from LAW Chi-kwong, who, in response, suggested her calling the Labour Department ("LD") for assistance.
The Audit Commission published a report on LD yesterday to show how incompetent LD is. Madam WONG burst into tears the moment she heard the reply of LAW Chi-kwong for she had never imagined a high official being so mean. She said that it was better for Secretary LAW to scavenge cardboards with her to feel how helpless the elderly are when they have no support in their old age and how they are looked down on when scavenging cardboards on the streets. In her recent visit to LD, an officer asked for her current job and she replied that she was a scavenger. The officer then said this piece of information was not necessary on resume. She later went for an interview as told by LD, but when she arrived, the company said that the vacancy was filled. That was what happened in real life.
President, everything I said was true, and all these stories are real cases. How come these cases keep coming up in a rich city like Hong Kong? The 9154 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 experiences of these people are facing many grass-roots people today. The aforesaid cases are norms rather than exceptions. Do high officials and decision-makers know that? As Madam WONG said, what do they know? While they have power in hand to help many, they refuse to give a helping hand. Instead, they insist on sticking to the principles of "big market, small government" and self-reliance which, in effect, are telling people to fend for themselves. They have all reserves in their hands but they still want more. How greedy they are!
President, I so submit.
MR ANDREW WAN (in Cantonese): President, I believe that in the Budget debate this year, the issue of housing and land is once again the major focus as it was in the past. Many Members have spoken about the issue. There is little mention of the housing problem in the Budget this year which disappointed us, but the Financial Secretary has in his speech extensively described the part on Lantau Tomorrow.
President, the Development Bureau's announcement on 19 March that the costs and preliminary estimates of the Lantau Tomorrow project will be $624 billion has certainly aroused discussions and doubts in society, for the people think that the Government has deliberately understated the amount. The costs include building artificial islands on reclaimed land around Kau Yi Chau, providing infrastructure and transportation network to connect the artificial islands and building all the necessary infrastructures, etc. I believe no one will object that Hong Kong needs to solve its land and housing problem, but we should do so with an intelligent and reasonable approach consented by the people. Apparently, the approach of the Government does not have the consent of the people.
President, there are reasons why the people have not consented to the approach. In recent years, the records of Hong Kong have not been remarkable except for some, which are infamous. All of our major infrastructural projects have cost overruns as if "money has been poured into the sea" and the Government has obtained a report card with all scores in red. The end result is that we have purchased low-quality goods with high prices. No matter whether it is the Hong Kong section of the Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong Express Rail Link ("XRL"), the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge or the Shatin to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9155
Central Link, cost overruns occur in the projects. Furthermore, problems of failures to fulfil undertakings also occur in the projects of the Shatin to Central Link and the Hong Kong-Zhuhai-Macao Bridge. How will the people be confident enough to allow the Government to undertake infrastructural projects with a huge sum of money?
We think the Government has understated the costs concerned. In fact, this approach of the Government is unusual. The President should be experienced enough to know what the usual practice of the Government is. Many Members have mentioned it before, but I will take the trouble to say it again. In estimating the costs of a major infrastructural project, the costs should be calculated from the commencement date of the works. In other words, in addition to the costs currently estimated, the rate of inflation and rate of increase in costs have to be taken into account. Nevertheless, the Government is now presenting only the snapshot costs estimated last year, which is a trick, a blatant one. If amounts such as those of inflation are taken into account, some scholars in the community have estimated that even if the rate of cost overruns is excluded, the costs will be close to $900 billion. If the rate of cost overruns is taken into account, according to the past experience I mentioned earlier, the costs will be more than $1 trillion. It is not surprising therefore that the Government has quickly stated $620 billion as the estimated costs, in the hope that it will fool the people. Otherwise, the former criticism that the Government is "pouring money down the drain through the $1 trillion project" will be justified. That is the demon within the Government.
Secretary Michael WONG said that there would be no cost overruns and he said that he was confident about it. Frankly speaking, nothing about which the Government is confident can basically be achieved. Let me give some recent examples. Take XRL as an example. The former Secretary for Development, Eva CHENG, assured our predecessors in the Chamber back then that there would certainly be no cost overruns, but what happened? Eva CHENG left the job many years ago, and what can we do about it? Can we hold her accountable and ask her to "foot the bill" now? Thus, the response of Secretary Michael WONG today, even if he were sincere, would not help. He simply cannot convince the public.
President, another issue is closely relevant to the Budget and it is even more important. Upon reading the figures, I find that the Government still has to pay an infrastructural commitment amounting to $380 billion. However, the Financial Secretary told us that the economic prospect would worsen because of 9156 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 the China-US trade war and Hong Kong would face a deficit of $4 billion. The Financial Secretary is surely well-qualified for his position. Being an accountant, he has glamourized the books as if he were doing them for his own company. Initially, we have accumulated a balance in the Housing Reserve with tens of billions, but the Financial Secretary has brought it back to the "big pond" to make up the difference so that the accounts will look better. I think the employment of such fiscal ploy, though not illegal, shows that the Financial Secretary lacks confidence. If he was capable, there would be no need for him to move the amount of public money around. Secretary Frank CHAN is present now; he should actually oppose to such a practice. This sum of money is designated funding. If it is brought back to the fiscal reserves now, will it be necessary to make an application each time to use it in the future? On the contrary, if funding is provided to the Housing Reserve, it will be a different approach altogether.
I think that the above mentioned practices show that the Financial Secretary lacks confidence. I am not suggesting that he has done anything wrong. As the bookkeeper of Hong Kong, I think he just wants to tighten the belts upon realizing the troublesome prospect, and he may be right. However, I would like to challenge him. As the Financial Secretary intends to tighten the belts, he says there will be a deficit of $4 billion and brings back the $60 billion of Housing Reserve to the fiscal reserves. That is slapping one's own face until it is swollen to look imposing. That is like entering a casino in Macao and placing a political huge bet with the sum of $1 trillion. How can anyone in the real world make such a move? I have drawn this analogy to demonstrate the highly unusual nature of such a practice. There are now problems with our finance. The family is finding it hard to make ends meet, we have to be frugal with money and there may even be salary reductions next year. And yet, the Financial Secretary suddenly goes to Macao and puts all the money in one huge bet. That defies all common sense.
President, I think it is hard for us to support the Lantau Tomorrow project, particularly when the figures are unclear and the fiscal conditions look gloomy, as I mentioned earlier. In fact, it is impossible for us to support it. I certainly agree that we must create land for housing construction, and I have advocated this measure since I became a Member of the Legislative Council. However, the Government still has many sources of land supply, but it has not done enough and has failed to do a good job. The Government says that the Lantau Tomorrow project would take less than 20 years to complete. I will not comment too much LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9157 about it, but as I often say, the project can easily take 20 to 30 years from the time when reclamation works commence to the time when housing units are completed. The Government disagrees and says that reclamation works can be done extremely fast, housing construction can be done very quickly and construction of facilities such as infrastructure can be completed altogether in less than 20 years.
Even if I calculate on the basis of the figures provided by the Financial Secretary, the Lantau Tomorrow project is one which will be completed after 20 years. By using a long-term project that takes 20 years to respond to the dire needs of the people, the Government will fail to address the imminent demands. Why has the Government chosen to use tactics to fool the people instead of addressing the problems honestly and practically, as it does in amending the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance or handling other issues of people's livelihood? Why does the Government always try to use deceptive tactics to address imminent demands? It cannot solve problems in this way. The logic of the Government is completely the same in preparing the Budget as in amending the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance. I think if the Government does not change this bad habit, it will make it difficult for Hong Kong to "go global". Government departments will continue to encounter dissent and they will not be able to achieve anything.
After reprimanding the Government today, I notice that Secretary Frank CHAN is present, and I would like to commend him for one matter. He has at least spared no effort in implementing the small project of providing transitional housing for which he is responsible. I think it can be done better and the steps taken are not big enough. The Government of the last term did not listen to the views of the people while the current-term Government has started to do so. The Financial Secretary has earmarked $2 billion for providing transitional housing. I think I can accept the performance, though reluctantly. Why do I say "reluctantly"? The reason is that according to my calculations, at least $3 billion is needed for the work to be done properly. But that is how the Government responds. When pro-establishment Members say they need $2 billion, the Government will allocate $2 billion. In fact, I should first lobby pro-establishment Members to increase the proposed funding in the future. Even if they propose a higher amount than I do and get all the credit, it is still preferable to getting too miserly a provision. According to my calculations, not too much can be done with $2 billion.
9158 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019
Anyway, I think the Government has taken the first step, but it has not done enough because it has not taken the second and the third steps. The Government has just announced the second step today, i.e. it will assist organizations such as non-governmental organizations ("NGOs") or voluntary groups to build transitional housing. The Government will provide more assistance to them, including waiving land premium or charging a nominal land premium, and setting up designated teams and increasing manpower to provide one-stop assistance so as to solve the old problem of fragmentary responsibilities among government departments. If a task involves too many departments, even though the responsible officers are identified, it will take eight to 10 years to complete. In fact, there are such examples in the past. In building a youth hostel in Yuen Long to solve the housing problem, the authorities engaged an organization with little expert knowledge to construct it under the leadership of a Policy Bureau which has even less expert knowledge, i.e. the Home Affairs Bureau. It resulted in failure and eight years were spent before the works commenced. I certainly hope that other government departments will not repeat the same mistake.
I think the Government's direction is correct in taking the second step, but it has not taken the most important step, i.e. to take the initiate to identify land with the use of these reserves and then appoint some voluntary organizations to implement the project. In fact, that is a usual practice in Hong Kong. For example, social welfare projects are planned by the Government which will then engage service providers to implement them. That is most simple and direct. The Government need not take up the responsibility of all the work and the approach will not expand the framework. That is actually a very good approach. Since the approach has been adopted in providing social welfare services, why is housing construction the only exception to the rule? Why should the Government necessarily adopt the bottom-up approach and make NGOs responsible for the projects?
Furthermore, I think the Government has not been proactive enough in identifying land. For example, as I often say, there is no reason why the Government has not allocated the site for the Phase 2 development of the Hong Kong Disneyland for use. The site has been idle for 10-odd years while it can be used for organizing a flower-themed garden. President, I know I am long-winded as I have repeated this point many times. I believe you have heard me say it over and over again, but the Secretary has really done nothing about it and so I have no choice but to repeat it. How many people can benefit from this LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9159 site of tens of hectares? The Secretary often says that no land is available for building transitional housing, but isn't that a piece of land?
The Secretary can negotiate with The Walt Disney Company ("TWDC"). We are not suggesting that the Government should snatch the site from TWDC and forbid its use for Phase 2 development. I know that the Government has already discussed with TWDC and reached an agreement with it. But can they discuss it again? If the Government can go as far as convincing TWDC to develop a flower-themed garden, it can also convince it to build transitional housing on the site. Besides, the transitional housing will not affect TWDC if the design is attractive and creates a fantastic feeling that fits the atmosphere of the Hong Kong Disneyland, right? If the Secretary has looked at the photos I took in Holland and Britain during my visit last time, he would know that the transitional housing units in those countries are as beautiful as rainbows. I understand that the Policy Bureau has also taken reference from overseas experience in producing its designs of advanced modular housing. I think the idea is technically feasible if the Policy Bureau can be more proactive and take corresponding actions. I am only asking it to discuss with TWDC. Why can't it do so? I know that this is an area for which Secretary Edward YAU is responsible, but I think Secretary Frank CHAN can help by discussing with Secretary Edward YAU on how to negotiate with TWDC.
Furthermore, the Government can certainly make use of its sites with short-term tenancy, as well as schools and government buildings which have now fallen into disuse. In fact, the Government has the resources, money and data. I cannot understand why it is only willing to allocate funding for NGOs to apply for the projects but not taking the initiative to plan them itself. After commending the Secretary for taking the first two steps, I expect him to take the third one. Finally, I find the approach of the Policy Bureau unacceptable because I think it should be more proactive, instead of adopting this kind of indirect approach of relying on others and making such passive comments as "I will remove the unnecessary restrictions for them".
President, after talking so much about housing problems, due to the limited time, I will use the remaining five minutes to discuss other planning problems, including those of public markets, and I would also like to talk about health care services if time allows.
9160 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019
Regarding public markets, we know that last year, the Financial Secretary earmarked $2 billion and $1 billion respectively for renovating existing public markets and reconstruction works, etc. However, the funding was not solely for reconstructing public markets. It was also for other works of reconstructing and enhancing various community facilities. I think that the earmarked funding was just a drop in the ocean. Regarding this point, I think members of the public who are watching the television broadcast will understand why I say so. Our Government behaves very strangely. It often says that we have a tight budget and it is difficult to make ends meet, but it has placed a huge political bet in introducing the Lantau Tomorrow project. It is very miserly in meeting the real needs which concern people's livelihood, although it only cost $1 billion or $800 million to do so. I really cannot understand why the Government is so miserly towards the people, but very generous towards contractors or Mainland contractors of large projects. That is infuriating. It is an indisputable fact that there are not enough public markets in Hong Kong. The situation is serious in many districts, and most disastrous in the new development areas. Although the Chief Executive has promised to "foot the bill" and pledged to identify sites to build new markets in Tung Chung New Town and Hung Shui Kiu, as well as Tseung Kwan O and Kwu Tung North development area in the future, I think these measures are far from adequate in meeting the needs.
I will take the trouble to discuss this issue further. Incidentally, my views are similar to those of Ms YUNG Hoi-yan, who has spoken earlier. According to the Hong Kong Planning Standards and Guidelines ("HKPSG"), how many markets does the Government owe the public? Take Tin Shui Wai, which has a population of 300 000, as an example. According to HKPSG, there should be 1 300 market stalls. In other words, three big markets which can accommodate 500 market stalls each or 10 small markets which can accommodate 200 to 300 market stalls each should be built in Tin Shui Wai. At present, the Government will only build one market which can accommodate about 100 market stalls on the rooftop near Tin Shui Wai station of the West Rail Line. Carrie LAM does not think that she has "foot the bill" with this measure, does she? She should not cheat herself and the others because we all know that the number of markets is still inadequate. Certainly, provision of markets can only be considered if there is land supply.
For this reason, I will talk about land supply. As we all know, there is a recent court case about small house concessionary rights and I do not know why LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9161 the Government has adopted such a passive attitude in this regard. Although the verdict has not been given and people may lodge an appeal against it, the Government has been wasting money on conducting unnecessary studies. On the other hand, why is the Government unwilling to conduct research on the future development purpose of the 900-plus hectares of the so-called Village Type Development sites which will be derived from the case about small house concessionary rights, as well as the specific data concerned? How many sites can be allocated for construction of housing and markets? Why has the Government adopted such a passive attitude? Why hasn't the Financial Secretary earmarked funding for this purpose or why haven't the government departments applied to him for such funding in meeting the urgent needs of the society? Recently, the Director of Lands quickly came forward to rebut our argument, saying that not all of the 932 hectares of land can be used for housing construction. We certainly know that. Who doesn't know that "mothers are women"? Thus, I would ask the Director of Lands how many pieces of land can be used for housing construction. Flipping through the plans, I noticed a site of 2.2 hectares next to Ha Mei San Tsuen in Tin Shui Wai, opposite Tin Tsz Estate. Why can't the Government consider using that site? We can use this kind of Village Type Development sites. We understand that there will inevitably be sites which cannot be used, but how many sites can be used and how many cannot? President, we have asked the authorities these questions at meetings of different panels, but the public officers have not given us any answer. They just say that they do not have the figures. Should this be the attitude in solving problems with housing, transport, community facilities or the markets, which I have mentioned just now?
I hope that the Government, the Financial Secretary, Directors of Bureaux and public officers of various government departments can actively respond to my speech after hearing it. I hope that we can solve various planning problems in the long term comprehensively.
I so submit. Thank you, President.
MS ALICE MAK (in Cantonese): President, since the Financial Secretary has discussed health care issue in great length in this year's Budget, I would like to respond briefly here.
9162 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019
First of all, I welcome that this year's Budget has provided an additional recurrent subvention of $400 million for the Hospital Authority ("HA") to expand the scope of the Drug Formulary, with a view to including more drugs. This allows more drugs to be included in the scope of subsidy and helps more needy patients reduce the expenses of their families on drugs. However, during the peak season of influenza early this year, the demand for public medical services was far beyond the capacity of the public sector, and frontline health care workers were overburdened with excessive work pressure. Some frontline doctors and nurses organized rallies to protest, and support grade staff also planned to launch a sit-in. These reflect that there is an acute shortage of doctors, nurses, allied health staff and support grade staff in the public health care system, and the ageing population has also increased the demand for public hospital services. Therefore, I understand why the Financial Secretary has to discuss health care issue in such great length in the Budget.
In addition, the recurrent government expenditure on health care services has also increased from $61.9 billion in the 2017-2018 financial year to $80.6 billion in the current financial year. Furthermore, the Financial Secretary particularly highlights in this Budget that he has provided an additional recurrent funding of $700 million for HA to introduce a series of measures to boost morale and retain talent. Regrettably, however, when I specifically put a question to HA at a special meeting of the Finance Committee about how it would use the funding to boost morale and retain talent, HA replied that there was no plan, which means that the matter is still under consideration. At a time when health care workers or support grade colleagues are already full of grievances, how can HA staff responsible for personnel matters tell us that they have yet to come up with any plan to use that $700 million?
That $700 million is recurrent expenditure rather than a one-off expense. We once told the Financial Secretary that HA was a "black hole" because there is no way we can find out how it would make use of the resources provided by the Government to benefit the patients, and enable frontline health care workers or other colleagues to realize that additional resources have been allocated by the Government. We therefore suggest that when the Government provides resources to HA next time, it should at the same time specify the use of the resources. This time, the Financial Secretary has pointed out that the recurrent funding of $700 million would be used to boost morale and retain talent, but HA has yet to figure out how to use it.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9163
Meanwhile, however, the series of measures introduced by HA over the past few months have further undermined staff morale, and we have never seen any pay rise arrangement as bad as the present one. HA planned to raise the entry pay for support grade staff, but it turned out that the wages of serving staff were even lower than those of the new recruits. Noting that the wages of staff who have been serving HA for 8 to 10 years were not as high as those of the new recruits, the trade unions then carried out certain actions and negotiations. On the other hand, we had exerted great pressure on HA until concession was made to increase the pay for all Patient Care Assistants, regardless of whether they are new recruits or serving staff.
And yet, while HA took one step forward, it has left behind some problems. At present, there are still thousands of supporting staff at obsolete ranks, including Health Care Assistants, the so-called "lift operators" and Mortuary Attendants. Since they are presently not covered by the pay rise scheme, there is widespread discontent. What is more miserable is that many staff at obsolete ranks have been serving HA for 20 years, so it is hard for them to decide whether to leave or to stay. The wages of staff who have already worked for 20 years are not as high as those of the new recruits, but their workload is heavier than or on a par with the latter. Thus, this gives rise to "different pay for the same job" or "different system for the same job". I really do not understand why HA's personnel system is so interesting. Although HA has received additional funding from the Government, its staff morale is still very low.
At the special meeting of the Finance Committee, I asked HA's Chief Executive Dr LEUNG Pak-yin how the issue would be dealt with, but he only replied that a review would be conducted in September. However, the current problem is that while some of the staff are going to receive a pay rise this month, it is unlikely for the rest to receive any pay rise before HA embarks on a review in September. Worse still, the increase is still unknown. After all, it is just a review. How can this make colleagues rest assured and boost their morale? HA's personnel system is so chaotic that even the promotion or appraisal of staff is done in the black box. Some colleagues have been working very conscientiously, but their supervisors still consider their performance poor at the time of appraisal. Thus, even though there might be an opportunity for contract staff to be converted into substantive staff, their unsatisfactory appraisal reports have rendered this impossible.
The myriads of problems of HA have demoralized its staff, and the victims of the low staff morale are the patients. As a result of the failure of hospitals to 9164 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 recruit or retain staff, patients cannot receive appropriate services. Not only have the doctors worked very hard, so have the nurses, other allied health staff and even assistants serving patients in the wards. I really do not understand. HA lacks no money, but as I said earlier on, I have not seen any pay rise arrangement as bad as this one. Employees are coming forth to take part in sit-ins even though they are granted pay rise, and another group of staff already staged a sit-in yesterday.
Therefore, I hope that the Secretaries of Departments and Bureau Directors will genuinely require HA to properly review its personnel problems. Although the Government has provided additional funding, it is duty-bound to ensure that the resources will be effectively used on the patients and frontline staff so that the latter would be willing to remain in the public health care sector to serve the patients.
I would also like to raise another point. The Food and Health Bureau planned to set up a district health centre in my constituency Kwai Tsing, but the Government has already vowed time and again to develop primary care and we have heard that for more than 20 years. The present establishment of a district health centre should be the first step, with Kwai Tsing as the starting point. I do not know when the Government will set up health centres in all the 18 districts of the territory. Nor do I know when primary care can actually be implemented so that services provided by the public health care system will not only cure illness but also achieve "preventive treatment" at the primary level.
Now that the Financial Secretary has returned, there is one point I must raise. As we all know, the amount of surplus has increased recently. As Mr LUK Chung-hung has said just now, it is a joyful matter to have more money. And yet, the Government has no idea how the additional money should be spent and this happens all the time. Some colleagues repeatedly criticize that the arrangement made by the Government to hand out $4,000 is chaotic, but I think we should not put all the blame on the Financial Secretary. If colleagues had not raised opposition to the proposal put forward by the Hong Kong Federation of Trade Unions to hand out $6,000 to each person last year, and the Secretary had adopted the proposal, there would not have been the "gap-plugging" measure for giving out $4,000. Therefore, I hope that the Secretary will take our advice this time. Given that the amount of surplus has increased and the Secretary mentioned the handout of cash when we met, he should consider what can be done to help members of the public.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9165
I believe all parents, be they middle-class or grass roots, would agree that the commencement of children's new school year gives them a big headache. If they have more than one child studying at school, they will have to buy textbooks, school uniforms, schoolbags and leather shoes during the summer holiday, which is a pretty large expense. We therefore propose that an allowance be granted to all parents for meeting the expenses arising from the commencement of a new school year. Financial Secretary, we have already figured out how the allowance should be granted. Since all the schools are well aware of the number of students studying in their schools, the allowance can be distributed to students via the schools.
I am also a manager of a primary school. If the Government can really provide cash allowances to help students, the schools would be willing to help out. In addition, the Government may also consider providing some administrative allowances for the schools to deal with the necessary administrative procedures. School sponsoring bodies are aware that parents have to face heavy financial burden when a new school year of their children commences. Therefore, if the Government can provide an allowance to students when a new school year commences, the school will be most willing to help out. Of course, school sponsoring bodies or schools may encounter certain administrative difficulties, but the Government can help them overcome the difficulties by, for example, providing resources. It is fair for the Government to hand out money to students via the schools and calculate the amount of allowance required according to the number of students, for example, $2,000 per person, as everyone will have a share.
(THE PRESIDENT'S DEPUTY, MS STARRY LEE, took the Chair)
At present, the Government only provides assistance to students who are in difficulty. Some parents, however, have indicated that as they are not eligible for the relevant allowances, their children do not have anything when the new school year commences; and worse still, they have to pay tax. I hope that the Financial Secretary will consider how the additional tens of billion dollars of surplus can be put to best use. Even if it is impossible to hand out money to all Hong Kong people, it should at least help all the students in Hong Kong. Furthermore, I want to call on the Education Bureau, school sponsoring bodies and schools to help implement this measure for the sake of the students, who can obtain the relevant allowance when the new school year commences.
9166 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019
I also wish to talk about the land issue which many colleagues have already mentioned earlier. Many colleagues say that it is a big gamble to put all eggs in one basket, but to be honest, it would really be a big gamble if we do not increase land supply in different ways. Some people think that resuming brownfield sites or developing new development areas alone can solve the problem of land supply. But what can we do if it doesn't work? Members should take a look at the North East New Territories New Development Areas Project. It has been 20 years since it was kicked off.
Many people think that the cost of reclamation is exorbitant, but in the paper submitted by the Development Bureau to the Public Works Subcommittee in January on the project estimate of the First Stage Works of the Kwu Tung North and Fanling North New Development Areas developments, it clearly shows that the estimated cost of resuming private land in the New Territories is higher than that of reclamation. The cost of land acquisition for resuming 68 hectares of private land and the payment of other ex-gratia allowances and special ex-gratia cash allowance is estimated to be $14,067.6 million, with an average cost of $1,900 per square foot. This is more expensive than the cost of reclamation at $1,300 per square foot as announced by the Development Bureau, and the time required is not shorter either. As I said earlier, the North East New Territories New Development Areas Project has been introduced for 20 years and the infrastructural costs to be incurred have not been considered yet. The cost of redeveloping the Shek Wu Hui Effluent Polishing Plant alone is nearly $12 billion, with the capital cost of the Northern Link excluded. Therefore, we cannot say that any project is not worth doing simply because of the high cost. At present, the biggest issue is that the Government should take back the lead for Hong Kong's land supply and establish a land reserve for Hong Kong. Thus, there is a need for the Government to increase land supply by different means. In addition to reclamation, it may also develop brownfield sites and resume private land. Furthermore, we support the resumption of the Fanling Golf Course. The Government should adopt a multi-pronged approach rather than relying solely on the development of brownfield sites because this is really a big gamble. I might as well make a bet with Members about which proposal requires a shorter time to complete, the resumption of brownfield sites for development or the building of an artificial island. We should not put all eggs in one basket but adopt a multi-pronged approach. Only by reclamation and the development of artificial island can the Government resume the lead for land supply and solve the land shortage and housing problems in Hong Kong.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9167
In addition, I would like to talk about the Financial Secretary's decision to bring back $80 billion of Housing Reserve to the fiscal reserves. Some colleagues say that they fail to see the purpose of doing so. I do not care too much about the accounting transactions, but I hope that the Secretary would consider making better use of this $80 billion to build more public housing. Not only have I said this here time and again, I have also heard many colleagues criticize the Urban Renewal Authority ("URA")―I have to declare that I am a Non-Executive Director of URA―for adopting a development strategy of acquiring land at the market value of a seven-year-old building and then putting it up for private developers to bid through open tender. The prices of buildings so constructed will definitely be high. Therefore, in order to deal with the emergence of expensive buildings in old districts due to urban renewal, the land acquired by URA should be used for the development of public housing instead. Depending on the size of the land acquired, the Government may determine whether subsidized flats or public rental housing should be built. Given that URA acquires land based on the market value of seven-year-old buildings, the costs will certainly vary. Therefore, the $80 billion reserve can be used to support URA or to work with the Hong Kong Housing Society, with a view to enabling these public bodies to play a more important role in the development of public housing and facilitating an increase in the supply of public housing as soon as possible.
Deputy President, I so submit. Thank you.
MR KWONG CHUN-YU (in Cantonese): Deputy President, in the resumption of Second Reading debate on the Appropriation Bill 2019 today, many Secretaries of Departments and Directors of Bureaux, including Secretary Frank CHAN, are present. We do have many aspirations to put forth in this Budget debate today.
However, our speaking time is only 15 minutes. I will do my best to organize what I want to say. This is my first time to serve as the Chairman of the Panel on Welfare Services ("the Panel"). In the first part of my speech, I will focus on the development of welfare services, which I believe the Financial Secretary has some knowledge of. I will first talk about an important issue handled by the Panel this year. The Panel had a heated argument with the Government on whether the eligible age for elderly Comprehensive Social Security Assistance should be raised from 60 to 65. A month later, the 9168 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019
Government finally decided to provide Employment Support Supplement to the elderly on a temporary basis, pending to see whether the so-called Employment Programme for the Elderly and Middle-aged ("EPEM") could provide help to the elderly. I must tell the Financial Secretary, in order to show respect for the elderly, sufficient resources must be provided for the provision of services. Why do I say so?
Let us see whether EPEM can help the elderly secure employment. Regrettably, according to the latest report, only 13% of elderly people can find work under the service. What does that imply? If the Government only aims at raising the retirement age of the working population without the support of a holistic policy, the policy is a failure from the perspective of welfare services. Hence, at a meeting of the Panel, we asked the Government to review what kind of EPEM was considered to be desirable. The Government asks the elderly and the middle-aged to seek help from the Labour Department ("LD") when they have problems, as if LD was omnipotent, but LD may not always be able to help them get a job. Why? That is a problem related to the soil and the environment, and the Government has to allocate more resources to take forward various measures. If the Government really wishes to help the elderly secure a job, it takes more than an unsympathetic remark of asking them to seek help from LD; a holistic policy is required.
Another concern of the Panel is certainly the residential care homes for the elderly ("RCHEs"). The Financial Secretary also knows that this is a major challenge because the number of elderly waiting for places in RCHEs has gradually increased from 25 000-odd to over 33 000 recently. At the same time, one must take note that in 2017-2018, more than 6 000 elderly persons returned to their heavenly home while waiting for places in RCHEs. It is saddening to see thousands of people die without getting a place. How can this problem be solved? In this year's Budget, it is proposed that $20 billion will be allocated for the purchase of 60 properties for accommodating welfare facilities, but the 60 properties do not include RCHEs or residential care homes for persons with disabilities ("RCHDs"). Should we give some thought as to how we can catch up with the goal of providing 100 RCHEs in 10 years, in order to barely meet the demand? The problem is imminent. Hence, I sincerely hope that the Financial Secretary will be more forward-looking and examine if more resources can be allocated for the benefit of the elderly.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9169
RCHDs are also one of our great concerns. I wonder if the Financial Secretary is aware of the incident concerning the Bridge of Rehabilitation Company in 2016. CHEUNG Kin-wah, the then superintendent of the institution was suspected of indecently assaulting a female resident. The incident caused great repercussions and aroused our concern about how RCHDs should be reformed. In the aftermath of the incident, it was uncovered that over 300 RCHDs had been operating under the certificate of exemption. What was the implication? It implied that these RCHDs did not meet the licensing standards. They might fail to comply with the requirements concerning fire safety, space or institution management. We were gravely worried about this situation. Why? At that time, the then Secretary for Labour and Welfare, Matthew CHEUNG, pledged that the quality of all RCHDs would be upgraded to meet the licensing requirements by the end of this year. It is April now and recently when I asked the Labour and Welfare Bureau about the situation, we were told that about 200 RCHDs had met the licensing requirements and hopefully the some 300 RCHDs in the territory would all meet the requirements by this end of this year.
Why do I worry about this situation and wish to draw the attention of the Financial Secretary? If certain RCHDs fail to meet the standard and cannot get a license, will this lead to the shortage of places? To solve this problem, capital and a holistic development policy are required. The waiting time for places in RCHDs is already very long, yet in the past, we failed to meet the demand in respect of land planning, planning standards and planning criteria. As a result, there is an acute shortage of places in both RCHEs and RCHDs in various districts and the waiting time is very long. Many people have to rely on privately run homes. This situation should be improved urgently. As we still have fiscal surplus, can the Government formulate better welfare policies?
From the perspective of welfare services, there is one piece of good news this year, i.e. the scheme to provide social work services in kindergartens. I am grateful to the Financial Secretary for this initiative. Last year, the incident of the little girl "Lam Lam" was truly saddening. After the incident, classmates of "Lam Lam" sought our help to initiate some actions. With our help, a group of parents took to the streets, querying why social workers were not deployed to station in kindergartens. The Financial Secretary responded promptly and announced in the Budget of 2018-2019 that some $500 million from the Lotteries Fund would be set aside to launch a three-year pilot scheme. Please note that under the pilot scheme, the latest ratio between a social worker and school 9170 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 children has been adjusted to 1:400. To put it simply, a social worker has to visit a number of kindergartens to provide service. I very much hope that the Secretary will closely monitor the progress of the pilot scheme. As a matter of fact, since the Government has taken half a step forward, we hope that the scheme can prevent the occurrence of similar disasters, which is very important.
I am a social worker myself and I understand that social workers are not invincible. They also have to deal with their own emotions. Hence, social workers cannot fight alone and they need sufficient resources. Under the present scheme, a social worker has to visit several kindergartens to provide service. Is that ideal? Probably not. But we are pleased that half a step forward has been made. At least we can see that the Government is gradually improving the services relating to emotional counselling and social work services in school.
On the other hand, apart from social work services in kindergartens, I think the Financial Secretary may also be aware that I will talk about animal rights, interests and welfare each time. This year, 2019, is critical as there is news that the Government will enact a law on animal welfare and a public consultation will be conducted in the third quarter of this year. As a matter of fact, Hong Kong's animal law is rather backward. The Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Ordinance (Cap. 169), modelled on the Protection of Animals Act 1911 of England, was enacted in 1935 and amended in 2006. The Ordinance does not have any deterrent effect to stop people from mistreating animals. This year, while the authorities plan to amend the legislation on animal welfare, some people are more concerned about euthanasia of animals mentioned by the Government.
Secretary, euthanasia of animals is nothing but humane. In 2018, the Government spent $1 million of public money on killing more than 1 000 dogs and 300 cats. It was reported earlier that a puppy boarded a ship in Thailand by mistake and came to Hong Kong after spending six days at sea. At first I thought the dog would be alright and could eventually reunite with its master in Thailand. I could never have imagined that the dog was euthanized by the Agriculture, Fisheries and Conservation Department the very night it arrived in Hong Kong.
I really do not want to get angry but where does this problem lie? The problem lies with the policy. The authorities adopt the laziest way to solve the problem by killing the animals. Each year there is no return for many cats, dogs LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9171 and other animals kept in the four animal management centres as they will be killed after four days. In Taiwan, the past practice was to kill the animals after a wait of 12 days, but now Taiwan is working toward the goal of zero euthanasia, which is a great contrast to Hong Kong. If we want to show to the world that Hong Kong is a civilized city, we should remember the words of GHANDI, "The greatness of a nation can be judged by the way its animals are treated". Our policy on euthanasia is nothing but humane. This time our wrongdoing in respect of the Thai puppy has angered the people and certain organizations of Thailand and became an international scandal.
Given this bitter experience, we decide to reduce the provision on euthanasia so as to stop the authorities from killing so readily. The annual provision of more than $1 million allows indiscriminate killing of animals. Will frontline workers who carry out euthanasia feel happy? Don't they have any feelings? They certainly have feelings but the problem lies with our backward legislation and policy. Hence, the simplest and most straightforward solution is not to grant money for killing animals and see what they will do.
Of course, we know very clearly that this amendment will never be passed. This is almost like rolling a stone uphill. However, Deputy President, we will still give it a try because and our goal is that from someday onwards, the number of animals euthanized will be reduced gradually. We need not stop the killing all at once, but can we reduce the number of animals euthanized gradually? If we give up every time the authorities say no or it cannot be done, then we will never achieve anything. I am grateful that more and more people in Hong Kong are concerned about animal rights and interests. In this Council, other than me, Ms Claudia MO and other colleagues are fighting hard for the rights and interests of animals. As animals do not speak our language, we must speak for them. I hope that this aspiration of ours will be reflected in the Budget.
When it comes to animals, I must talk about the "pet-friendly space". One of the animal-related policies proposed this year is the setting up of "inclusive parks for pets". A trial scheme, proposed last year, was implemented early this year in six trial points over the territory. The trial scheme will run for a year and if it runs smoothly, I hope that the Government will allocate more resources and expand it to all 18 districts in Hong Kong, so as to provide more space for pets. One must understand that when you walk your pets, once you step into the boundary of any park under the Leisure and Cultural Services Department, the 9172 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 security guards there will "speak" to you. This is their duty to ask you to go away. But is it pet-friendly? In Taiwan, the pet parks are nicely run.
By the way, is it possible to designate animal compartments in trains so that pet owners can carry their pets in bags on board the train during non-peak hours? To achieve this, the legislation needs to be changed and some organizations should be granted certain power. We hope that this can be implemented gradually. In the public consultation on the law on animal welfare in the third quarter of this year, we hope we can actively promote animal welfare. This may likely be the only chance, a golden chance, in a few decades for us to do so. At the same time, we hope that the Secretary will continue to increase the funding for animal rescue organizations. In fact, these organizations spare no efforts in helping the public and I also hope that the Government will subsidize more organizations of such kind.
On the other hand, I also have to thank the Financial Secretary for allocating $1 billion to set up a fund for restoring idle school premises. When this proposal was first put forward, I found the idea rather vague, but I am grateful to officers of the Development Bureau who braved the heat and mosquitos to help us visit sites to identify some idle school premises. When I presented our proposal to the Financial Secretary, he accepted it. The plan has been operating in a gradual manner and some organizations have begun to look for idle school premises, but the process is not smooth. However, at least there is a fund which can help them restore the premises identified. Some of the premises can be used as the base of animal rescue organizations and some as arts and culture villages. We really hope that this plan can succeed. We also hope that the Financial Secretary will continue to monitor whether the fund is sufficient because the highest subsidy each project can get is $60 million, and the fund will be exhausted after the implementation of 10 or so projects. By that time, we will have to ask the Secretary for more funds.
There is one proposal in the Budget that is worth our special attention and it is related to health care and the underprivileged. First of all, I am grateful to the Hong Kong Alliance of Patients' Organizations Limited and Cancer Strategy Concern Group, and I also have to especially thank Ms Halina TAM. Earlier on she came to the Legislative Council and shot a video with me to arouse the public concern about cancer patients. She has spared no efforts in this work. Last year the Legislative Council held the first public hearing on cancer. In this year's Budget, the Financial Secretary proposes to earmark an additional LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9173
$5 billion to introduce advanced medical devices for treating cancer and also set aside a few hundred million dollars to expand the scope of the Drug Formulary ("DF"). We very much hope that the Government will introduce a holistic strategy for the treatment of cancer.
It was mentioned in the policy address the plan to map out strategies related to cancer prevention and care services for the period between 2020 and 2025. We hope that the Government will make a greater effort in this respect because it may take a few months or even a few years to implement a policy. For many patients, they may not live long enough and may have returned to his heavenly home. I wish to point out that Lenvatinib, a targeted drug for treating liver cancer, costs $30,000 a month. This drug can extend a cancer patient's life for a few months. The patients' humble request is to include this drug in DF.
Each time when we identify a drug that can treat a certain disease, we will try hard to lobby the Government to include the drug in DF. Is this approach effective? Probably not. But there is no other way and we can only try to save one person at each time and treat one disease at one time.
All in all, Deputy President, in my capacity as Chairman of the Panel, I truly hope that the underprivileged will benefit from this year's Budget. Honestly, I am not satisfied. I hope that the Financial Secretary will make good use of the fiscal reserves in future and endeavour to help the "N have-nots", residents of subdivided units and all those who are in dire straits, so that all of them can benefit from this year's Budget. We hope that the Financial Secretary can hear our views.
Deputy President, I so submit.
MR IP KIN-YUEN (in Cantonese): Deputy President, today we conduct the Second Reading debate on the second Budget of the current-term Government delivered by the Financial Secretary. On the whole, this Budget has not brought any surprises. There will be a continuous increase in government expenditure in 2019-2020 and it is expected to exceed $600 billion, 13% more than that in 2018-2019 but the fiscal surplus has been reduced from $58.7 billion to $16.8 billion.
9174 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019
According to government information, the estimated fiscal surplus of $16.8 billion in 2019-2020 has taken into account the $21.2 billion Housing Reserve which has been brought back to the government accounts. If the Housing Reserve has not been brought back to the government accounts, the Government may have a budget deficit. This shows that the Government's financial strength is facing many challenges and the public are also worried whether the economic environment in Hong Kong has turned worse. Therefore, the Financial Secretary has been more cautious and conservative in formulating the Budget which is understandable.
However, an important function of the Government is to properly allocate resources through formulating the Budget and financial strategies for the greatest interests of the public, thereby making the best arrangement in various policy areas such as social welfare, health care, education, housing and infrastructure. If the allocation of resources is appropriate and can respond to the demands of the community and effectively improve people's livelihood and governance, the Government will naturally win public support and applause. On the contrary, if the Government fails to respond to the demands of the community, social grievances will intensify and conflicts between the Government and the public will definitely become more serious. I believe this is easily understandable.
Deputy President, the previous-term Government ignored education and the proportion of education expenditure to the total government expenditure and the total recurrent expenditure has been decreasing over the years. The education sector is very dissatisfied with the practice of the previous-term Government as education in Hong Kong would be lagging far behind as a result. As we all know, education funding is not simply expenditure but also investment. If we want to have a knowledge-based economy and to nurture quality talents, we must invest heavily on high-quality education.
Deputy President, many people think that the current-term Government has made great improvement in this area by investing substantially in education. However, I would like to emphasize that the current-term Government is merely compensating for the negligence and lack of investment in education over the past few years and it is now trying to play catch-up.
We notice a very special feature in this year's Budget, that is, unlike the past budgets with a specific chapter on education, the contents on education are scattered in paragraphs such as "innovation and technology" and "relieving LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9175 people's burden". Although the Government has introduced improvement measures in individual areas such as tertiary education and secondary education, the improvement is mainly driven by innovation and technology. On the whole, we are not elated by new measures on the education front, and certain important areas such as kindergartens, primary schools and special schools will not benefit from the Budget, which is rather disappointing.
The total expenditure on education in the Budget is $124 billion and the recurrent expenditure is about $90 billion, and the year-on-year increase is 12% and 6% respectively. We note that the total expenditure on education as a percentage of GDP has slightly increased from 3.9% last year to 4.1% this year, which is a fairly high level in recent years. This is a gratifying phenomenon. However, as I said just now, this is the total expenditure on education, and we should focus on the recurrent expenditure where the relevant rate of increase is not so obvious. We have to emphasize that funds allocated to education are mainly spent on recurrent expenditures.
For tertiary education, the Budget has set aside a provision of $16 billion for eight universities to enhance or refurbish campus facilities, in particular the provision of additional facilities essential for research and development activities and laboratories, etc. The Policy Address 2018 also proposes to inject $20 billion into the Research Endowment Fund of the Research Grants Council under the University Grants Committee. It is believed that this can further enhance Hong Kong's competitiveness, especially in regard to research. Therefore, the education sector will have an increasing number of more stable research funds, thus enabling us to attract and retain talents. I welcome this proposal.
Many people in the higher education sector have reflected that many laboratories, being old and small, fail to meet actual needs. They have high expectation for having additional resources for hardware improvement. The initiative is a breakthrough in respect of R&D development in tertiary institutions of Hong Kong. I hope that the relevant equipment will not only be applicable to science and engineering disciplines but also to humanities, social and art disciplines. In addition, the Financial Secretary has also mentioned that additional funding of not less than $800 million will be provided in the next five years to fund more productization of scientific and technological achievements by designated universities, key laboratories and research centres. I also welcome this proposal.
9176 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019
Deputy President, in relation to secondary schools, the Government will set aside $310 million recurrent expenditures to implement the measure of "two school social workers for each school" to enhance teenagers' mental health and stress resilience, and help them cope with the increasingly complex social environment. Although I welcome this new measure, I hope the Government will understand that teachers play very important roles in tackling student problems in schools. The Government should also increase primary and secondary school teachers and the class-to-teacher ratio, so that there are sufficient teachers to meet the increasingly complicated teaching and counselling demands. Moreover, primary schools should implement the proposal of "one social worker plus one guidance teacher".
We notice the promotion of innovation and technology in secondary schools. The Government introduced a new initiative to deploy $500 million to implement the IT Innovation Lab in Secondary Schools Programme in the coming three school years and each publicly-funded secondary school will be granted $1 million. However, the details have yet to be announced. Deputy President, I particularly stress that funding may not necessarily be welcomed. Under the IT Innovation Lab in Secondary Schools Programme, there are two types of financial assistance provided by the Government. One of them will create energy to provide better education while another will create more burden and pressure. Therefore, funding should be provided for practical purposes and well-spent so as to generate benefits.
We notice that there is no comprehensive planning under the IT Innovation Lab in Secondary Schools Programme. For example, there is a lack of complementary courses, teaching and support staff. We should be very careful in these respects; if there is a lack of complementary measures, the funding may not produce the best results. We hope that the Government will discuss with the education sector, including principals and teachers, to improve this project. We are most willing to hold discussions with the Government to meet the needs of schools. For example, there are IT coordinator posts and practical methods to support the STEM programmes. All these are very important.
It is stated in the Policy Address that the Government will implement the all-graduate teaching force policy and improve the manpower at the middle management level in primary schools and secondary schools. The Revenue Analysis by Head in the Budget also follows up on that. For instance, the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9177
Government will implement the all-graduate teaching force policy in public sector primary and secondary schools in the 2019-2020 school year and schools may, taking into account their school-based circumstances, achieve full implementation in two years; improve the manpower at the middle management level in public primary schools and rationalize the salaries for principals and vice principals. This is a very important step and I earnestly hope that the funding application will be approved as soon as possible in the subsequent funding approval process of the Legislative Council.
Furthermore, the Budget has continued to implement two measures to alleviate the financial burdens on students and parents, which include providing to each student in need a one-off grant of $2,500, which has increased from $2,000 last year, and paying the examination fees for school candidates sitting for the Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education Examination. These two measures are also desirable. Certainly, the authorities can continue to explore how to make further improvements. In any case, these measures will benefit the public.
Deputy President, what is most disappointing to the education sector is that the Budget has mentioned very little about primary schools, kindergartens and special schools, thus creating a vast vacuum. I think the Government should fill the vacuum as soon as possible and enhance the quality of education through the following measures. I have also talked about these measures on other occasions, so I will not dwell on the details today and I will only focus on the main points.
For kindergartens, the Government should implement a salary scale for kindergarten teaching staff; increase subsidies for kindergartens to implement free kindergarten education; improve the manpower of kindergarten teachers and administrative staff, employ additional curriculum leaders and special educational needs coordinators ("SENCOs"); review the planning standards for provision of kindergarten places; and optimize the Pilot Scheme on Social Work Service for Kindergartens.
For primary and secondary schools, the Government should improve school-based management measures; increase the class-to-teacher ratio by a 0.3 cumulative rate as consensually requested by the education sector to stabilize the teaching environment; formulate school and teacher stabilization measures in response to population fluctuations; SENCOs promoted to the director level should not be affected by fluctuation in the number of students; improve 9178 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 low-grade school premises, reactivate School Improvement Programme projects; improve the class sizes of special schools; and support the development of vocational education so that different types of students can also have suitable pathways for further studies.
We also have to emphasize that, in respect of tertiary education, there are serious problems in the remuneration and job stability of part-time and contract teachers in many institutions. We hope the Government will review the funding mechanism of the University Grants Committee and the policies of various institutions to ensure that the institutions will fully apply the resources to teaching, and the phenomenon of placing more emphasis to research rather than teaching will not arise.
I would like to spend the last few minutes of my speaking time to talk about the funds designated for specific purpose. In the past, I always criticized the persistently low level of education funding despite a hefty surplus of the Government. On recurrent expenditures, $1 out of every $4 was spent on education before the reunification but the amount has drastically decreased, i.e. $1 out of every $5 is now spent on education. The retrogression is well evident. The Government always claims that it has invested heavily in education and the amount seems to be on the increase. However, if we observe carefully, we will find that quite a lot of education expenditures are invested in different education related funds. Although these funds support education projects, many of them specify that the amounts invested by the Government will only be used as seed capital, i.e. the amounts will not be immediately used and only the investment incomes derived will be used to meet operational needs. Therefore, a large number of public funds are often frozen in different education related funds. The total government expenditure on education may have nominally increased but the amounts that can actually be used are insignificant and basically insufficient.
Deputy President, when I raised questions on the Budget this year, I mentioned the funds set up for specific educational purposes managed by the Education Bureau. The Education Bureau currently manages nine funds, accounting for more than 30% of 25 government funds. Government information shows that the total balance of more than 20 funds exceeds $90 billion, equivalent to 15% of the budgeted expenditure this year, and the total balance of the nine funds related to education exceeds $53 billion, i.e. nearly 60% LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9179 of the total balance, excluding $20 billion to be invested in the research fund. The Quality Education Fund was launched in 1998 and the capital injection was $5 billion. But as of 2018, the fund balance was more than $9 billion, more than double the amount of capital injection. Yet, will these amounts be fully used to improve education? This is a big question.
Deputy President, the seed capital of tens of billions or even hundreds of billions of dollars has been frozen by the Government. What a waste! Will we be able to better improve education and people's livelihood if we can identify ways to use these amounts of money properly? I hope the Government can ponder over that.
I so submit.
MS CLAUDIA MO: We are talking about the Budget. The Budget is about spending our tax payers' hard-earned money in the public coffers. As that depends a lot on policies presented by this Administration, we are talking about governance. Have you not seen the results of the University of Hong Kong's popularity rating indexes on our top government officials? The ratings keep going down and down. What have the officials been doing, basically? They focus on the Belt and Road Initiative and the Greater Bay Area development, claiming that they are very important for Hong Kong. Yet, the fact is the other way round. The Greater Bay Area needs Hong Kong because we have something that the Area does not have, something unique to Hong Kong: one is freedom of information, and the other, which is probably even more important, is the rule of law. We still have such edges, sort of I must say, in Hong Kong, but not in the Greater Bay Area.
This morning, Reporters Without Borders announced its 2019 World Free Press Index. Where is Hong Kong? We are now ranking the 73th in the whole world. And where is China? The last fourth, still better than North Korea. Maybe that is a little comfort. If you look at this map, China is all black, meaning the worst possible you can get. Hong Kong―this tiny dot in the south―is not exactly black yet. It is not even red but orangy, rather. But we are now on a par with Bhutan, Nepal and quite a few countries on the African continent.
9180 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019
This is the state of affairs when it comes to free press in Hong Kong. How does it affect our environment to do business? You would say: "Oh, it is something pernicious about it." Of course, it would be subtle and might take time; but the impact could be striking and immediate. Yet, the officials just could not care less. Our Chief Secretary has kept lying in the international community about Hong Kong's environment: "when it comes to the freedom of the press or whatever freedoms, human rights, and so on and so forth, everything is fine in Hong Kong", "don't you worry", "we will do our best to preserve this wonderful environment in Hong Kong for you to come here and make money". This is more than offensive.
My second point is about the rule of law. How are you going to keep our economy up when foreign investors―not only our local businessmen―have no trust or confidence in our judiciary system and the rule of law in Hong Kong? Of course, you know what I am talking about. I am talking about the Government's extradition bill being tabled at this legislature. Press freedom also comes under this particular Bill. The Government is putting Hong Kong's free flow of information at risk.
Just imagine, a journalist who has done some journalistic work in the Mainland considered to be undesirable by Beijing might think that he is quite safe when he returns Hong Kong. But no, with the passage of this particular amended law, the journalist could face extradition to China for … I do not know, probably obtaining state of secrets or something. If this journalist dared to sneak to Xinjiang, trying to take a look at those alleged "concentration camps", or dared to find out the whereabouts of all the China abductees from Hong Kong, he would also face a lot of danger.
An even bigger danger is that if this journalist is a freelancer, then of course he is on his own, and he would need to defend himself. If he says, "I am from a certain news agency. I am on an assignment given to me by an editor", the editor concerned could also face Hong Kong's extradition orders to Beijing for probably being an accomplice, or worse still, being the mastermind behind this purported crime. What do you think the international community, particularly the international press, will think of the above scenario? How will this affect the Hong Kong economy and the Hong Kong Budget?
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9181
Specifically, on people's livelihood issues, this Administration can spend as much as it wants on housing, medical facilities and services or education for that matter, but refuses to do anything to cut down the quota of the one-way permit regime which allows a total of 150 Mainland Chinese migrants to come to Hong Kong each day and settle here. Supposedly, these people come to Hong Kong for family reunion. Nobody would object family reunion. It is essentially a human right. What about the allegations … do not deny. By the way, the whole process involves a lot of bribery, corruption, graft, fake documents and fake marriages between Hong Kong and the Mainland China.
I managed to talk face to face with Carrie LAM once, and she told me that no change would be made to the daily quota of 150 because the system has been working very well. No change would be and required to be changed. And so, we carry on. Is this a responsible reply to the grave concern of the community? So, officials keep allocating money on medical services, but the services just cannot cope with the increasing population. They know perfectly well that that 150 quota is actually an attempt to dilute Hong Kong's population. Young people who are so dissatisfied with our situation in Hong Kong can leave because we have new bloods coming every day. Since 1997, more than 1 million people have come to Hong Kong from the Mainland China under the one-way system. Seriously, do all these people come here for family reunion? Of course not.
It is known to the public that people in the Mainland can just use any reason to apply. The government people told me and this Council that the applicants need to come to Hong Kong to look after the elderly. Does the Government have any investigative power over this claim? No. Does the Government manage to look into the authenticity of the evidence presented? No. So, we are in a stage of oblivion. In the Mainland, the officials do whatever they want. They say whatever they want. This is an open secret. Everyone knows that under the one-way system, the Mainland has managed to send 300 000 to 400 000 members of the Chinese Communist Party into Hong Kong to look after the ideological trends in this city. How dare the Government keep telling us that Hong Kong is doing well on every front?
Moreover, tourism takes up about 5% of our Gross Domestic Product ("GDP"). I would not say this is a tiny portion, but it is not a major contributor to our GDP. And yet, the Government is so happy that we are having 36 million―maybe more―tourists this year. Clap! Clap! Let us give this industry a big hand! The Government has total disregarded how the Mainland 9182 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019
Chinese travellers caused havoc in our neighbourhood in To Kwa Wan―to just name one. Not many people realize that the financial chief, who does not bother to sit around and listen to our remarks, actually chairs some supposedly high-level government working committees on tourism, and he is supposed to be in charge of negotiating with his boss, or with his counterparts, a term used up north.
I have suggested that government officials should at least tell their counterparts in the Mainland that we need to limit the number of incoming travellers from the Mainland China because Hong Kong is tiny. We just cannot cope anymore. Can we not limit that number of travellers to, say, 2 million per month? That would still make a staggering 24 million total in a year. The economics is, you cannot work just based on numbers, we need to look at the facilities and all the software available. Moreover, how much money is Hong Kong gaining out of this? Nobody can actually tell, except for the 5% of GDP figure, but at what cost?
Many Hong Kong residents and neighbourhoods are suffering greatly. Deputy President, your DAB people said the same thing, but you are a double-edge sword as far as your proposals is concerned. You say: on the one hand, we sympathize with the residents, but on the other hand, we are the Government's supporters. We are Government's minions. We cannot think or work otherwise. This sums up Hong Kong, which is more than sad.
MR LAM CHEUK-TING (in Cantonese): Deputy President, at a recent public hearing of the Legislative Council, an elderly person nicknamed "Madam WONG" shed tears at the meeting upon hearing a reply from Secretary for Labour and Welfare Dr LAW Chi-kwong, who asked her to seek help from the Labour Department had she been unable to find a job. She felt deeply aggrieved at the reply and could not hold back her emotions anymore, bursting into tears in the conference room of the Legislative Council. In fact, I have known "Madam WONG" for two years. She is a local resident who has made frequent visits to my office in Shek Wu Hui in Sheung Shui.
After serving the Government for years, the elderly lady could only get paltry retirement benefits, with which she cannot even afford a lowly and simple home or scrape a living. The story of "Madam WONG" is actually a typical example of the life of many underprivileged people, especially the impoverished LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9183 elderly people in Hong Kong. Most ironically, however, the Hong Kong community is very rich. While Hong Kong's property prices are the highest in the world, the disparity between the rich and the poor in the city is also the greatest. In this prosperous city, there is also a flip side which is unbearable to see. Since the city of Hong Kong has fallen extremely ill, the daily lives of a considerable number of grass-roots people have been affected. The pro-democracy camp and the Democratic Party have been urging the Government to put in place universal retirement protection for many years. However, despite its fiscal surplus amounting to hundreds of billions of dollars, the Government has still been reluctant to implement universal retirement protection. In contrast, it has hastily approved various projects which are wasting public resources. I hope that the Government will take Hong Kong's long-term interests into account and expeditiously implement universal retirement protection given its current sound fiscal position.
I have just talked about Hong Kong's housing problem, and the Secretary for Transport and Housing Frank CHAN is among the officials who are present at the meeting now. Of course, the housing problem, which is definitely not something new under this Administration, has been a persistent problem under previous Administrations. The introduction of the policy of providing 85 000 housing units a year under the TUNG Chee-hwa administration had resulted in a collapse of property prices. The Government's move to rein in the market back then should actually give no cause for criticism. However, after the market had stabilized, the Donald TSANG administration had all along refused to re-launch the Home Ownership Scheme. While the supply of public rental housing ("PRH") had failed to catch up with the demand, the land for private housing had also been in short supply. Furthermore, the continuous rise in Hong Kong's property prices has become out of control. Not only the grass-roots people but also many middle-class people and professionals have been affected. Many young lawyers or other types of professionals who intend to acquire a property for the sake of getting married can only rely on the support from their father's generation. Otherwise, it is uncertain how many years it will take them to save money on their own.
In view of such a serious housing problem, the Democratic Party has, over the years, supported the Government in building more PRH units as far as possible and ensuring stable and sufficient land supply for private housing construction. The Democratic Party supports in principle the development of 9184 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019
North East New Territories ("NENT"), provided that the Government has properly put in place all rehousing and compensation measures. Under the leadership of the Development Bureau, the authorities have responded to a lot of residents' demands, but some issues have remained unresolved. I have recently expressed my views to officials from the Development Bureau, including the suggestion for the Government to offer rental concessions to residents rehoused in housing estates under the Hong Kong Housing Society. These residents have definitely met the requirements on saving and income for rental concessions. However, the problems left over by various policies in the past have rendered them ineligible for the concessions concerned. Will the Government handle their cases flexibly? As to other matters relating to the allocation of housing to villagers in NENT, I also hope that the Government will, as far as practicable, deal with their requests for household splitting and the rights of their pets with flexibility. I hope that the Government will endeavour to rehouse them properly.
However, the Government should not forget that we support the development of NENT. Given the additional population of over 200 000 in NENT in the future, the Government should provide transport infrastructure and ancillary facilities accordingly. So far, we have not yet seen any desirable transport improvement measures introduced by the Government to cater for the additional population of about 300 000 due to the development of NENT and Queen's Hill in the coming decade. I am deeply worried about this. I have discussed with officials from the Transport and Housing Bureau on many occasions the ways to travel directly from NENT to urban areas. Public transport modes connecting NENT and urban areas are essential. The Government should also earmark a sufficient amount in the fiscal reserves for such infrastructural support. As far as I know, the Government has already changed its previous mindset. According to the Government, it would previously only provide certain public facilities after the population of a district had met the required standard. However, the Government has changed its practice now. It will plan ahead based on estimated future demand, which is a move in the right direction. That said, take NENT as an example. So far, I have not seen any bold plan of the Government on infrastructure construction to cater for the people moving to NENT, cross-boundary passengers and residents living in areas along the East Rail Line of MTR. Therefore, I hope that the Government will tackle the issue expeditiously.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9185
Deputy President, regarding the transport problem, I am deeply worried that the cost overruns of the Shatin to Central Link ("SCL") project will become a bottomless pit. I take the opportunity of the presence of Secretary for Transport and Housing Frank CHAN to hereby solemnly urge the Transport and Housing Bureau ("the Bureau") to properly play its monitoring role and refrain from allowing the MTR Corporation Limited, the Leighton Contractors (Asia) Limited and other contractors to act wantonly. Most importantly, the Bureau should properly play its role as a gatekeeper by approving what is right and condemning what is wrong. It should never call white black or confuse right and wrong. Mistakes are mistakes. It is absolutely unacceptable for anyone to attempt to play down or conceal such a large-scale infrastructure scandal due to any pressure. SCL will help ameliorate the traffic problem in NENT. However, it is still uncertain when SCL will be commissioned. Although we have prepared for cost overruns, we should not allow other people to take advantage of the project so blatantly.
(THE PRESIDENT resumed the Chair)
President, given the extremely serious ageing of buildings in recent years, I hope that the Government will set up a fund to subsidize owners to replace aged lifts and enhance safety components, as well as properly play its monitoring role to ensure that the relevant schemes will not be abused and that no lawbreakers will attempt to engage in illegal bid-rigging activities. Of course, in addition to lifts-related works, we also hope that the Government will allocate more resources to routine building maintenance, particularly facilitating the "Smart Tender" scheme ("the scheme") implemented by the Urban Renewal Authority ("URA"). Under the scheme, a number of homeowners have access to reference prices and can monitor some works to a certain extent. However, one particular point should be noted. At present, under the scheme, after property owners have submitted their application, URA will only assist them in engaging a consultancy firm, but will not interfere with the level and quality of works carried out by contractors. I hope that the Government will provide property owners with further assistance all the way through the completion of the works. Given the numerous steps it has already taken, the Government should further allocate some resources to enable URA-appointed independent consultants to conduct sampling 9186 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 tests on the quality of works on behalf of owners. While the expenditure incurred will be minimal, this suggestion is absolutely worthy of implementation considering its overall interests to the entire community. This practice will serve as a warning to law-breaking works personnel and bid-rigging syndicates. Should any falsifications in their works be detected in sampling tests, they will be severely punished and required to take the responsibility. Therefore, I hope that the Government can be visionary and take a few steps forward in cracking down on bid-rigging.
President, lastly, I would like to urge the Government to continue to deploy additional resources to support patients suffering from rare diseases. In such an affluent city like Hong Kong, no patients should be left to wait for death due to a lack of means. In the past, innumerable patients with financial problems had eventually died during their wait for resources. We should no longer allow such tragedies to recur in Hong Kong.
Furthermore, the Government should also deploy additional resources to support children with special educational needs ("SEN") who may have physical or psychological problems. If the children have missed the golden time for treatment, they will never be able to return to their childhood, and the loss will be irreparable even if they are given many support and various treatments in future. I hope that the Government will endeavour to give sympathetic consideration to children with SEN and take care of their and their family's lifelong well-being.
President, the last point I would like to make is that I am deeply worried that the proposed amendments to the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance will have a serious impact on Hong Kong's business environment. A number of foreign chambers of commerce have issued statements one after another, and the local media and businessmen have also expressed their concern. If the Government bulldozes the amendments through, Hong Kong's business environment will continue to worsen and Hong Kong's rule of law and human right conditions will continue to move backwards. Hong Kong will lose its only competitive edge, namely its rule of law.
I so submit.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9187
MR JAMES TO (in Cantonese): President, when the Financial Secretary announced the Budget this year, he estimated that there would be a fiscal surplus of $58.7 billion. However, after the delivery of the Budget, the Government announced at the end of February that the surplus increased to $99.8 billion. Considering the fiscal situation and taking reference from the data in the same period last year, even in the extreme case that we should have a deficit in March, the surplus this year will surely exceed $58.7 billion, and it may even reach $70 billion or $80 billion.
After the Financial Secretary announced the Budget this year, the Democratic Party pointed out that the Government has only used $11 billion in the Caring and Sharing Scheme (commonly known as "the cash handout"). In this Budget, over $40 billion has been earmarked for relief measures and since there will be an additional surplus of about $15 billion, the Government certainly has the capacity to hand out more cash or provide more relief measures. At present, the surplus has increased by several ten billion dollars. If the Financial Secretary is still unwilling to share the fruit with the people, he cannot live up to the expectation of the "N have-nots" who have been forgotten and who cannot benefit from tax rebate or rates waiver.
Thus, the Democratic Party reiterates, among the present $40-plus billion earmarked for relief measures, $32 billion will be spent on tax rebate and rates waiver, yet the majority of housewives and close to 2 million employees who need not pay tax or only required to pay tax of several hundred dollars, making up a total of 3 million people actually cannot benefit from the relief measures mentioned in the Budget. As the problem lies not in shortage but in unequal distribution, if the Government does not make adjustments to enable the "N have-nots" to obtain some fair and reasonable benefits, it is callous. I repeat, Carrie LAM, Paul CHAN and the Government are callous.
President, similarly, the Budget mentions that the Government will "further optimise the use of the [Future] Fund", achieve "more diversified investments" and "enhance return, while also consolidating Hong Kong's status as a financial, commercial and innovation centre". In fact, does the Government intend to carry out more political missions with the reserves of Hong Kong people?
In the past, the use of the Future Fund was subject to the investment management regime of the Exchange Fund, but will it be similarly regulated in the future? At a special meeting of the Finance Committee, the Government 9188 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 gave the following written reply to my question (and I quote), "Upon receiving the advice and recommendations from the group, the Government will deliberate and decide if the investment strategies and arrangements of the Future Fund have to be adjusted." (End of quote)
The Hong Kong Monetary Authority started investing a small part of the Exchange Fund in Belt and Road projects in collaboration with state-owned enterprises. Regarding issues of the Future Fund, the Government should be open and transparent and tell the public how the Future Fund will be used. Even if the money is not used in Belt and Road projects, will the Government circumvent the Legislative Council and use the Future Fund to meet the development needs of the Lantau Tomorrow project? I very much hope that such an idea will not be part of the so-called new fiscal philosophy of Carrie LAM. A really sound fiscal philosophy should include fair distribution and appropriate use of the reserves of the Government.
Regarding housing problems in particular, although the Hong Kong Housing Authority is financially sound at present, it may need more funding in future to build more public housing since the Government has adjusted the public/private housing split. The current proposal of taking away part of the Housing Reserves shows a lack of commitment and determination of the Government and such a practice actually makes the public very worried about how the Government will manage and use the fiscal reserves of Hong Kong.
President, according to the SAR Government, housing shortage in Hong Kong is caused by the lack of land supply. In a recent ruling on a case about small house concessionary rights, the court ruled that construction of small houses on Government land by way of Private Treaty Grant and Land Exchange was not a traditional right. As the Government has reserved more than 900 hectares of Village Type Development sites for building small houses, is there any potential to release some of the sites for building residential property, particularly public housing? If there is no such potential and the land must be reserved for other purposes, is it possible to convert sites which were originally designated for other purposes into building residential units? The size of 900 hectares is not a small area; if the Government will not use the whole area for housing construction, will it use half or a portion of the area? Anyway, the Transport and Housing Bureau, the Development Bureau or the Steering Committee on Land Supply should expeditiously make public the distribution of the sites currently reserved for building small houses.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9189
As far as I remember, in 2011 when Carrie LAM was the Secretary for Development, she said that "Demands arising from small house concessionary rights are endless; I believe the Heung Yee Kuk will demand for a continuous supply of small houses and that will create a big problem to our land supply". According to information provided by the Lands Department in January 2012 on the rough estimate of land reserve, there were 1 620 hectares of land which could be used for building small houses. According to the figures provided by the Development Bureau in July 2012, there were 1 200 hectares of unleased or unallocated Village Type Development sites.
After Carrie LAM became the Chief Executive and when she delivered the Policy Address in October last year, she said that 900 hectares of land were reserved for Village Type Development, i.e. sites for building small houses. At the special meeting of the Finance Committee held recently, I put many enquiries to different Policy Bureaux and later submitted supplementary questions to them. My questions covered the number of sites involved, their geographical locations, areas and distribution; which sites are served by infrastructures and can be used for housing construction, the areas covered by such sites that can be used for building public housing, etc.
President, unfortunately, up till today when we are having the Budget debate which will end at 8:00 pm, the Government has surprisingly not given us any written reply. That is a big problem. The sites under discussion cover an area of 900 hectares, which are by no means small. I hope the Government can provide more information as soon as possible so that the community will have enough data and information to analyse and discuss the matter. Even if the authorities cannot provide the information today, I hope they can give us the replies by the time the Legislative Council put the Appropriation Bill to vote. At present, the Chief Secretary for Administration only casually remarked that the 900 hectares of land were scattered and had little potential for housing construction. However, the Liber Research Community, a civic organization, pointed out that there are at least 30-odd hectares of Village Type Development sites lying idle across the territory, among which six sites have an area exceeding 1 hectare each, which will be adequate for building three public housing blocks. Certainly, the data has been obtained from resources available in the community, but it is the best analysis available so far. Nevertheless, the Government surely has the responsibility to provide a detailed analysis to us. I hope that the Government will act fairly and conscientiously and provide detailed information to us as soon as possible.
9190 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019
President, finally, like other Members, I would like to talk about the recent proposal to amend the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance ("the Ordinance") which will greatly affect our economic development. President, this proposal will cause grievous harm to us at several important levels and it will have a serious and far-reaching impact on the economic development and general business environment of Hong Kong. First, let me talk about the political level. After amending the Ordinance, will other countries, including our major trading partners and countries which have a strong influence on Hong Kong, consider from their political perspectives that Hong Kong still truly implements "one country, two systems"? Will the situation cross their bottom lines, driving them to think that Hong Kong has now adopted a model unacceptable to them and affects their local policies and laws, thereby seriously affecting the business and economic environment of Hong Kong? That is the first level. Needless to say, these countries include the United States and those of the European Union.
At the second level, will chambers of commerce of various countries and their representatives consider Hong Kong to be different from our competitors? Do these business leaders still consider Hong Kong a free and safe place which upholds the rule of law and is different from the other cities in Mainland China? Certainly, at a lower level, will they consider Hong Kong not safe enough? When I say "not safe enough", I do not mean that one will be robbed, stabbed and their money snatched on the street. The law and order of Hong Kong has been fine in the past 10 to 20 years, as reflected in the crime rates. Foreigners have considered Hong Kong to be a very safe place in terms of law and order, but actually it is unsafe in another way, and what is it? It is unsafe because of the amendments to the Ordinance.
Secretary John LEE's argument is certainly very simple. He has been a cop all his life and he says that if one is clean and law-abiding, there will be no problem. A person who is detached from reality and being a cop all his life certainly does not understand the business situation. Do Members remember the professional description of the Independent Commission Against Corruption ("ICAC")? It says that "Mainland China is a place which adopts different codes of business ethics". That is a very polite way of presentation, and what does it mean? The business sector of Hong Kong certainly knows what that means, and those who are doing business on the Mainland will know even better. Will overseas businessmen doing business on the Mainland fail to understand the above remark? Some overseas countries have punished merchant banks for LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9191 adjusting their practices to dovetail with the "different codes of business ethics" on Mainland China. The banks have been fined hundreds of millions or billions of dollars, and what are the reasons for that? These banks have employed children of senior cadres of China and paid them salaries for doing nothing, or they have bribed leaders of different Chinese provinces or cities in return for initial public offering or listing business for Chinese companies. The penalties were formally imposed by overseas courts or securities and futures commissions and the explanations were given in public.
Regarding the retrospective effect of the Ordinance, Secretary John LEE told chambers of commerce of overseas countries that if one was clean and law-abiding, there would be no problem. If a person who has been doing business in Mainland China for 5, 10 or 30 years has never bribed anyone, has never adopted "different codes of business ethics" and has never broken any laws of Mainland China, there will be no problem as he is still clean and law-abiding. Hong Kong may become unsafe in the future in the sense that businessmen from other countries think that Hong Kong has legally been connected to a place with a low degree of rule of law, which is our country, Mainland China.
I am making these remarks with great sorrow; we have to accept that this is not the opportune time. President XI said that China must be governed according to the law; but he must be given the time for implementation. Nevertheless, as Carrie LAM is a bootlicker, she has caused grievous harm to Hong Kong and disrupted the chance for Hong Kong to fulfil the China dream―to demonstrate that peaceful reunification with Taiwan is possible. That is really a very serious mistake and she should step down (The buzzer sounded) …
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr TO, please stop speaking.
MRS REGINA IP (in Cantonese): President, having read the Budget delivered by the Financial Secretary on 27 February, my comment was that it followed the established rules and regulations, without giving us surprises or risks. It is his style to model on the past. And now it has been almost two months after the delivery of the Budget, my comment remains the same.
9192 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019
Like the past budgets, this year's Budget mainly focuses on the distribution of resources. On the one hand, resources are allocated to various economic sectors, for example, $5.5 billion to Cyberport, $5 billion to the Air Mail Centre of the International Airport, and provisions to sectors in need of financial support, such as small and medium enterprises and the tourism industry. Concerning social services, in order to improve people's livelihood, the Budget proposes to allocate large quantities of resources in respect of health care, education and elderly services. While distributing various resources, the Government still maintains an ample fiscal surplus. According to the latest information, Hong Kong's fiscal surplus has reached $1,200 billion. The Financial Secretary has done very well in this respect and I think the Budget will have a soft landing.
Nevertheless, the Budget is still inadequate in a number of areas. First, it has not done enough to steer economic development; second, it has not mentioned the structural problems of our economy; and third, it lags behind in steering the development of Hong Kong's financial market.
On the first point, how is the Budget inadequate in steering Hong Kong's economic development? It is a well-known fact that the major bottleneck of Hong Kong's economic development is shortage of land and manpower. In respect of land, the Chief Executive has set up the Task Force on Land Supply and the Government announced in February that it would accept all recommendations of the Task Force. And then what happened? Property prices rose again. That is to say, the market was telling the Government: I call your bluff; you have no other tactics, no new tactics at all. The Task Force on Land Supply spent over a year and came up with the recommendations about brownfield sites, agricultural sites, land reclamation and caverns. All these recommendations are known to all and have been raised for years. It turns out that the Government has no other tactics and has no new strategies for land supply. As it will take some time before the implementation of Lantau Tomorrow, property prices rise again. Hence, in respect of the bottleneck of land, I hope that the Financial Secretary and other officials present―I am glad to see the Secretary for Transport and Housing and the Secretary for the Environment―will have new thoughts and really think out of the box.
Another bottleneck is manpower shortage. There is not only a short supply of health care professionals such as doctors and supporting medical staff, but all industries and trades suffer from manpower shortage. For example, in LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9193 respect of transport, Secretary Frank CHAN also knows that the Legislative Council has repeatedly discussed the problem of shortage of drivers. District Council members have received numerous complaints about inadequate minibus service. When we discussed with the minibus companies, they told us they had difficulties hiring sufficient minibus drivers. Franchised bus companies and other bus companies also complain about the same problem. Other industries such as elderly care, transport and catering also face the same manpower problem.
I believe the President also knows that a new six-star hotel in Tsim Sha Tsui recently opened for business. I went there to try out its service. I found that after 2:30 pm, only one restaurant was in operation. The afternoon tea set only served one cup of tea and a pastry, and the other choices available were dim sum and rice with barbecued pork. Although the six-star hotel is grand and imposing, owing to the lack of manpower, it can only serve food of Hong Kong style cafe. Hence, if the Government truly wishes to promote the development of Hong Kong into an international gourmet and catering centre, cocktail centre … Among the Asia's best five restaurants announced recently, there were fewer restaurants from Hong Kong than those from Singapore, and of course fewer than those from Tokyo and Bangkok. Only one restaurant from Taiwan is on the list, ranking at the 50th. The Government should do its best to solve these bottleneck problems concerning land and manpower shortage.
In respect of competitiveness, aside from the two bottlenecks that affect Hong Kong's competitiveness, some individual industries have to face tough challenges. Mr Frankie YICK said that the income of Hong Kong's container terminals has fallen significantly and last year, the ranking of our container industry fell to the eighth in the world. In 2018, the cargo throughput fell by 8.4%, the numbers of ocean vessel arrivals fell by 5.2% and river vessel arrivals by 5.9%. The decrease has continued for 14 consecutive months, well into the first quarter of this year. As ship companies have imposed extra charges and terminals in Hong Kong cannot lower the charges, revenues cannot possibly increase. Cross-boundary container truck companies have to face the problems of shortage of drivers, high parking fees and high container storage fees.
Since Secretary Frank CHAN is present, I would like to ask him what measures he has considered to facilitate the development of Hong Kong's container industry. I think two approaches can be adopted. First, the Greater 9194 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019
Bay Area. A readily available solution is to coordinate and integrate with other terminals in the Greater Bay Area, including the ones in Shekou, Shenzhen and Nansha. Some executives of the local container industry described Hong Kong's present container industry as barely surviving. Owing to high charges of container terminals in Hong Kong and given that the throughput of the entire Greater Bay Area is 65 million TEU, the container throughput of Hong Kong is simply insufficient. To deal with this problem, one must think out of the box. Has the Secretary noticed a political party in the Mainland known as the China Zhi Gong Party, whose members are overseas Chinese? During the plenary session of the National People's Congress and the Chinese People's Political Consultative Conference, the Guangdong provincial party committee proposed to draw reference from the approach of Singapore by relocating the container terminals to remote areas. For example, relocate the terminal in the Greater Bay Area to Wanshan Archipelago in Zhuhai and build a new container terminal there to be shared by various cities according to their throughput. This is a very long-term plan but if implemented, over 300 hectares of land at the Kwai Tsing Container Terminals will be released. Of course, this plan will not be achieved within 10 or 20 years but I believe that the Secretary must make long-term planning and this proposal is worth considering. The Secretary must think out of the box.
Another problem that the Financial Secretary has not addressed is the huge wealth disparity in Hong Kong. According to a report by an American bank, there are 510 000 billionaires in Hong Kong. I am happy to learn that among them, 46% are female, including many senior officials, and their average asset value is $1.63 million. However, the income of the 10% of people with the highest income in Hong Kong is 44 times higher than the income of the bottom 10%. The Gini coefficient in Hong Kong is 0.539, the highest in 45 year. When compared with 0.4579 in Singapore and 0.411 in the United States, our Gini coefficient is the highest among all developed economies.
Secretaries of Departments and Directors of Bureaux, concerning poverty alleviation, I think the measures should not be limited to providing or introducing new subsidies through the Community Care Fund or the Commission on Poverty. These measures can only help the poor but cannot, through formulating policies, lift people out of poverty or narrow the wealth disparity. The existing poverty alleviation measures such as helping patients buy expensive drugs and buying computers for grass-roots children through the Community Care Fund should LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9195 certainly continue, but the Government should also formulate new policies to narrow the wealth gap between the rich and the poor.
Secretaries of Departments, Directors of Bureaux and President, I have proposed a Private Member's Bill in the hope of regulating the rate of rental increase of 100 shopping centres sold by the Housing Authority in 2005. I do not mean to impose regulation on how the rents are set but to restrain the increase rate of rents that are already on the side. And at the same time, I also wish to address the high vacancy rate of those shopping centres, as this is also a way to narrow the wealth disparity. After the Government had sold 180 shopping centres to Link Real Estate Investment Trust ("Link REIT"), the prices of food and vegetables have shot up. The cost of living index in the neighbouring housing estates keeps rising and all commercial tenants have to pay high rents as well, making it hard even for big companies to operate. I once visited a housing estate and found that the rents of the shopping centre were so high that even the ParknShop supermarket could not afford. Moreover, Link REIT also tears communities apart. It drives doctors and dentists away from public housing estates. The overcrowdedness of public hospitals is partly due to the absence of doctors in the 180 shopping centres in public housing estates. Link REIT creates rifts in communities and breaks up social networks. The Government should deal with it through its policies.
Third, I would like to talk about the financial market. After I proposed my Private Member's Bill, some Member criticized me for violating the free market principle and queried how a listed company could be regulated. As a matter of fact, these remarks just reflected the Member's ignorance and that he failed to keep up with the times. Let us take a wide perspective of the trend in the global financial market. Investors will not only invest in companies with high share prices but will also invest in companies that perform well in terms of ESG. The Financial Secretary also knows that the Financial Services Development Council, Hong Kong published a report in November last year which pointed out Hong Kong had not done enough to attract sustainable development fund. In an article published in China Daily recently, Oswald CHAN, a financial expert, provided a large number of data to point out that Hong Kong was lagging behind in sustainable investment. By sustainable investment, it means that an investor not only invests in companies with high share prices but also in companies that do well in terms of ESG.
9196 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019
Everyone knows what E stands for. Advanced financial markets in Europe, America and Japan all pay close attention to the Global Sustainable Investment Review. There is an organization named Global Sustainable Investment Alliance and the capital it owns will definitely stun you, $22.89 trillion! I do not know how to describe the enormous amount; in any case, the amount of money is astronomical. The sustainable investment fund has risen 26% since 2014. Half of the fund has gone to Europe and another half to Japan but Hong Kong has attracted very little of it.
With respect to ESG and sustainable investment, although Hong Kong claims to be the third major financial centre, in terms of sustainable investment it only ranked 24th in 2017, a significant drop from 17th in 2014. Hence, the Financial Services Development Council appointed by the Government thought out of the box on behalf of the Government, criticizing it for not having done enough in the promotion of sustainable investment. What should we do then? Financial Secretary, actually Standard & Poor's ("S&P") has already taught you. For ESG, E stands for the environment. S&P has found that many companies can be given higher scores in respect of E. For example, they use renewable energy, LED lights and green buildings, which earn themselves higher scores. G stands for governance. Many companies know how to meet the requirements in this respect, including giving employees at least the minimum wage, providing them with better social security and improving their interpersonal relationship, and so on.
However, many companies do not know how to meet the standard of S, social. S&P, one of the three top rating companies, conducted a review in 2015 and 2017 and compiled a list of social factors as the rating criteria. One of the criteria is social cohesion, that is, whether a company's measures would create rifts in society. We all know about a company called Link REIT in Hong Kong. Its share price has risen 10 times in 15 years but it tears Hong Kong society apart, depriving communities of human compassion, and drives away small business operators, dentists and doctors. Another factor is consumer satisfaction, that is, whether a company provides consumers with adequate choices to satisfy them. Many companies, not just listed companies, in Hong Kong fail completely in terms of private equity investment and opportunity capital.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9197
S&P announced in January that it would send out questionnaires to big companies to compile an analytical report and it would accept complaints. It will report the credit ratings of those big companies, together with their ESG ratings. Financial Secretary, two years ago I asked Chairman CHOW Chung-kong if there were ways to make a company fulfil its Corporate Social Responsibility. He said there were no ways to do so. He could only disclose, that is, make public the performance of a company. But now everyone knows that S&P will include in a company's rating its ESG performance, that is, the rating of the company and its shares. I think Hong Kong should follow suit, so as to punish those unscrupulous companies that tear society apart, drive away small business operators, and keep driving the prices and rents up. If we do not do so, Hong Kong will never become a genuine leading international financial centre in the world as we lag behind in attracting sustainable investment, our reputation is not particularly good, and we allow private equity investment companies to rip people off and drive up their share prices and salaries of their senior management, which in turn widens the wealth disparity.
DR CHIANG LAI-WAN (in Cantonese): President, with regard to the estimates of the Budget, I would like to focus on the part of health care. I welcome that the estimated recurrent government expenditure on health care for the 2019-2020 financial year will increase by 10.9% and the total estimated expenditure is $80.6 billion. I would like to tell the Financial Secretary very frankly that the increase is far from adequate because we need to play catch-up now.
Recently, the Food and Health Bureau has launched the second 10-year hospital development plan and will allocate fund to provide 9 000 additional hospital beds. This is originally well-intentioned, but we must examine whether the number of hospital beds has increased in the past 10 years. With great effort, Dr Pierre CHAN unveiled survey findings showing that there was "zero growth" in the number of hospital beds. After doing some computations, I even discovered that there were a fewer beds. Why would this happen? I inquired with the Hospital Authority ("HA") right away and the response was that the beds of some streams had decreased while some had increased. However, no matter the hospital beds of which stream had decreased or increased, the total number has decreased on the whole. In the face of an increasing and ageing population, why has the number of hospital beds decreased? No matter what, I hope that the additional 9 000 beds will be expeditiously added to the hospitals.
9198 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019
There is now 9 000 additional beds, but what about the shortage of doctors? At present, there is a shortfall of 20% of doctors in the Hong Kong Children's Hospital. What can we do about it? As we all know, the Democratic Alliance for the Betterment and Progress of Hong Kong has recently introduced a bill to provide more incentives to attract more overseas doctors to serve in Hong Kong.
With regard to the shortage of doctors, there is something I must say to the Financial Secretary, which nonetheless has nothing to do with him because I am going to start from 1991. Since 1991, the number of locally trained doctors had been 258 each year, but it was still 258 in 2014. This means that there had been zero growth over the past 20 years or so. In fact, it is negative rather than zero growth because in 1991, HA had a total of 189 doctors coming from overseas and they mainly came from the Commonwealth countries. Before 1997, an average of 200 overseas doctors came to Hong Kong every year, but this was no longer the case after 1997. Notwithstanding that, the number of locally trained doctors has not increased―I should not say the number has not increased as it did increase. In 2016, at least, a total of 319 medical graduates awarded degrees by local universities registered as doctors. In view of this, HA expressed its wish for the two local medical schools to increase the intake of students and it is likely that the intake will increase to 530 this year. However, regardless of what the increase in intake is, the training of a specialist needs to take "6+1+3+3", which is a total of 13 years, even if we start training right away. It takes a long period of time. This is precisely why I said earlier that we need to play catch-up. There is thus a genuine need for the Secretary to provide a considerable amount of funding to recruit more overseas doctors.
Meanwhile, there is also a serious shortage of nursing staff. After meeting with a number of nursing associations, I learnt that they are very miserable. As specified in the standards of the World Health Organization, each nurse needs to take care of 6 to 7 patients (that is, the nurse-to-patient ratio is 1:6 or 1:7), but the ratio in Hong Kong is 1:11 or 1:12 and it is likely to rise as high as 1:24 during peak periods. How can they not look miserable under this working condition? They were initially very passionate, wishing to serve the public and helping the patients or people in need, but it turns out they are so tired out they become patients as well. Therefore, I think it is important to face up to this problem.
The Financial Secretary may say that the Government has provided an additional recurrent funding of $700 million to increase the number of allied health professional posts and the rate of allowance for on-call medical officers. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9199
But how many hours can a man work every day? I remember that a young doctor, who worked so hard each day, finally fell ill and his mother wrote a letter complaining that young doctors were very inhumanely treated. Why would this happen? Some people may tease him, saying that he made his mother write that complaint letter, but it can be seen from this case that there are problems that cannot be solved with money. The most important of all is the importation of manpower. But how can we not mention money in front of the Financial Secretary? After all, nothing can be done without money.
I had previously discussed with HA and the Food and Health Bureau. If the number of doctors is compared against the total population of 7.5 million in Hong Kong, the ratio of doctors per 1 000 population is 1.9 at present. However, the ratio is actually lower than this because the number of doctors is decreasing and I suspect that the current ratio is only about 1.8. On the contrary, if Members take a look at the neighbouring regions, none of them has a ratio lower than that of Hong Kong. In South Korea, Singapore, Japan, the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, Australia and Germany, the doctor-to-patient ratios are all higher than that of Hong Kong. While the ratio is as high as 3.6 in some regions, it is 3.4 for the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development ("OECD"). Assuming that there are 14 000 doctors in Hong Kong, 1 000 to 2 000 of them have already retired or even emigrated, so the actual ratio should be less than 1.9.
According to the OECD standard, there is currently a shortfall of more than 10 000 doctors in Hong Kong. And, even if we compare against the minimum standard, there is still a shortfall of 3 000 doctors. Therefore, I hope that the Secretary will consider including the estimated expenditure of recruiting 3 000 additional doctors when he prepares the next Budget. It is only reasonable for the relevant ratio to be increased to at least 1:2.3 as the current ratio is too shameful. I trust that the reserves of Hong Kong are heftier than any region mentioned by me earlier, but why is the ratio so low in Hong Kong? Money should be spent on the most needy persons, and this is what the Financial Secretary has said before, right?
Another important area where we should play catch-up is medical equipment. In paragraph 149 of the Budget, the Financial Secretary said that about $1 billion would be spent to upgrade and acquire medical equipment. Earlier on, a four-year-old child called "Tung Tung" suffered from rhabdomyosarcoma cancer, but since Hong Kong does not have the necessary 9200 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 equipment, she had to go to Taiwan for treatment. I cannot help but ask why Hong Kong does not have the relevant equipment whereas Taiwan has. After asking around, I learnt that the relevant equipment had not been introduced to Hong Kong because of cost-effectiveness consideration. Coupled with the fact that there are not many such patients here, there is thus no such need.
On the other hand, the Hong Kong Sanatorium & Hospital ("HKSH") had invested $3 billion to bring in the first proton therapy. As HKSH is not a public hospital but a private one, such an investment must be considered profitable after some computation. Of course, some people may say that the fees charged by private hospitals are very high, but still, it requires a certain number of patients to make the investment profitable. Can public hospitals turn a blind eye to the grass-roots people who come to seek medical treatment? The $1 billion provided by the Government is not enough to bring in the proton therapy, let alone use the CAR-T (Chimeric Antigen Receptor T-cell) Therapy, which has been recognized around the world, as it costs a lot of money to introduce this technology and the relevant equipment. It is laughable that such equipment is already available in many places in Taiwan, and Hong Kong people have to seek medical treatment abroad. Financial Secretary, due to time constraint, I am not going to say anymore and will arrange some other time to discuss with you later.
With regard to drugs, I would like to add something. Although the Financial Secretary has provided an additional recurrent subvention of $400 million, but the effect is insignificant. The percentage of drug expenditure in the total expenditure of each hospital cluster of HA was 10.2% in 2014-2015, 10.8% in 2016-2017 and 10.38% in 2017-2018. The worst is 2015-2016 with only 9.96%, which is smaller than that of 2014-2015. Therefore, the present increase of $400 million is only a drop in the bucket and I do not know whether we should say thank you or feel sad. Financial Secretary, this is really insufficient and I need to talk to you.
The presence of the Financial Secretary today compels me to talk about one thing, and he seems to know what I am going to say. It is the baby fund. Financial Secretary, baby fund is a good suggestion. If you were ZHUGE Liang, then those of us who had taken part in the study were the cobblers and so please believe us. We have studied the fund for several years and considered it beneficial to Hong Kong as a whole without affecting recurrent expenditure. However, the Government has not considered our proposal at all, which is too ruthless. The baby fund is beneficial to Hong Kong as a whole, which can at LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9201 least let the next generation know that the Government cares about them, and the Government and their parents have jointly made contributions as they grew up. Singapore has already established the relevant fund, and the rate of family participation is as high as 97%. The Research Office of the Legislative Council Secretariat has spent some time to complete the study, and the report has already been sent to the office of the Financial Secretary.
Not only can this fund be used to prepare for the education of the next generation, but also to treat long-standing or incurable illnesses. I had also said that if two baby fund holders get married in the future, the accumulated fund should be enough to pay for the down payment of a property. Why did the Government refuse to do so? Even if the fund holders already owned a property, they can combine the baby fund with the Mandatory Provident Fund and use this sum of money to provide better protection for their old age. Financial Secretary, the fund holders can only use the money until they reach the age of 18. If the Government's concern is administrative issue, I have looked into it and figured out a very simple solution which is not difficult at all. It is even easier than handing out $4,000. Also, I have consulted many experts and the key is online processing and the use of electronic technology. There should not be any difficulty. In this connection, I will arrange to discuss with the Financial Secretary on another occasion and I trust that he will surely support my proposal for the baby fund.
Thank you, Financial Secretary. Thank you, President. I so submit.
MR HUI CHI-FUNG (in Cantonese): Mr LEUNG, I would like to draw Honourable colleagues' attention to the point that the Budget this year does not have an independent chapter on the education policy, the first time in the past five years. Let me analyse in detail the education policy contained in the Budget this year.
First of all, the Budget proposes a few relief measures, such as providing to each student in need a one-off grant of $2,500, involving an expenditure of about $890 million; paying the examination fees for school candidates sitting for the 2020 Hong Kong Diploma of Secondary Education Examination, involving an expenditure of about $160 million. The expenditure on these two items is slightly more than $1 billion. What are the other expenditures related to the education policy? All these expenditures are related to innovation and 9202 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 technology. For example, the Budget mentioned that $10 billion were invested into the Innovation and Technology Fund last year and $20 billion was invested into the Research Endowment Fund of the Research Grants Council under the University Grants Committee ("UGC"). This year, $800 million will be invested in the application of research and development ("R&D") results and additional funding will be provided to Technology Transfer Offices of designated universities and State Key Laboratories, etc.; a dedicated provision of $16 billion will be set aside for UGC-funded universities to enhance or refurbish campus facilities, in particular the provision of additional facilities essential for R&D activities such as laboratories. In addition, the Budget proposes the Researcher Programme to attract more local graduates to the innovation and technology industry, and to increase the monthly allowance for researchers. The expenditure in innovation and technology is about $20 billion. There are other measures for providing assistance to children and schools. In the section on "Child and Youth Services", the implementation of "two school social workers for each school" is proposed―as some Members have spoken on this topic just now, I will not repeat―the relevant expenditures are about $300 million.
Why do I cite the above figures? I only want the public and the press to note what resources the Government has put in the education policy. These resources include $1 billion on the relief measure; $300 million on schools and youth services; and $20 billion on innovation and technology. This education policy does not serve education but innovation and technology, infrastructure and the Greater Bay Area; it also ties in with national policies for the purpose of currying favour with the communist regime and "Grandpa". How come such arrangements are made in respect of the education policy and the Budget? I believe all of us are very clear about that. Is it true that there are no other areas in our education system where resources should be committed? Different parties and groupings have a lot of opinions in this connection and they really want to address people's pressing needs. For example, 15-year free education as proposed many years ago has not yet been implemented; subsidies are not provided for whole-day kindergartens and long whole-day kindergartens and parents still have to pay kindergarten fees―I declare that I am one of these parents.
We have provided the Education Bureau with the relevant figures and pointed out that with an annual allocation of about $1 billion recurrent expenditure, 15-year free education can be implemented and all parents do not have to pay kindergarten tuition fees. We are not talking about parents whose LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9203 children attend international schools and pay expensive tuition fees but ordinary grass-roots parents whose children attend whole-day kindergartens and long whole-day kindergartens; why do they still have to pay tuition fees? As there is a lack of appropriate child care services, women cannot go out to work. Shouldn't the Government release more women to join the labour market? The Government should increase funding to subsidize whole-day kindergartens and long whole-day kindergartens so that these women can feel relieved and go out to work. Will this not contribute better to our economy? Yet, the Government has not done so.
There are many other issues relating to early childhood education e.g. a salary scale for kindergarten teachers. If the Government is willing to put in resources and set a clearer salary scale, it will be able to enhance the quality of early childhood education and solve the long-standing manpower problem of early childhood education. However, the Government has also failed to do so. I believe that the annual recurrent expenditure for the work will not exceed $1 billion but the Government has not done so while it has spent nearly $20 billion on innovation and technology. I am not saying that the Government is not right in developing innovation and technology but there are priorities and the Government's policy direction is clear to all of us.
In regard to environmental policies―the Secretary is present today―not much is mentioned in the Budget. Considering this Budget and the budgets and policy addresses in the past two years, I think the Secretary has adopted a kind of "laissez-faire governance". There is a very ridiculous saying that the popularity of the Secretary for the Environment is not too low because other Secretaries of Department and Directors of Bureau have performed poorly and created a lot of trouble for Hong Kong. As the Secretary for the Environment has done very little, he has gained high popularity. That is the case with our Secretaries of Department and Directors of Bureau.
Let me give a real example―I know that the Secretary may be angry with what I am going to say. What proposals on environmental policy have been advocated in the Policy Address? The Government will set aside $1 billion, a considerable amount, for departments to install renewable energy facilities; the eligibility criteria of the "One-for-One Replacement" Scheme for electric private cars will be relaxed to increase the number of eligible vehicles. These are the policies and the resources committed in the Budget is only a little more than $1 billion. However, according to my observations in the past as the spokesman 9204 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 on environmental policies of the Democratic Party, and as pointed out by the Financial Secretary at meetings, the Environmental Bureau had not applied for any funding in the past few years to implement policies requested by the public. I have personally conveyed to the Secretary the following message: since we have fiscal surplus and even if we do not use the surplus, it is anticipated that there is a recurrent revenue of $800 million to $1 billion each year from waste charging, and the money can be used to accomplish a number of tasks. Nevertheless, let me cite some specific examples to indicate that the Secretary has not undertaken to carry out the following important tasks. The Secretary has not formulated clear objectives and has not set any timetable to carry out the following tasks: enacting legislation to ban the use of one-off or disposable plastic products, handling community food waste, imposing mandatory requirement on classification of food waste, enacting legislation on light pollution, banning traditional fuel vehicles and introducing comprehensively new energy vehicles, etc. The Secretary not only has not set the timetable, but even dares not propose such tasks, as well as the percentage and target of renewable energy to the total electricity generated. Although some targets have been set, there are no timetables. The Government has indicated that hundreds of millions of dollars have been allocated to set up outreaching teams for central collection of waste plastics. Nonetheless, the Secretary has not told us the target quantities of waste plastics recovered.
Therefore, can I say that the Secretary has adopted a kind of "laissez-faire governance"? The Secretary has indeed put in hundreds of millions of dollars on setting up outreaching teams for central collection of waste plastics as mentioned above, and has allocated $1 billion to promote the development of renewable energy. However, regarding the various policies in the Budget, such as allocating tens of billions of dollars for innovation and technology, and hundreds of billions of dollars for "pouring into the sea" to construct artificial islands, is it true that the Environment Bureau does not have any other tasks? How come nothing has been mentioned in the Budget about the amount to be spent on responding to climate change and solving the problems faced by the recycling industry in Hong Kong? We have proposed to launch a domestic food waste recycling scheme in newly completed public housing estates; we have also proposed the installation of food waste disposers in new housing estates for food waste recycling; we have also proposed to implement food waste recycling and polyfoam collection when allocating funds for the refurbishment of markets. In addition, we have proposed the introductions of a polyfoam recycling pilot scheme and reverse vending machines, etc. We have also requested for LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9205 additional funding for setting up outreaching teams for central collection of waste plastics as mentioned earlier. Why is the Government unwilling to allocate funding generously?
Our society is very pragmatic and we measure the commitment of the Financial Secretary on the basis of the amount of funds allocated to various policies in the Budget. We are not saying less or no money should be spent in respect of environmental policies; we are only asking the Government not to "throw money into the sea" for the construction of the artificial islands. In relation to environmental policies, we have not criticized the Government for "throwing money into the sea"; so how come the Government has not spent money in this connection?
Therefore, as seen from the governing strategies or style of governance of the Carrie LAM Government, it has done a good job in terms of public relations on some patch-up issues, and can hence win people's hearts. However, when the core interests of the public are involved or when dealing with issues relating to the core system, the Government is very conservative and excessively mean with the public, especially the grass roots.
A rather interesting remark is that the Hong Kong Government is almost the richest government on the planet and we enjoy a unique advantage. However, the Government is excessively mean with the general public in terms of public policies but spends lavishly on infrastructure. It also tilts towards the business community by spending $1 trillion to construct an artificial island. The Financial Secretary and the Secretary for Development may later say that the cost is only several hundred billion dollars, that is not a problem. So, how can the Government convince us that the governance of Carrie LAM and the Budget care about the general public in Hong Kong and are not tilted in favour of consortia and the national policy of the Central Authorities?
Lastly, I would like to give an example with regard to the amendment to the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance. President, please do not say that I am digressing from the subject. We will know from this example whether it is worthy to spend money on the Secretary for Security and the establishment of the Bureau. The estimated salary of the Security Bureau with an establishment of 270 people is $819 million and the monthly salary of the Secretary is $335,000. Based on the above interesting remark, the monthly salary of the Secretary for Security is almost at the highest level of all government officials on the planet.
9206 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019
Regarding the amendment to the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance, how effective is the Security Bureau? The Government proposed to amend the Ordinance on 13 February this year. A person from Hong Kong was killed in Taiwan in February last year. Since then, the Taiwan District Prosecutor's Office has requested mutual legal assistance from the Security Bureau thrice and fugitive surrender once. However, the Bureau has not given any response. The Security Bureau has 257 staff members and I wonder if any written reply has been made. This shows that the Bureau lacks efficiency and transparency.
The public consultation period for the amendment to the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance is 20 days and the authorities said that it received 4 500 submissions but 3 000 of them were standard forms to support the amendments. The authorities refused to make public these submissions and there is a lack of transparency. Then, the authorities created obstacles to hinder the amendment to the Ordinance. The suspect in the Taiwan murder case has been detained since his return to Hong Kong and he will be sentenced on the 29th of this month. He may be released in court. The Security Bureau learnt about the case in early 2018 and different approaches can be adopted to extradite the fugitive. Yet, the authorities have taken no action until February this year to propose the legislative amendment, and they awkwardly said that the Bill should be passed before 29 April. Is it almost impossible to administer justice?
The Secretary for Security, the Under Secretary, the Political Assistant and their subordinate civil servants have received high salary, but have they done anything good for the public? Have they used our resources and public funds to accomplish their political task? Their political task is to accept a system under which people whom the Central Government dislike, political dissidents and ordinary citizens can be surrendered to the country for trial. After all, these political tasks are their primary tasks.
I will not use up my speaking time and I just want to say that John LEE, a highly-paid official, intends to harm Hong Kong people by amending the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance, a draconian law. This fact alone is a sufficient reason for me to oppose the Budget. The lie that the artificial islands, built at a cost of hundreds of billions of dollars and even $1 trillion, will offer land for solving the housing problem, is also a strong reason for me to oppose the Budget.
Mr LEUNG, I so submit.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9207
MR CHU HOI-DICK (in Cantonese): President, I am not sure if I am the last Member to speak; some Honourable colleagues may perhaps speak after me. Anyway, I would like to make use of these 15 minutes―regrettably, the Financial Secretary has left the Chamber―to share with the Government a research brief on this year's Budget which is prepared by the Research Office of the Legislative Council. The two Secretaries may read it online if they have time. Every year, the Research Office will issue a research brief on the Budget to conduct thematic reviews of the Budget from a wider and longer-term perspective. This year is no exception. In the following speaking time, I will speak briefly on the trends and observations shown in this research brief.
The first trend indicates an extremely unhealthy development of our public finance as a whole. Ten years ago, "real estate hegemony" emerged in Hong Kong as the Government relied heavily on real estate for revenue. Ten years later, our reliance on real estate has now grown to a morbid level. According to a newly-published news report, the average private housing price in Hong Kong is $9.63 million per unit, 40% above the unit price of the place which ranks second in this worldwide survey. The strong reliance of government revenue on real estate has much to do with the insane property prices.
The research brief reveals that the Government is increasingly relying on real estate as a source of revenue in three areas. Firstly, I will talk about land revenue. I hope members of the public can see this bar chart clearly on television. On the far left hand side of the chart, there are four vertical bars representing land premium. As we can see, these bars are of increasing height to show that land premium as a proportion of government revenue has continued to rise from 8% some 20 years ago to 21% during 2015-2016 to 2019-2020. This is land revenue.
The second area is the stamp duty derived from the property "curb" measures which are familiar to the public but hated by Mr Abraham SHEK. Members may recall that these "curb" measures were first introduced to suppress the property market. Once the market cools down, they will be abolished to allow the free play of market forces. Yet, it is now observed that the additional stamp duty revenue brought about by these "curb" measures has contributed more than 5% of the overall government revenue. Please note that the contribution is more than 5%. According to the information provided by the Research Office, such revenue amounted to $33.7 billion in 2017-2018, and in the research brief, there is even a breakdown setting out the items to be funded by this sum, which 9208 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 include the purchase of properties for welfare facilities ($20 billion), the development of Cyberport ($5.5 billion), the upgrade of medical equipment ($5 billion) and the construction of transitional housing ($2 billion). It turns out that all these items are funded by the stamp duty generated by the "curb" measures.
The third area is profits tax. The reliance of profits tax on real estate is shown in a rather indirect way. As we can see, there are four different colours in this figure, with the most bottom one referring to the profits tax contribution by the property, investment and finance sector. This contribution, which accounted for 19.4% of the overall profits tax revenue in 2001-2002, was on the rise to reach 24.5% in 2017-2018. As for the property-related banking sector, its contribution to profits tax was also driven up by its thriving mortgage business to 21%.
A conservative estimate shows that the sum of government revenues generated from these three property-related sources will make up as much as 30% to 40% of the total government revenue, rather than 15% to 20% as told in our past textbooks. The Financial Secretary is back to the Chamber. I hope he will take note of this research brief prepared by the Research Office which contains many important trends and observations. First of all, Hong Kong relies too much on property-related revenue. Ten years ago, we said there was "real estate hegemony"; how should we describe the Hong Kong Government's over-reliance on the real estate industry today? Should we describe it as "real estate totalitarianism"? Maybe it is time to coin a new term to reflect this serious problem.
The research brief has also pointed out another observation. Presently, government revenue relies heavily on property-related sources which, in the words of the Financial Secretary, are highly unstable. On the other hand, public expenditure does not seem to have much reduction. Under the Government's new fiscal philosophy, public expenditure as a proportion of Gross Domestic Product ("GDP") will increase from over 10% to over 20%, and further to over 22% in the next few years. This is going to give rise to a crisis. Once the construction of the artificial islands at East Lantau is commenced, with the first bucket of sand being filled into the sea, the expenditure of this infrastructure project will become part of the Government's liabilities; yet, property-related revenue, a major component of the total government revenues, may not be stable enough to fund the infrastructure expenditure.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9209
I cite the information provided by the Research Office in paragraph 2.2: "The Government has all along emphasized that land premium is highly susceptible to market fluctuations and highly market driven, thus it is hard to predict land revenue. In preparing the medium range forecast, estimation of land revenue is simply based on the average of the past statistics. Recently, the Government has announced its plan to take forward the 'Lantau Tomorrow' initiative. The projected land sale revenue is referenced from the ballpark estimate of The Hong Kong Institute of Surveyors. Lack of a robust forecast or projection may render a concern over its long-term reliability and stability, especially when it is becoming a giant revenue source."
President, I have looked through the Medium Range Forecast ("MRF") prepared by the Financial Secretary and found that the figures therein actually reveal the problem brought up by the Research Office in the aforesaid paragraph. According to the Government's MRF, our infrastructure expenditure will be above $85 billion this year and increase to over $147 billion in 2022-2023. However, we must not forget that by the time this expenditure exceeds $147 billion, the first bucket of sand has yet to pour into the sea for the construction of the East Lantau artificial islands. As stated by the Research Office, the Government has projected its future land revenue based on the land revenue in the past few years in the belief that the market will continue to prosper. Its estimated land revenue is thus as high as $134.8 billion in 2022-2023 and $141.6 billion in 2023-2024. In case the actual land revenue falls below $100 billion in the future, it will be the doomsday of Hong Kong because the annual infrastructure expenditure projected in the current MRF can only be barely met with such high estimated land revenues. We are like walking along a tightrope between high cliffs and, worst of all, we are walking upward. Will we have sufficient revenue to meet our future expenditure? The Government's forecast may have been built on quicksand. I urge the Financial Secretary to think about this problem seriously.
The third unhealthy observation mentioned in the research brief concerns industrial diversification pursued by the Government, with a case in point being the emerging cultural and creative industries. The development of the industries has been discussed for at least a decade. According to the Government, it will develop into an important industry of Hong Kong to facilitate our industrial diversification so that we will not rely merely on the property and finance industries. However, despite the allocation of over $3 billion in the past few Budgets to nurture the cultural and creative industries, their GDP contribution 9210 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 dropped from 5.1% in 2013 to 4.4% in 2017. In the research brief, it is pointed out that "[in] view of the downward signs, it may warrant a revisit of the constraints being faced by the sector as well as the effectiveness of the support measures".
President, I am no expert on financial issues; but when it comes to the discussion on the cultural and creative industries, I dare say that I know what the constraints facing the sector are. One of them is the increasing number of banned films and books as well as blacklisted artists. For films like Ten Years―the Best Film winner at the Hong Kong Film Awards―and documentaries such as Lost In the Fumes and Umbrella Diaries: the First Umbrella that many people would love to watch at cinema, they could have high box office. But will they be given time slots to screen at local commercial cinemas? The answer is no. Some Hong Kong artists are bad-mouthed as the supporters of "Hong Kong independence" simply because they are regarded as supporting the democratic camp. Smears plus the fanning of flames by the pro-establishment Members and their attacks on Facebook have made a Best Actor winner a benchwarmer for years without receiving any offer to play in a big budget film.
Secretaries and Financial Secretary, if you wish to find a way out for young people by diversifying Hong Kong's economy, you must do more than providing additional resources. Please feel the overall atmosphere in our society. Let us just talk about the Legislative Council. How much time have we spent on scrutinizing political bills which are disliked by members of the public? How much time have we spent on scrutinizing the National Anthem Bill? How much time have we spent on the proposed amendments to the Fugitive Offenders Ordinance? How much time have we spent on arguing whether, when and how the Central Harbourfront will be handed over to the People's Liberation Army? Political bills like these are introduced one after another. Whenever a political bill is passed, Hong Kong will have lesser room for being a free city and an international metropolis. Yet, the Government wishes that Hong Kong could continue to lay golden eggs in this situation. Rival demands can never be satisfied, and the Government can never get the best of both worlds. If it wants business to flourish with increasing visitors and goods exports as HAN Kuo-yu said, it must turn Hong Kong into a city where people can speak up fearlessly.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9211
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Paul TSE, do you wish to speak?
MR PAUL TSE (in Cantonese): President, Mr CHU Hoi-dick has just said at the end of his speech that we should not waste our time. I agree with him on this point. While the election of a bills committee's chairman should take only five minutes, it could not be done after two hours. That was certainly a waste of time. President, my Honourable colleagues have basically covered all my concerns in their speeches. Earlier on, the Chamber was almost empty, but we now have a few Members present. Compared with the meetings of the European Parliament with only the President and the speaking Member present at times, we at least have some Members at the meeting for the moment, coupled with the presence of the Financial Secretary and some Directors of Bureaux who are listening to Members' speeches. I would like to thank them for staying here for so long. Since my Honourable colleagues have already spoken on many different subjects, I will now talk about some of the uncovered topics; however, that does not mean that these topics are unimportant. As I concur with other Members on a wide range of subjects, I am not going to repeat their viewpoints but will focus on some less talked-about topics.
President, the middle class have long been aggrieved by the levy of tax and, in particular, the squandering of public money. That is mainly because they rarely benefit from public spending. A popular online host often says that the only chance for him to make use of public money is when his father receives treatment at public hospital. Yet, they have a bad experience for the waiting time was very long. I do not know how much tax he has paid, but many taxpayers share the view that they have paid tax but cannot get any care from the Government.
Why does this year's Budget attract widespread criticisms after proposing a spending of more than $600 billion? On this issue, I have to speak for the middle class. A middle-class citizen opines that the Government only focuses on colleting tax but does little to recover default payments. Many others also criticize the Government for being inefficient and ineffective in the recovery of default payments and focusing solely on charging fees. In a previous Chief Executive's Question and Answer Session, I asked the Chief Executive about defaults on payments for public services, given that Hong Kong has become "the capital of defaults on payments" after a series of cases in which the defaulters, especially those who are not Hong Kong permanent residents, were not held liable for refusing to make payment without feeling shame.
9212 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019
I will give some examples to refresh Members' memory. In an incident of clandestine photo-taking in a courtroom, the offender was penalized to pay legal costs of almost $200,000, but I do not think the fine has been paid. On the part of the Hospital Authority, an average of 6 550 default cases was recorded in each of the past five years. Meanwhile, the total amount written off yearly by various government departments in the past three financial years was on the rise, from $290 million in 2015-2016 to $541 million in 2017-2018; worse still, these amounts have not yet taken into account the write-offs incurred by public and subvented organizations because the Government said it had no information on their write-off amounts. As for the total amount of defaults on student loan repayment by post-secondary graduates, it stood at $170 million as at July 2017. All these examples show that the problem of default payments is not an inadvertent mistake of the Government but the result of the Government's failure to take preventive measures and follow-up actions properly. I hope the Government will face up to this problem and assure taxpayers that it will recover default payments effectively. It is really disappointing to see the public coffers losing money pointlessly.
I had suggested the Financial Secretary to add a benchmark in the Budget by setting out the total default amount recorded in each year. His response was within my expectation. According to the Financial Secretary, the Budget is a consolidated financial statement which is not supposed to specify this figure under a specific item. Of course, I know that the Financial Secretary is not obliged to do so under the laws of Hong Kong. However, as a political gesture or a way to cheer up the people, especially the middle class, the Government should set out the total default amount each year, so that we would know if there is any improvement. It is always good to save one more dollar each year. I urge the authorities or the Financial Secretary to consider doing more in this respect to cheer us up a bit.
President, the Government is also often criticized for not committing resources as and when needed and squandering as and when not needed. I believe the following examples will strike a chord with many people. Firstly, the Government has earmarked as much as $1.3 billion for handling non-refoulement claims in the estimates for the upcoming financial year to cover, among others, the overstay allowances to illegal immigrants or the legal aid and appeal costs of those who are not under political oppression as claimed. These claims are similar to the recent fear of being repatriated to the Mainland for trial in the sense that they are both unsubstantiated. While the public money spent or LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9213 wasted on the Unified Screening Mechanism for non-refoulement claims since its establishment has amounted to $4.9 billion, the proportion of successful claims is less than 1%. The more money we spend on this mechanism, the more law and order problems we have.
President, when we keep on fighting for relief measures year after year, we must not forget TANG Lung-wai, a Hong Kong permanent resident. Speaking of wrongful cases involving extradition, I would say that his case is a genuine wrongful case. The formal trial of his case was conducted carelessly after a delay of more than a decade. The judicial system of the Philippines is truly scary but, strangely, the Philippines is one of the countries which have a general surrender arrangement in place with Hong Kong over the past two decades or so after the handover. Therefore, if Members are worried about having wrongful cases, we should first address the wrongful case of TANG Lung-wai in the Philippines. Yet, I do not want to be too ambitious; I just hope that the Financial Secretary will hand out $4,000 to him.
TANG Lung-wai is undeniably a Hong Kong permanent resident. This fact is stated in his birth certificate, only that he is not in Hong Kong for the moment and has not replaced a new smart identity card. This is the only reason why he is not granted a handout of $4,000. The handing out of $4,000 is in itself insignificant, but it is very important to a wrongful prisoner overseas as it implies that we have not forgotten him and still consider him a Hongkonger. Although he is not in Hong Kong, we must recognize, either from a legal or case-based perspective, that a wrongful prisoner being detained is a Hong Kong permanent resident staying in Hong Kong. He is hence completely eligible for this handout, the only technical problem is that he cannot bring along his identity card to apply for the handout in person.
We hope the Government will hand out $4,000 to him on humanitarian grounds. As there are government matching funds, if the Government is willing to give him $4,000, I will give him $4,000 as matching payment. Financial Secretary, both of us have the same English name Paul, if you give $4,000, I will also give $4,000, and that will be great. I hope the Government will do so to avoid giving people an impression that the Government cares more about outsiders than Hongkongers in giving out $4,000. More importantly, he has never applied for any form of legal aid before. I am happy to see the Financial Secretary nodding and smiling. I will be more than happy to spend $4,000, and I implore the Government to give $4,000 to TANG Lung-wai.
9214 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019
Thirdly, President, I wish to talk about the problem of failing to increase manpower as necessary. In view of the proposed creation of nearly 3 500 civil service posts in the Budget, it will take a long time to argue about the deployment of the additional manpower. However, one major problem is that the Government has failed to allocate money and manpower as and when needed. For instance, the Department of Justice ("DoJ") has indicated that it has no spare staffing capacity to handle the Chinachem Charitable Foundation ("the Foundation") valued at over $80 billion. As the previous and incumbent Secretaries for Justice have been slow in handling this issue over the years, it will be cost-effective to employ a dedicated manager by drawing 0.1% of the $80 billion Foundation. May I quit as a Member and apply for this dedicated post under DoJ? If there is a dedicated person to handle matters related to the Foundation, the problems can be solved quickly. For a large department like DoJ, it should first deal with the management problems of a local foundation valued at over $80 billion rather than promoting Hong Kong as an international arbitration centre at all places. This case does not involve arbitration or mediation since the court has already ruled that the Foundation is the trustee of Ms Nina KUNG's estate. All that is required is the relevant documents from the trustee. I do not understand why the Government does not employ a dedicated manager to take care of the Foundation of over $80 billion. This example reflects the Government's failure to increase manpower as and when needed.
President, the 15 minutes of speaking time will soon be over, but there is still one thing that I must say. Regarding the Lantau Tomorrow project, I have some reservations at this stage and have not yet decided whether to support it or not because this proposal, though costly, will not be able to create land before 2035. After the handover, the Government has overlooked the proposal for reclaiming the Kwun Tong Typhoon Shelter ("KTTS") for 10 or 20 years. The berthing spaces at KTTS have hence been illegally occupied by, among others, society members for a long time. Of course, I am not referring to societies like the Hong Kong National Party but the traditional societies. KTTS, if reclaimed, can provide 85 hectares of land expeditiously. Financial Secretary, Secretaries and Members, this reclamation proposal can even improve the poor ancillary transport facilities for the Cruise Terminal after years of criticism. Owing to the presence of KTTS, people are forced to take a circuitous route to go to the Cruise Terminal, but the Government has refused to build a bridge. Meanwhile, it will take time to discuss the construction of floating bridge which is now under study.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9215
Let me tell you a secret. The Hong Kong Island Sub-office of the Liaison Office of the Central People's Government in the Hong Kong SAR has a building facing KTTS. I once asked one of its staff whether he would be mind having a less attractive view after reclamation, he said he absolutely had no problem with that because KTTS was suitable for reclamation and he fully supported this policy. Of course, by disclosing our conversation, I am kind of leaking a secret and I hope he will not mind. What I want to say is that users in the district do not oppose this arrangement, which can solve a range of problems in a short time.
Of course, I understand the constraints posed by the Protection of the Harbour Ordinance ("the Ordinance"). The former Financial Secretary once told me in a chat that reclamation was prohibited under the Ordinance. Our harbour is overprotected by the Ordinance and the rulings of the Court of Final Appeal; I do not know if these rulings were made in the ivory tower or on the clouds. I surely fully support environmental protection but the constraints posed by the Ordinance have gone overboard. Therefore, the Government should review the Ordinance immediately to avoid excessive obstruction to the non-crucial harbour development of Hong Kong. I hope the Financial Secretary will discuss this matter with his colleagues after the meeting.
Besides, I hope the Government will expeditiously address the "Siberia" issue of Hong Kong, so as to turn the place into "Hawaii", a warm place frequented by many people. It will even be better if the place can become lively like discos on Canton Road, where I often saw Andy HUI when I was young. I urge the Government to turn quiet places into bustling tourist spots or bar districts.
President, I also wish to talk about the issue of consultation fees. In Hong Kong, it is best to work as consultants as they do nothing but get paid. The Government commissions consultants for every single project. Sometimes, consultants are the cat's paws of the Government; sometimes, they are dumped after being used. Here are some examples of the Government's spending on consultancy services: $5 million for the Hong Kong Wetland Park, $3 million for the development of smart tourism, $9.3 million for the six proof of concept trials in Kowloon East and $52.8 million for the Joint Offices for Investigation of Water Seepage Complaints. All these fees do not seem to serve any useful purposes. Most important of all, the Lantau Tomorrow project is going to spend $550 million on consultancy services. The public have thus queried the 9216 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019
Government for failing to make a careful study before commencing the project and the purpose of spending $550 million.
President, I have almost talked about all my concerns in the 15 minutes of speaking time. While the issues that I have covered may be relatively minor, they are concerned by many Hong Kong people, particularly the middle-class people who feel aggrieved and unfairly treated. It is fine for the Government to spend money but it should change its attitude in spending money.
Thank you, President.
MS STARRY LEE (in Cantonese): President, I move that the Second Reading debate on the Appropriation Bill 2019 be adjourned to the meeting of 8 May 2019.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Ms Starry LEE 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.
(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.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9217
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): This Council will continue the Second Reading debate on the Appropriation Bill 2019 at the meeting of 8 May 2019 during which public officers will respond. If the Bill passes the motion for Second Reading, this Council will proceed to conduct the remaining proceedings on the Bill at that meeting.
MEMBERS' MOTIONS ON SUBSIDIARY LEGISLATION/INSTRUMENTS
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Members' motions on subsidiary legislation/instruments.
Six proposed resolutions under the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance in relation to the extension of the period for amending subsidiary legislation.
First motion: To extend the period for amending the Patents (General) (Amendment) Rules 2019, which was laid on the table of this Council on 20 March 2019.
I call upon Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan to speak and move the motion.
PROPOSED RESOLUTION TO EXTEND THE PERIOD FOR AMENDING SUBSIDIARY LEGISLATION
MR CHUNG KWOK-PAN (in Cantonese): President, I move that the motion under my name, as printed on the Agenda, be passed.
At the meeting of the House Committee on 22 March 2019, Members agreed to set up a Subcommittee to study the Patents (General) (Amendment) Rules 2019.
To allow the Subcommittee sufficient time to report to the House Committee the result of its deliberation, I call upon Members to support this motion to extend the period for deliberation of the subsidiary legislation to the meeting of the Legislative Council on 8 May 2019.
9218 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019
Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan moved the following motion:
"RESOLVED that in relation to the Patents (General) (Amendment) Rules 2019, published in the Gazette as Legal Notice No. 35 of 2019, and laid on the table of the Legislative Council on 20 March 2019, the period for amending subsidiary legislation referred to in section 34(2) of the Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance (Cap. 1) be extended under section 34(4) of that Ordinance to the meeting of 8 May 2019."
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now propose the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan be passed.
MR HOLDEN CHOW (in Cantonese): President, as a member of the Subcommittee on Patents (General) (Amendment) Rules 2019 ("the Subcommittee"), I would like to thank the Chairman, Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, for spending time to discuss with us. However, I would like to take this opportunity to raise a few points.
The amendments to the subsidiary legislation seek to introduce in Hong Kong an original grant patent system and a refined short-term patent system. Simply put, to make things easy for understanding by members of the public, the systems is collectively referred to as the new patent system. I have raised several points at the Subcommittee in relation to the new patent system. First, in handling the new patent system, we consider it necessary to refine the entire patent application system in Hong Kong, thereby enhancing its global competitiveness …
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Holden CHOW, in this debate, please focus on explaining whether you support the extension of the period for amending the subsidiary legislation. Please continue with your speech.
MR HOLDEN CHOW (in Cantonese): President, I certainly support the proposed resolution to extend the period for amending the Patents (General) (Amendment) Rules 2019 ("Proposed Resolution"). However, I would like to LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9219 take this opportunity to explain several fundamental points in relation to the subsidiary legislation as they are rather important.
As we have mentioned at the Subcommittee meeting, by introducing the original grant patent system, it is hoped that Hong Kong's overall competitiveness will be enhanced upon the implementation of the new patent system. At the Subcommittee meeting, we discussed the future charging scheme of the Patents Registry ("the Registry"). In fact, under the new patent system, the Registry will charge a fee for both the original grant patent application and the substantive examination of the original grant patent application and the approved short-term patent. A fee will also be charged during the substantial examination for requesting a review of the Registrar's provisional refusal of an original grant patent application or provisional revocation of a short-term patent.
However, we consider that it is most important to compare our practice with those of other places. In fact, as advised by the Bureau at the Subcommittee meeting, the charging scheme is similar to that operating in other regions such as Europe and the United Kingdom. Our view is that in order to enhance our competitive edge and attract more foreign institutions and individuals to file their patent applications in Hong Kong, our fees cannot differ greatly from those in other regions.
As regards the new patent system, we need to establish a Patent Prosecution Highway ("PPH") in future. I have stressed at the Subcommittee meeting that PPH is absolutely necessary. As we know, when processing patent applications, PPH can essentially serve as a link between Hong Kong and other regions or jurisdictions. It saves time, costs and effort of patent applicants.
As a matter of fact, in reply to my question at the Subcommittee meeting, the Bureau has pointed out that PPH was still at the planning stage. The Bureau also stated that although a specific timetable has not been drawn, they have a plan for PPH which involved building up a credible reputation within the first few years after the introduction of the new patent system …
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Holden CHOW, may I remind you once again that the scope of this debate is rather narrow. Members should only state whether they support the extension of the period for amending the subsidiary 9220 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 legislation. Please do not discuss in detail the actual content of the subsidiary legislation at this meeting, as that is not the subject of this debate.
Please continue with your speech.
MR HOLDEN CHOW (in Cantonese): President, I understand. Thank you. In a nutshell, we are seeking to establish PPH. Yet, the Bureau stated that it would take several more years to build up Hong Kong's international credibility. I can accept the fact that it takes a few years to build up a credible reputation; but can we first make some corresponding arrangements with the State Intellectual Property Office ("SIPO")?
In fact, it has come to our attention that SIPO entered into a cooperation agreement with the Intellectual Property Department ("IPD") in 2013, under which SIPO agreed to provide technical assistance and support in conducting substantial examination of patent applications and manpower training following the establishment of the new patent system in Hong Kong. On a different note, SIPO is rather positive about PPH. This is a good thing.
However, President, I hope Members will understand the importance of manpower planning for the future implementation of the new patent system. Over the past few years, officers from IPD have mentioned in public interviews that the department is, for the time being, short of manpower for handling patent applications and conducting substantial examination. How can we solve this problem? In fact, SIPO can offer us some help. Since SIPO is handling patent applications from around the world …
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Holden CHOW, as a final reminder, please return to the subject of this discussion by explaining whether you support the extension of the period for amending the subsidiary legislation.
MR HOLDEN CHOW (in Cantonese): President, what I am actually saying is that this subsidiary legislation is quite important, and I support the extension of the period for its amendment. However, I must stress once again the importance of manpower planning. Without manpower support, any effort from IPD will be in vain, despite additional resources being allocated for the implementation of the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9221 new patent system. One of the most important components of the new patent system is substantial examination. A few years ago, an officer from IPD said that they were considering how to remedy the lack of manpower for substantial examination. Therefore, it is necessary for the authorities to deploy sufficient manpower to cope with the workload.
I only wish to urge the authorities to ensure proper manpower deployment. Currently, IPD deploys three Examiners and one Senior Intellectual Property Examiner to handle the relevant works. I hope they will continue to review the arrangements in this matter.
President, in order to save time, while I support the Proposed Resolution, I still wish to take this opportunity to make an important point. I hope the authorities will ensure proper manpower deployment, so as not to let new patent system go to waste. I hope the authorities can really implement the new patent system to enhance our competitiveness.
I so submit.
MR CHAN CHUN-YING (in Cantonese): President, let me state at the outset that I support the extension of the period for deliberation of the Patents (General) (Amendment) Rules 2019 (the "Amendment Rules"), as its formulation marks a crucial step in the course of reforming Hong Kong's patent system. The amendments cover detailed requirements and procedures relating to the filing and the examination of original grant patent applications and for post-grant substantive examination of short-term patents, as well as fees chargeable and other technical amendments.
Why am I gravely concerned about the Amendment Rules? It is because Hong Kong is making a conscious effort in developing innovation and technology. For the financial industry which I am most concerned about, the innovation of financial technology relies on patent applications to protect the intellectual property rights of the innovations.
Regarding this amendment, I have raised a number of points during the discussions at the Panel and at the Subcommittee, some of which have been mentioned earlier by Mr Holden CHOW. First, we asked the Government to foster a professional patent workforce to support the passage of the legislation. 9222 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019
The Government responded that it would speed up the development of Hong Kong's capability to conduct reviews and examination in line with international standards and formulate long-term plans for meeting potential demand for manpower. However, the size of the workforce will depend on the number of patent applications received. We see this as a short-sighted move, as it is imperative that the Government develop a professional workforce to foster innovation and obtain more patents.
The second point concerns the Patent Prosecution Highway that Mr Holden CHOW has mentioned. As I have mentioned in my motion on "Promoting the development of a financial technology hub to reinforce Hong Kong's position as an international financial centre", Hong Kong and Singapore are competing ferociously for supremacy as a global financial centre and in academic research. In order to provide patent protection for financial technology, the Intellectual Property Office of Singapore has introduced the FinTech Fast Track Initiative, which aims to shorten the application time for financial patents. The target is to shorten the processing time for general patent applications from two to four years to six months. I hope that the Administration will follow Singapore's approach by reviewing and shortening the time required for handling patent applications (in particular financial technology patents) so that we will not fall behind other competitors, speeding up the vetting process for patent applications and setting up a cooperative platform for the Patent Prosecution Highway with patent agencies outside Hong Kong.
The third point is about the level of fees charged. We should set the fees at an appropriate level. The competitiveness of the Government's proposed fee level is a determining factor for the success or failure of the Amendment Rules. According to the Administration, its review of the fees charged by major foreign patent offices (namely, those of Europe, Australia, Mainland China, Singapore and the United Kingdom) indicated that the current proposed fees under the new patent system …
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr CHAN, I would like to remind you that you should speak on whether you support the extension of the period for deliberation of the subsidiary legislation.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9223
MR CHAN CHUN-YING (in Cantonese): Yes, President, I fully support the motion on the extension of the amendment period. That said, the Government must put in place corresponding measures in various aspects to give full play to the Amendment Rules. As I said, the level of fees is an issue that needs to be worked out together with the Government. Although the Government has indicated that it has compared the fees of Hong Kong with those in other places and considers the fees of Hong Kong competitive, if we are to make a conscious effort to develop innovation and technology in Hong Kong, our fees must not just be competitive, but attractive as well. In view of this, the Government says that it will offer concessions to electronically filed patent applications. While this is a step in the right direction, I believe that the reduced paper costs should be sufficient to justify further fee reductions.
President, the last point I want to make is, a number of Members …
(Dr Helena WONG stood up)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Helena WONG, what is your point?
DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): I have a point of order. In the agenda of the meeting, there are resolutions that have a legal effect … right now, Members of the pro-establishment camp are not speaking on whether they support the extension of the period for deliberation; instead, they are making lengthy speeches to filibuster, with a view to stopping the discussion on the amendments relating to columbarium facilities, which is the next item on the agenda.
President, may I ask you to chair the meeting more effectively?
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I have repeatedly reminded Members to focus on whether they support the extension of the period for deliberation of the subsidiary legislation.
Mr CHAN, please return to the subject of this motion.
9224 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019
MR CHAN CHUN-YING (in Cantonese): Alright, President, the last point I want to make …
DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): President, will you consider exercising your discretion to extend the meeting so that we can complete all the business on the agenda?
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I have consulted Members but they do not support extending the meeting beyond 8:00 pm.
Mr CHAN, please return to the subject of this motion.
MR CHAN CHUN-YING (in Cantonese): Alright, finally, what I want to say is that the Government should, apart from negotiating bilateral and multilateral arrangement related to different patent applications, consider providing subsidies to patent applicants during the initial period of the operation of the new patent system. I hope the Government will take on board these views.
I support the motion on the extension of the amendment period. Thank you, President.
MR TONY TSE (in Cantonese): President, the Patents (Amendment) Bill ("Amendment Ordinance") was read the Third time and passed in June 2016 during the last term of the Legislative Council. The Amendment Ordinance refines the patent application system in Hong Kong by introducing an original grant patent system whereby applicants of patent registration from outside Hong Kong can submit standard patent applications directly to Hong Kong, without having to go through designated patent offices in other regions. The Amendment Ordinance also improves the current short-term patent system.
As we all know, in the present commercial and international world, intellectual property and infringement can easily be turned into an excuse for hitting out at business rivals or even starting a trade war against another country. An important change under the Amendment Ordinance is that any short-term patent owner who threatens infringement proceedings must provide adequate LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9225 information to the other party, in the absence of which such action may be seen as a groundless threat and the affected party may demand compensation as a consequence of such threat.
The changes are urgently needed and necessary to facilitate innovation and technology development in Hong Kong. The purpose of the Patents (General) (Amendment) Rules 2019 ("Amendment Rules") under discussion today is to implement the new patent system and set out in detail the routine practices, procedures and fee-charging criteria. The Government submitted the Amendment Rules to this Council two years after the passage of the Amendment Ordinance. While some think that the submission has come a bit late, the delay is in fact understandable. If Members have read the Amendment Rules, they will know that it contain not only 76 principal provisions, but also 43 paragraphs of explanatory notes and two very long schedules. Unlike the usual subsidiary legislation which contains just a few provisions, it is even more complicated than many bills that have to be read the Third time. We can say with some exaggeration that it is more complicated than the National Anthem Bill and the Fugitive Offenders and Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Legislation (Amendment) Bill.
Therefore, in response to the Government's request for more time for industry consultation and drafting of provisions, the Subcommittee of the Legislative Council …
(Dr Helena WONG spoke loudly in her seat)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Helena WONG, please keep quiet.
DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): No need to be so fierce. The President is colluding with the pro-establishment camp …
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Helena WONG, your remark just now regarding my chairing of the meeting is offensive. Please withdraw the relevant remark.
9226 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019
DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): Members of the public have discerning eyes. They will understand who is being humiliated here.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will you withdraw your earlier remark?
DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): President, when you chaired the meeting, you did not stop the Members from filibustering. You are well aware that we are now discussing whether the amendment period of the subsidiary legislation should be extended, but they were not speaking on this subject. They were filibustering. The Council would have had enough time to …
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will you withdraw that remark?
DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): Which remark am I withdrawing?
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): You accused me of colluding with the pro-establishment camp. This is a very serious accusation.
DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): President, you know too well whether you are colluding with the pro-establishment camp.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Please withdraw the remark.
DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): I do not think you were chairing the meeting effectively …
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Please withdraw the remark.
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9227
DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): … You merely told them to …
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Please withdraw the remark.
DR HELENA WONG (in Cantonese): Fine. I take it back.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr WONG, please sit down.
Mr Tony TSE, please continue with your speech.
(Dr Helena WONG continued to speak loudly in her seat)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Helena WONG, please keep quiet.
MR TONY TSE (in Cantonese): President, I have said this earlier, but perhaps she was not listening.
I talked about the complexity of the Amendment Rules. As I said, the Amendment Rules consist of 76 principal provisions, 43 paragraphs of explanatory notes and two very long schedules. It is more complicated than many other ordinances. Why do I support the motion on the extension of the amendment period? It is because the relevant Subcommittee of the Legislative Council requires more time for deliberations and discussions. Therefore, I consider the motion reasonable and fair.
President, I have explained fully my reasons for supporting the motion, which is the complexity of the Amendment Ordinance and the Amendment Rules. Therefore, I am speaking to let Members know that the motion is worth supporting …
(Dr Helena WONG once again spoke loudly in her seat)
9228 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr Helena WONG, I warn you the last time, if you continue to speak loudly in your seat …
(Dr CHENG Chung-tai stood up)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Dr CHENG Chung-tai, what is your point?
DR CHENG CHUNG-TAI (in Cantonese): President, I request a headcount.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will the Clerk please ring the bell to summon Members back to the Chamber.
(While the summoning bell was ringing, a number of Members returned to the Chamber, but some Members did not return to their seats)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please return to their seats.
(The mobile phone of a Member rang)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Will Members please set their mobile phones to silent mode.
(After the summoning bell had been rung, a number of Members returned to the Chamber)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Mr Tony TSE, please continue with your speech.
MR TONY TSE (in Cantonese): President, the reasons I mentioned just now explain why the Subcommittee requires more time for deliberations and discussions. I consider Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan's request for extension of the LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019 9229 period for amendment reasonable. I absolutely have no intention to filibuster. Therefore, I support the motion proposed by Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan, Chairman of the Subcommittee to extend the period for amending subsidiary legislation, in order to extend the period for deliberation of the amendment of the Patents (General) (Amendment) Rules 2019. Thank you, President.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Does any other Member wish to speak?
(No Member indicated a wish to speak)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): If not, I now call upon Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan to reply. Then, the debate will come to a close.
MR CHUNG KWOK-PAN (in Cantonese): President, I have no other comment to make. I hope Members will support the motion. Thank you, President.
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now put the question to you and that is: That the motion moved by Mr CHUNG Kwok-pan be passed. Will those in favour please raise their hands?
(Members raised their hands)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): Those against please raise their hands.
(No hands raised)
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I think the question is agreed by a majority respectively of each of the two groups of Members, that is, those returned by functional constituencies and those returned by geographical constituencies through direct elections, who are present. I declare the motion passed.
9230 LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ― 18 April 2019
NEXT MEETING
PRESIDENT (in Cantonese): I now adjourn the Council until 11:00 am on Wednesday, 8 May 2019.
Adjourned accordingly at 8:10 pm.